In March of 2011 a new, updated edition of the New International Version Bible will hit the shelves. But if you read your scriptures online or via some phone application, you already have access to it (maybe without even knowing what you are reading is different than what you were reading a few short months ago). I became aware of this when my husband enrolled in classes at a Christian college after he told me that some of his professors made specific requests for their students to use the 1984 NIV verses the 2010 NIV. With the controversial release of the TNIV in 2005, I became curious about the changes made to the 1984 text. This curiosity coupled with other personal reservations about the company that publishes the NIV sent me into research mode. I began comparing new and old versions of the NIV, searched for info on reputable online Bible reading sites, and read the Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation on this topic in its entirety. The following quote from this document is what got me going. “…hearing God’s Word the way it was written is only one part of the NIV’s overall mission. If readers are to understand it in the way it was meant, translators need to express the unchanging truths of the Bible in forms of language that modern English speakers find natural and easy to comprehend.”
Updating the New International Version of the Bible: Notes from the Committee on Bible Translation (Complete text can be found at: http://www.biblegateway.com/niv/Translators-Notes.pdf)
This implies that the translators’ assumptions of “the way it was meant” are true. Not to mention their assumption that the language “modern English speakers find natural and easy to comprehend” is even sufficient to communicate the awesome truths of the Word of God. It seems to me that the language we speak today is NOT sufficient. And to water down the Word of God based on pandering to current cultural trends borders on heresy.
What I’m NOT saying…
Let me be clear. I am NOT saying that the translators of the 2010 version of the NIV are heretics. I am NOT saying that they do not love, worship, and revere God.
What I am saying…
I believe they have chosen to rely too heavily on our humanistic culture as they interpret the very words of God. Humanism is one of the most subtle, yet dangerous schools of thinking that a Christian can participate in. Humanism in Christianity places mankind as the center of the Bible. It assumes that the PEOPLE are the main characters in the story, when in reality GOD is the main character is HIS story. They are HIS words. What we read is what he wants to tell us about HIMSELF, not about US. The Bible is meant to communicate the character and awesomeness of God, not the successes and failings of mankind. It’s not about me. It is about God and His words are TRUTH. So, why would we change them based on what is “acceptable” by human culture?
Now I fully believe the Word of God should be both accurate and understandable. If you cannot understand what is written, then you can not apply His Truth to your life. Knowing, understanding, believing, and acting on the Word of God brings glory to him. Not to mention that His words are sufficient for every question, need, encouragement, instruction, or leading that mankind will ever need. Who are we to bend that sufficiency to cater to a humanistic culture? Integrating a humanistic worldview into the very place where we find everything we need to have a biblical world view is just disturbing. Here is an example. Zondervan Publishing (the company that publishes and distributes the NIV translation) recently released a Family Reading Bible. GREAT NEWS! Families are always in need of resources to help them instill faith at home - right? But what you might not notice right away is how the editors of the Family Reading Bible have included humanistic thoughts and teaching into the margin notes. The following quote is found in relation to the passages in Genesis regarding the flood.
“We do not know how many years passed after
the creation of the world to the time of Noah. It
may have been thousands of years; it may have
been millions. All we know is that there were
many people in the world and sin was everywhere.”
Did you notice that? If not, than you may be a victim of a Christian’s humanistic world view. If you didn’t catch it, read it again. The editors of the Family Reading Bible specifically undermine the sufficiency of scripture on the same pages they print the very Word of God! They have believed the lie. They are marketing the lie to families across the nation. They are instilling humanism into the young disciples in your home that we call children. How can we let this happen?
Consider the following passage from Deuteronomy 7 (emphasis mine):
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.a]">[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah polesb]">[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (2010 NIV)
The Family Reading Bible is only one example where we have intermarried humanism with the very Word of God. This treaty we have made between humanism and Christianity has turned our children away from following God. They have begun to serve other gods, such as themselves. They are confused by the hypocrisy. They do not know TRUTH. We have led them astray by pandering to our modern culture. We have lowered expectations on them and ourselves to know and understand and believe in the sufficiency of scripture. And we perpetuate it by continuing to read, share, promote, and support the use of materials that are published by a company that so blatantly attacks the Creator God. Let’s not forget God’s specific promise to those who turn the children away, “the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.” Let us repent. Let us beg for forgiveness. Let us divorce humanistic thinking and embrace the responsibility to lead our children to the TRUTH. What does the Bible say (even in the NIV)?
