That is very interesting Brother Scott. Unfortunately my subscription to The Sword appears to have expired. I need to get that taken care of right away.

It is most interesting to me to see the dissention that is occurring among the modern version crowd. I believe a lot of it is tied to the things that we had discussed in other threads on bible Versions.

There are so many different varieties of what are called Bibles out there they cannot even decide among themselves which one if correct or apparently are trying to determine now if one is "more correct" than the other. If I am not completely wrong I believe the Bible predicting this very thing.

Perhaps there is a silver lining to all of this. Perhaps there will be people that come back to the True Word of the King James Version because of all the difficulties with the modern perversions. How on earth can one set out to seek answers if the Truth is constantly changing?

One of the things that we really work on teaching in Reformers Unanimous is that God's Word is Truth and God's Word does not change. It is absolute Truth and is the sole authority for Faith and practice. If we had folks come into Reformers and they found that our views changed from week to week or even month-to-month they would see that our program is no different than any secular program they may have attended and they will leave. If that ever happens (that we relax or change Truth) we might as well fold up our tent and join them in the bars and other dens of iniquity.

Praise God that He led me to a Church that teaches His Truth out of the Real Bible. One of the biggest difficulties I had in dealing with secular "recovery" programs during the 23 years that I failed miserably at them was the fact that the truth seemed to differ from person to person. It is referred to as reality in those groups. One person's reality is often completely different from another person's reality. The Reality of the King James Version of the Bible does not change. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Folks, I believe one of the biggest problems that is in existence in the fundamental Baptist Churches today is that the cult groups do a much better job of spreading their message than we do. Think about it. How often have you had your doorbell ring and find either Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons standing there? How many times have you answered the door to find a person from a fundamental Baptist Church standing there? If you are anything like me you have not had one. I have been living in this particular place for close to six years now. Twice in those six years have I ever opened the door to find someone from a fundamental Baptist Church there. Both times it was the Awana kids that were out on visitation and only stopped at my place because they were in the neighborhood and knew I live here.

My goodness, we speak often of The Great Commission. How often do we fill that commission? Do we spend any time at all witnessing to others much less going out to try to find those in need? One of my favorite hymns has a line in it that says, "In the shadow of the steeple someone is dying." Right in our own backyards people are dying without knowing Christ ever minute of every day. How many of us go out of our way to avoid the scruffy looking homeless bum that we see coming toward us on the sidewalk? Those are the ones that desperately need help. Those are the ones that are dying every day without Christ. Of course there are also those that sit quietly in their homes (sometimes not so quietly if they are anything like I used to be when I was under the influence of my addictions) wasting away to an eternity in the lake of fire. I sincerely believe that here are many people that have died and gone to hell because they didn't have anyone to help them.

My goodness, did I get off on a tangent here? I am sorry for that. These things all tie together. We have spent a lot of time and effort to make all sorts of observations about the Pope and the Catholics and other groups. How much time have we taken to look at ourselves? If you are anything at all like me there are a lot of areas of your life that could stand improving.

We can sit back and comfortably make remarks about other folks, pick apart their beliefs and cast aspersions on their characters but how much time do we spend in reflecting on our own sin life. Not only that, but as I pointed out above those people lack the guidance of a Bible-believing, Bible-teaching Church. They need someone to reach out to them. Being critical of others is all too often much easier than looking at our selves. The more time that I spend pointing out someone else's difficulties without doing something constructive about it the less time I have to work on my own problems.

I need to sit back and reflect. Is my own life in order? Are there things I continue to do that need to be taken care of? Do I take the time to work with a person that uses the modern versions to show them the differences? Or do I just shake my head, give up on them and move on? My goodness, I recently heard a story from a Pastor that has a small Church in Utah. He has worked with one man (a Mormon) over there for three years to show him that the God the Mormons serve is not the same God that you and I serve. Do we have anyone in our lives that we are willing to even take three days to work with much less three years?

I am so glad that ours is a Merciful God. If He meted out justice I would be in big trouble.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Amen George.