God has used man to communicate His truths since the beginning of time. This has not failed us. I have complete faith in the sovereignty of God and the sufficiency of scripture to lead us through the person of the Holy Spirit to know and understand the TRUTH - no matter which translation is read. But as for me; I will choose not to continue supporting a publisher that perpetuates the lie of humanism. I encourage you to find out more about ALL the available Bible translations. Don’t settle for what is most readily available. Seek the knowledge and understanding you need to make a wise choice. The following is one of many places online where you can find a Bible Translation Guide. Do the research, seek the Truth. Give glory to God.
http://www.mardel.com/bible-translation-guide.aspx
AB
Yo! Humanism is the candy we get from the pulpit. The prosperity gospel at its finest. Me, me, me. I personally believe that it is the single most destructive lie that has invaded the church. It is what people want to hear. It fills churches and generates revenue. Humanism has replaced relationships. It has taught us to take care of ourselves and abandon His creation. We are very important to Him and He does want us to be happy; but as a byproduct of relationship with Him and our neighbor. I have been hearing some about this new translation and I was wondering how watered down it would be. Sounds like they have done a great job of crapping on His Word. What a tragedy that the most popular bible is going to creep silently into the hands of the unsuspecting. It really gets me when people spin the Word! Great Post! Critical Topic.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your stand for God-centeredness in Scripture. It's a no-brainer ... if you've not had your brain poisoned by the world's system.
ReplyDeleteBut I have to ask ... really ... a "when was the flood" passage for your argument? How about something a tad more important ... deity passages? Salvation requirements?
I'll agree that it's important to watch out for humanism. Especially with the Bible being the most popular book in the world, from a book-seller's position ... there's worldly profit to be made by these people if they can make a version that sells well.
I'm just not certain you picked a proper example for your critique.
The time line of the flood is the perfect example because if you undermine Genesis...who we are, where we came from and when...then you undermine the entirety of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteKDK - I appreciate your comments. Thank you for sharing them. I must say that I was hard pressed to find anything else to turn me off of the Family Reading Bible (including in the topics you suggested) BUT as Jake said, once you undermine the sufficiency of scripture in regards to creation, you start a snowball effect of other scriptural truths that can be "tweaked" to fit humanism. The truth about creation is the foundation of the entire Bible, Christianity, and everything we know about God, Himself. We must believe in Creation to believe anything else past Genesis. After all the root of humanism began in the garden of eden when the Serpent deceived eve into believing that she would "become like God". Oh, and I also felt it was a little sneaky to impress their views on evolution outside the passages of creation. They just kinda stuck it in there where it might be least noticed. But hey, that could just be me being paranoid. :)
ReplyDeleteAfter the comments listed above a quite heated debate continued over the link I posted on facebook. I took the time to compile them so to include them here as well. See next:
ReplyDeleteM: So true. In researching a chronological Bible I found Zondervan's stance. So ugly. January 25 at 12:40pm
ReplyDeleteK: Might I ask ... their stance about what? January 25 at 7:57pm
M: The creation time line like she mentioned in the blog. January 25 at 8:22pm
K: The creation account time line isn't worth fighting about within believers' circles. There is significant evidence that God's timing and that of James Ussher weren't necessarily in agreement. As long as we argue with each other about things like this when people are dying and going to hell, the Church is no better off than Don Quixote was while tilting at windmills. Now, going to Youtube and taking on the Christ-deniers on the other hand might be worth one's time. And it's funny that this is one of the issues *they* will choose to argue about. It might be worth one's time to not worry about the age of the earth and start worrying about that. What if they found that they couldn't push you around by saying you were crazy for believing the Genesis creation account? (not because you don't believe it, but because you don't believe it like they think you do). Better yet, if we could find someone here close by we can invest time in and win..... January 25 at 9:06pm
Handee Andee: My purpose on this earth is to make disciples. That doesn't mean people who just go to church. That means people who KNOW God. And the people I am called to start with are my own children. SHAME on Zondervan for leading our families away from the TRUTH. You cannot be a disciple if you do not know and understand the truth and that truth starts with creation. If we question God the Creator, we ultimately question Christ and His resurrection. Sorry, Kevin, but that's worth fighting for in my book. January 25 at 9:18pm
K: What truth are we talking about? Did they say God didn't create the universe? That seems preposterous. If they say it might have been a long time ago, why crucify them? That's open to interpretation and always has been. Peter himself said that God formed everything "ages ago". The Psalmist stated that the mountains were "age old". I prefer that our theology be based on Scripture and not on the writings of a disaffected geology professor. January 25 at 9:21pm
ReplyDeleteK: Sorry, that maligns the man. However, I'm not sure his tack on fighting creation deniers was the right one, in retrospect. January 25 at 9:22pm
M: "If they say it might have been a long time ago, why crucify them?" I don't think she was crucifying them. But the fact of the matter is Zondervan has compromised the Biblical account in favor of old earth assumptions which are the popular view in the world today.Besides that, ALL Scripture is important. You undermine part of it, you undermine the whole. January 25 at 9:29pm