You may be horribly right with this post, I've only just turned 40, and even I can see how thing have changed for the worst in the last twenty years or so. Never forget though, we have the Lord Jesus Christ on our side, what greater honour could there be?

By the way , that last post was by me(pm), forgot to log in !!

Bummer pm, don't you hate when that happens? Ha, I hope you realize that you are not alone in this. I think perhaps all of us have done this very same thing at one time or another. Or in my case, numerous times.

In Christ,
George Groce

I'm not a King Jamesist, if you could say that! Though I do tend to stick to older versions, as I basically don't really trust many of the modern versions. The final straw for me, as far as the NIV was concerned, came when after having used it for some time, I noticed that some versus were missing! Also, they chopped the end off the Lord's prayer, for goodness sake!!!

The Lord is with you.

Sometimes I just wonder how far the Bible version game will go. There's a book out called "The word on the street" which is a newer bible version. The advertisement states that the psalms and proverbs are turned into "hip new song lyrics" and the epistles are written as emails. As for the gender neutral issue, it is one of many issues as far as mv's go. The mv's are lifestyle neutral as well, hesitating to call sin the three letter word that it is, SIN. And hell is no longer hell, it is haetes (pardon any mispellings as Scott has trouble spelling late). Sin is still sin, and hell is still hot.

I wonder if the ultimate goal of the mv's is to stop criticism of the wicked homosexual lifestyle by creating gender neutral "bibles?"

And pm, I am glad to hear of your abandoment of the NIV. I only wish others would realize the importance of removing scriptures (or adding to the scriptures) in light of the great command in Revelation 22:18-19. (In the King James Version that is)

Late night spelling struggler Brother Scott

I'm sure that the powers that be will come up with a version that will have nothing to sat about homosexuality, it certainly seems to be going that way. True Bible believing Christians must stick to God's truth, regardless of criticism that may come our way. We have the Word of God on our side. Praise God for that!

I am really starting to get convinced that we may never get to see that time....

That version of the "bible" already exists folks. It is known as the NIV.

The word "sodomite" does not exist in the NIV. Homosexuality is completely glossed over.

One of the primary reasons, if not the only reason, for this is that one of the members of the translation is an openly lesbian, pro-abortion activist. Those that defend the NIV will deny this and attempt to downplay her role in the translation of that horrible perversion. However, I have read a number of interviews that she has done in which she states that she was given "stacks and stacks" of material to work on.

I have also seen transcripts of interviews in which the defenders of the NIV claim that she was nothing but a "style consultant." Even at that it points out that they knew she was homosexual and still determined to use her in the translation of the work.

When one digs into the facts of the production of the NIV it is really a sad state of affairs to see the people that staundhly defend it.

Yours in Christ,
George Groce

Interesting but not surprising. If we knew about half of the "translators" of the mv's we would probably all shake our heads. A close study of these people would definitely be worthy of research and even a written book in my opinion.

Well i'll step in...

The gender neutral bible in question is primarily the TNIV because it is
blatantly pro feminine just by referncing all the places where male leadership, authority and parenthood is chaged to accomodate both men and women...

However the New Living Translation should not escape because it does similar things...

the good news is that many "evangelicals" spoke out against this in 1998 and again in 2000. In 2000 the TNIV (N.T) was boycotted by LifeWay Christian bookstores (SBC) and many "enagelicals"-- however this new installment-completed (O.T and N.T) has been accepted my mass market distributors (Walmart, Target, Barnes and Noble) as well as independent "Christian" retailers...

some of the evangelicals to speak out against it have been:

James Dobson, Charles Ryrie, D. James Kennedy, John MacArthur, Tim LaHaye, Albert Mohler, Wayne Grudem, Charles Stanley, James White, David Wilkerson, R.C. Sproul and many others...

This whole thing is truly over the edge and bad bad bad translation of very clear pronouns in the greek

Most if not all of the ones who spoke out against that mv have an mv of their own. Charles Stanley said one time on the air to "choose a version you prefer" and read it. I believe as firm as anything that the problem arises when good ole King James is traded in for a wicked perversion. That is the number one leading cause of truth decay. All problems are part of the greater problem and that's the problem of rebellion against the word of God; rebellion which includeds leaving the word of God for the words of man. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft in the eyes of God; ISam. 15:23. Those that use mv's, whatever mv they might be, rebel against God.

Today's New International Version
It is so ironic that there are now many Christian groups who are up in arms about the Today's New International Version because of its perceived "gender inclusive" language, and yet they continue to promote the old NIV, the NASB and the NKJV as though these were "reliable translations" worthy of our reverence. This is a clear case of the blind leading the blind.

Brother Scott Jones, who is a strong defender of the King James Bible, has noted the following.

Hypocrisy Unveiled

(Quotes by Scott Jones) "When modern bibles such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, et al, remove Jesus Christ as the Creator in Ephesians 3:9, remove Jesus Christ as the Sovereign in John 3:13, remove Jesus Christ as GOD Incarnate in 1 Timothy 3:16, remove Jesus Christ as Jehovah Incarnate in 1 Corinthians 10:9, ad infinitum, they don't say a word. Not a whisper.

But when the feminism movement pops its head, the hypocrites go berserk. Regarding the new gender inclusive TNIV that the hypocrites are suddenly so vocal about, the party-line spreads its deceitful wings. Falwell speaks for a whole host of his cronies who have come out against the TNIV. Observe -

"Mr. Stinson says this is "problematic" because the Greek word "aner" is translated as "some," when this is a specific word THAT CAN ONLY MEAN MEN." (End of quotes by Scott Jones - emphasis added)

I completely agree with brother Scott Jones on this. Following are some examples of this hypocricy, irony and spiritual blindness on the part of many Christian leaders.

Here is one example of a site that objects to the TNIV and yet promotes the use of the NIV.

Short list of examples of changes made from the NIV to the TNIV

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

NIV Acts 20:30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

TNIV Acts 20:30 Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away the disciples after them.

Comment: Paul no longer says that "men" will arise from among the elders of the church at Ephesus, but "some" will arise, suggesting that there could be women elders at Ephesus. Mistranslates the Greek word aner, which means a male human being (this is not the word anthropos, which often means "person").

(Note on Greek aner: Greek scholars for hundreds of years have known that aner means "man" not "person." Recently, with no new evidence, but under cultural pressure, some have discovered a new meaning, "person." But with no compelling evidence, the TNIV translates aner in a gender-neutral way 31 times.)

NIV Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."

TNIV Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Aeropagus and said: People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious."

Comment: Suggests that there were women debating on the Aeropagus. Mistranslates Greek aner, "men." (End of this portion of the article)

This is so hypocritical. It is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Let's look at some examples of the 'old' NIV and see how it has translated or not this same word aner- man/men.

We will compare it with the Authorized King James Bible.

Matthew 15:38 "they that did eat were 4000 men" - NIV - "were 4000" (omits men altogether)

Luke 1:34 "I know not a man" NIV - "since I am a virgin"

Acts 1:16; 2:29; 2:37; 7:2; 13:15; 13:26; 13:38; 15:7; 15:13; 23:1; 23:6; 28:17

All of these verses say "Men and brethren" in the KJB, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, Young's 'literal' translation, the Douay Rheims, Webster's 1833 translation, Montgomery's New Testament, the Third Millenium Bible, the KJB 21, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish Reina Valera and the NKJV. However the NIV, NASB, and RSV omit the word 'men' and just say "Brothers".