Handee Andee: Thank you, M for saying "assumptions" that is exactly what they are. And those " old earth assumptions" only come from Darwinian thinking. Which is a LIE. You can trace geneologies and time lines found in scripture that indicate the earth was created around 4000 years before Christ. Communicating otherwise is just untrue. January 25 at 9:32pm
K: The popular view in the world today is that the earth is old, and that the Bible says it's not, so the Bible is in error. Your view, I think(?), is that the earth is young, and the Bible says so, and therefore *they* are in error. My view, I'm pretty sure, is that the Bible is a tad vague on the subject, and that all of us are probably in error. Do you subscribe to "appearance of age"? Why would God contradict His own creation if it indeed is old? That's not His nature. It's is possible, but not proven, that God was creating for a lot "longer" than we supposed when we were 5 years old. I think we're in danger of getting involved in a foolish controversy (Titus 3:9) here, though. January 25 at 9:41pm
Handee Andee: I LOVE YOU K! My husband just mentioned that too! Thanks for pushing my buttons. Happy to debate you anytime! January 25 at 9:43pm
Handee Andee: Whew! Glad that's over. My fingers are tired of so rapidly typing. But the debate has concluded (of course I won) and my hubby's homework is typed and printed. And for you Kevin Kinsey, I was ironically typing an outline on Titus at the moment you mentioned it. :) January 25 at 10:16pm
ReplyDeleteT: Win? You are such a Red! LOL. I have one of those peculiar species running around here somewhere. It's all about journey and many changes of plans. LOL Yellowly speaking. Good post today! Pukanism, oops humanism. January 25 at 10:21pm
K: You just need to realize, sister, that there are Christians on both sides of the "how old is the earth" question, and that God is sad whenever we pick up that gauntlet and slap each other around with it. I prefer not to even declare a side, lest I start a fight. The more we do this, the less our Message matters to those outside the Kingdom. It's difficult to go into the hedgerows and compel them to come in when the family's yelling at each other around the table. I don't know exactly when creation occurred ... the first part or the end of it, although He finished later than He started, He did it wonderfully, with many fíat miracles and in an orderly fashion. He made two humans in His own image, interacted with them a bit, and, having set His plan into motion, allowed us to make our own choices. He recorded His works in a Book He inspired holy men to write, in a language that, unfortunately, at the time had only a few thousand words and a comparatively awkward counting system, for people who would live for many centuries afterward, with different levels of understanding of the things He had to do to get us here, and with none of us capable of understanding them completely. However, His Sabbath will be over soon, and if it's important to know when this all happened, He will let us know. I've been made aware of cogent, logical, Biblical arguments from "both sides" on this, and, quite ironically, it seems that more vitriol comes from one side than the other within our Christian circles when this issue comes up. It's easy to confuse anyone who might espouse a different view of the creation accounts with someone who denies the Creator. I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. I can't comment on Zondervan's stance, but it's likely that they are aware of the fact that this issue is more divisive within Christendom that it should be, and the language they used in your example was an attempt to keep both "sides" happy. I had heard, at one time, that the new NIV had issues with things like the gender of God, and passages that address homosexual behavior. It seems to me that this would be a better place to start when warning people about compromise in Scriptural interpretation and editing --- but I'm not an expert on Scriptural interpretation. And I sure hope that you didn't think I was making any sort of ad hominem attack (I suppose I'll have to go back & check). I didn't realize who "handeeandee" was until later in the conversation. Probably a sexist issue there --- "handy Andy" just sounds like a guy who does plumbing and electrical work. Not that you couldn't do THAT if you wanted to, either. I don't know that my fingers are sore; but, I'll be quiet now. :-) January 27 at 7:04pm
ReplyDeleteHandee Andee: I do value your comments. And I want to be clear that I am in no way offended by anything you have said (shocked maybe at times) and I hope that you are taking my replies with the heart intended as well. And for the record I had no idea who KDK was. I finally figured it out. What I don't get is if you "prefer not to even declare a side," why argue so extensively about it? If you don't care which timeline is correct, then why badger me about what I believe? Isn't is biblical to stand up for what the Spirit convicts you of and defend it to the death? If you have no set belief on the issue, why are you willing to put yourself out there and potentially suffer for it? And why hinder my conviction about the issue when you don't necessarily disagree? The article was about humanism. Humanistic thinking was introduced to mankind shortly after creation when the serpent deceived Eve into thinking that she could "become like God." So the timeline mentioned was appropriate. But say it was a homosexual issue? There are Christians who believe different ways about that. Would you have warned me so sternly about "picking up that gauntlet and slapping each other around with it" if my article used an example against homosexuality or emasculating God (which the 2010 NIV does not, btw)? Since we both know that even Christians have different views on these topics as well, would you have defended the "other side" so strongly? I don't think so. You might have been right there with me. So, I believe you do have more of a conviction about creation than you realize (or are letting on, anyway) Why else would you care so much? January 27 at 8:04pm
ReplyDelete-silence-