Acts 2:5 "Jews, devout men" - NIV - "God fearing Jews"

Acts 2:14 "Ye men of Judea" - NIV - "Fellow Jews"

Acts 8:27 "Behold, a man of Ethiopia" - NIV - "an Ethiopian"

Acts 10:28 "unlawful for a man that is a Jew" NIV- "a Jew"

Acts 13:21 "a man of the tribe of Benjamin" NIV - " of the tribe of Benjamin" (omits man)

Acts 21:11 "bind the man that owneth this girdle" NIV - "bind the owner of this belt"

Acts 22:3 "I am verily a man which am a Jew" NIV - "I am a Jew"

Acts 23:26 "more than 40 men" - NIV - "more than 40 of them"

Romans 11:4 "I have reserved to myself 7000 men" - NIV - "7000" (omits men)

Ephesians 4:13 "unto a perfect man" NIV - "become mature"

Another generic term being introduced into the modern versions is the word HUMAN, or HUMAN BEING. This is a gender inclusive term. The word "human" is not found in the King James Bible at all. However in the NKJV we find the word "human" 15 times, in the NASB it occurs 37 times and in the old NIV a whopping 50 times.

Here are just a few examples comparing the KJB with the NKJV.

Leviticus 7:21 "the uncleanness of a man" -NKJV - "human uncleanness"

II Kings 7:10 "there was no MAN there, neither voice of MAN" - NKJV-"no ONE there, not a HUMAN sound"

Ezekiel 4:15 "cow's dung for man's dung" -NKJV - "cow's dung instead of human waste"

John 16:21 "for joy that a man is born into the world" -NKJV "a human being has been born"

Romans 6:19 "I speak after the manner of men" - NKJV- "I speak in human terms"

I Cor. 2:4 "not with enticing words of man's wisdom" - NKJV "words of human wisdom"

Hebrews 12:9 "we have had fathers of our flesh" -NKJV - "we have had human fathers"

Again, the word 'human' is found zero times in the KJB, 15 in the NKJV, 37 in theNASB and 50 times in the NIV.

Another gender neutral term is the New Age/ Hindu term "the One" used to refer to God. The One is a neutral, sexless term. The King James Bible never refers to God as "the One" but rather as He. The Greek is masculine yet the NKJV uses the term 'the One" 14 times in the New Testament alone.

Just a couple of examples here will suffice.

John 7:18 "but he that seeketh HIS glory that sent him, the same is true" -NKJV -"He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true"

Hebrews 8:3 "it is of necessity that this man have somewhat to offer" - NKJV - "it is necessary that this One also have something to offer".

Revelation 11:17 "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come" - NKJV - "O Lord God Almight, the One who is and who was and who is to come"

In the NKJV see Mat. 11:3; 26:48; Mark 14:44; Luke 1:35; 7: 19, 20; 22:27; John 7:18; Acts 17:23; Eph. 4:10; Heb. 3:3; 8:3; Rev. 11:17; 16:5.

The NASB does this same thing even more than the NKJV and the NIV does it even more than the NASB. Here are just a few from the NASB.

Luke 10:16 "he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me" - NASB "the One who sent Me"

Luke 12:5 "Fear him, which after he hath killed..." -NASB - "fear the One ..."

John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God" - NASB - "except the One who is from God"

John 15:21 "they know not him that sent me" - NASB - "do not know the One who sent Me."

Another irony is the fact that there is a website called Keep the Faith.org which posts articles by James Dobson, R.C. Sproul and Piper who are against the TNIV. On this site one of the verses criticized is Matthew 1:18. Here is their list.

Matthew 1:18 TNIV: "...she was found to be PREGNANT through the Holy Spirit."

ESV: "...she was found to be WITH CHILD from the Holy Spirit.

"KJV: "...she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

NASB: "...she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit." NASB95: "...she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."

NIV: "...she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit."

NKJV: "...she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

NLT: "...she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit."

NRSV: "...she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit."

RSV: "...she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;..."

Recently there was a furor over an article published by WorldNetDaily. This is a portion of a recent criticism of the new version coming out by the NIV. I will make some further comments.

From WorldNetDaily.com, available online at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=26277

Today's New International Perversion By Joseph Farah February 4, 2002

(Quotes by Mr. Joseph Farah) "Today's New International Perversion - excuse me, Version - of the Bible.

If you didn't think political correctness could ever spread to the Bible itself, check out what HarperCollins (read Rupert Murdoch) and its "Christian" subsidiary, Zondervan, have wrought with this latest translation:

* Mary is no longer "with child," in the femi-nazi version of the Bible. She is "pregnant."

There are hundreds of such examples, perhaps thousands. They have a purpose - a political agenda. There's a reason Mary is no longer "with child." "With child" is a term that makes very clear the humanity of the unborn person inside Mary's womb.

What would have happened if Mary aborted that child - or, as the publishers of the TNIV would probably say, "terminated her pregnancy"? (End of portions from Mr. Farah's article)

Here are my comments on this article: I agree with Mr. Farah in that the expression "She was with child" definitely states that there is a real baby inside the womb. Today's feminazis will unashamedly say "I decided to terminate my pregnancy" but they would not so easily admit "I decided to terminate my child".

What should be noted here is that the new versions have already changed the wording of the King James Bible where it says "the woman WITH CHILD" to "PREGNANT". This is not new to the Inclusive version just now appearing on the scene.

Examples: KJB "And his daughter in law, Phinehas' wife, was WITH CHILD, near to be delivered." NASB "was PREGNANT".

The NASB does this same thing in the following verses: I Samuel 4:19 II Samuel 11:5 Ecclesiastes 11:5 Isaiah 26:17 and 18 Hosea 13:16 Amos 1:13

The NKJV changes the phrase "with child" to "pregnant" in the following verses:

KJB "And woe unto them that are WITH CHILD"

NKJV "But woe to those who ARE PREGNANT"

Matthew 24:19 Mark 13:17 Luke 21:23 I Thessalonians 5:3

The NIV changes "with child" to "pregnant" in these verses:

KJB "And she BEING WITH CHILD" Rev. 12:2 NIV "She WAS PREGNANT"

Genesis 19:36 Genesis 38:24, 25 Exodus 21:22 I Samuel 4:19 II Samuel 11:5 II Kings 8:12 II Kings 15:16 Hosea 13:16 Amos 1:13Matthew 24:19 Mark 13:17 Luke 21:23 I Thessalonians 5:3 and Revelation 12:2

I just picked up a newspaper called Rocky Mountain Christian Times, Vol.2 No 7 July 2002. This paper is provided by a local church that uses the NIV. There is an article in it titled More TNIV Controversy. Here is part of the article.

Louisville, Ky (EP) Citing significant changes in the gender language from its highly respected predcessor, the New International Version, 100 respected church leaders issued a joint statement May 28 declaring that they cannot endorse the controversial TNIV.

Among these leaders are Larry Burkett, Charles Colson, James Dobson, Jack Hayford, David Jeremiah, D. James Kennedy, Erwin Lutzer, Bill McCartney, J. I. Packer, Pat Robertson, R. C. Sproul and Don Wildmon.

These men said "The TNIV translation has gone beyond acceptable translation standards in several important respects." They then list several examples among which is this one. They ask the question: "How do they (the TNIV translators) know that changing the word "saints" to "God's people" does not sacrifice precious connotations of holiness which the Greek word carries?".

Now, this is a real mind blower. Here are these respected church leaders promoting the use of the "highly respected predecessor", the old NIV, and criticizing the TNIV because they have changed "saints" to "God's people". Yet if they would look at their own old NIV they would see that it has translated the word hagios or saints as "God's people" 10 times already in the New Testament!.

"But fornication, and all uncleannesss, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you, as becometh SAINTS." Ephesians 5:3. Here the old NIV says GOD'S PEOPLE.

The old NIV does this same thing in Romans 12:13; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 9:12; Ephesians 2:19, 3:8, 4:12, 5:3; Hebrews 13:24, and Revelation 20:9 and 22:21.

This is either blind ignorance or bald faced hypocrisy. These leaders condemn the TNIV for doing the very thing their "highly respected predecessor" - the old NIV- does; yet they continue to endorse, recommend and promote the NIV.

Mr. Farah is correct in his criticism of the new inclusive version. He just missed the fact that this thing has already been going on for some time in the other "perversions" as well.

I would also highly recommend a very well done article about the TNIV by Terry Watkins. It can be found here: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_intro.html

Will Kinney