The NIV Translators Themselves
The greatest proof of what is wrong with this version is found in their own defense of the NIV Bible. Kenneth Barker, whom I met on the set of John Ankerberg Television Program, is editor of a book entitled, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation. In a chapter of this book entitled, "When 'Literal' is not Accurate," the writer makes the following statement: "In the Preface to the NIV, the Committee on Bible Translation states that sometimes it was necessary to modify sentence structure and to move away from a word-for-word translation in order to be faithful to the thought of the biblical writers and to produce a truly accurate translation. Since its publication, however, a number of observers have criticized the less literal approach of the NIV and have pointed to "interpretational intrusions" foisted on the text. While it may be that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into the text, I would contend that overall this version has achieved a high level of accuracy by its philosophy of translation. By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation that captures the meaning of the original languages with greater precision." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 128.)

Please note several ideas in this exceptional quote.

• "...it was necessary....to move away from a word for word translation."
• "While it may be true that at times the NIV translators have been guilty of reading something into a text."
• "By occasionally moving away from a literal translation, they have produced a more accurate translation..."

My observation suggests several problems with these statements. One, they are admitting that the NIV is a paraphrase and not really a translation. Yet, no one who buys a copy of this text has any warning of it being a paraphrase. If someone is seeking the mind of God in this Bible, they are not getting God's mind at all but rather what someone thought the mind of God to be. It absolutely reduces the NIV to the opinion page rather than the voice of God. That's serious business for someone that wants to know exactly what the Holy Ghost has written to us.

The willing admittance that at times they had been guilty of taking liberties with the text is a serious indictment. Not a court in America would allow testimony on record where such liberties were allowed. Would a juror include such testimony in making a decision on a capital case? Never would an honest judge tolerate such a thought. What would we do with a doctor's report of our physical health that admitted taking liberties with his description of our need for major surgery? Seek a second opinion without a doubt. Yet, these translators have admitted taking liberties with the eternal words of God Himself spoken by the Holy Spirit. A serious fact, my beloved.

Who can decide when moving away from a literal translation is producing a more accurate one? There is no possibility of such action not reflecting the theological bent of the translators. We ministers are constantly using texts of scripture to prove a point in our sermons. Yet, we disagree seriously on what the doctrinal point may be. That's why there are so many different opinions among us. This is the reason that every Christian is told to search the scripture. But translating the Bible is different than preaching sermons. Where would the text of the Bible be today if for 2000 years every translation from language to language and from generation to generation had followed this procedure? That would be insane.

Translation versus interpretation is really where the primary problem has become in this generation. A translator, if true to his intellectual profession, never touches what he perceives the meaning to be. An honest translator leaves that to interpretation. A pastor or teacher must begin with a text that has been untouched and then from such a pure foundation, proceed to search for the proper interpretation themselves.

Distaste for the Textus Receptus
The NIV translators make no bones about their distaste for the text that underminds the King James Authorized Version of Holy Scripture. This is the primary difference in all modern versions. The Textus Receptus reflects well over 90% of all manuscripts. This manuscript background was considered primary for all non-Catholic believers from the early church fathers right down to Westcott and Hort of the late 19th century. From the end of that century (a little over one hundred years ago) it took almost one hundred of those years for the Westcott and Hort dependency on a different set of manuscripts to become the accepted text within the evangelical world.

Let's allow the NIV translators to express their opinion of this change. This chapter in the NIV defense was written by Ronald F. Youngblood. I quote, "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."

"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .)

Please note the names of two manuscripts that stand out in this quote. The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are the primary sources for the multitude of disputes, omissions of entire verses, and additions in the NIV text. These two manuscripts came from the full possession of the Roman Catholic Church. The Vaticanus is named after the Vatican in Rome. The Sinaiticus was found in a Catholic monastery in the Sinai Desert and is so named after that monastery. Just to know that the main/primary manuscripts willingly named by the NIV people were formerly Catholic possessed and promoted is enough for me.

The translators and transcribers of these early manuscripts were men such as Clement, Origin, and other Egyptian reprobates that were quick to denigrate the divinity of Jesus Christ and to attack other great truths of the Holy Bible. These two manuscripts do not agree with each other and have no real authority or reason for such an impact on the Biblical text except for the fact of their ages. Just because they are two of the most ancient manuscripts and because Rome exalts them, they are declared more reliable. When you look at the total picture of all available manuscripts, less than 1% agree with the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

To justify the many changes and declarations in the NIV text, Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!

"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered - in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds - even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.)

After giving many examples in the King James Bible that he says are erroneous renderings of scripture according to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, he closes with the following statement. "Yet the KJV adds to (and so alters) God's Word, and it has now-obscure and misleading renderings of many verses. Scores of examples were given, but hundreds of others could have been given. For one who loves God and wants to know exactly what God says to him, a modern translation that is accurate and clear is necessary. Elsewhere I have written:

Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries.
Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible...

For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)

Mr. Palmer died suddenly before this book with his above quotation was published.

The NIV and the Doctrine of the Everlasting Lake of Fire
One of the enduring legacies of this apostate Bible is the complete denial of everlasting punishment for the wicked. I cover this in a booklet entitled: "What Happened to Hell?" Briefly let me state that the translators of the NIV emphatically deny that hell or the Lake of Fire is everlasting judgement.

The title of this chapter is "Why Hebrew 'Sheol' was Translated 'Grave.'" Two quotes will show that rank apostasy reigns utterly in this chapter. The writer stated:

"The curse on the wicked is that they might lie silent in the 'grave'. (Sheol in Ps. 31:17)."

"The terms bor and shahat are used similarly to Sheol. The psalmist thanks God that he was spared from death, the pit, the dust, the decay, where his dust would lie in silence and no take part in the worship of God. If Sheol here refers to departed spirits, it proves too much! It would prove soul sleep at the least. Much better to find in these terms only a reference to the body and its decay."

There are many incredible changes in the NIV Bible. They can only be justified by declaring allegiance to the strange manuscripts from the Roman Catholic Church archives. These two primary manuscripts came from Alexandria, Egypt, while the Textus Receptus manuscripts were preserved in and flowed from Antioch where the early church set up headquarters after having to flee Jerusalem in the first century A.D.

Here are a few changes that are overwhelming to me:

• Jesus is called "Master" forty-six times in the New Testament. The NIV used the term "teacher" instead of "Master." Why reduce Jesus to a teacher when His very Person calls for the term "Master"?
• "Sodomy" was eliminated from their text. The rendering was changed to "temple prostitute." Yes, the Sodomites were "temple prostitutes" but were more than just "temple prostitutes." This is a serious violation and was applauded by Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian that served as a consultant and English stylist (The word "fornication" was also completely removed.)
• The word "Lucifer" was removed from Isaiah 14:12 and Satan was actually called, "O morning star," the same title given to Jesus in the Book of Revelation.
• The following sixteen verses are completely missing from the NIV New Testament:
  1. "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." (Matthew 17:21)
  2. "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11)
  3. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." (Matthew 23:14)
  4. "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 7:16)
  5. "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:44)
  6. "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:46)
  7. "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses." (Mark 11:26)
  8. "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors." (Mark 15:28)
  9. "Two [men] shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left." (Luke 17:36)
  10. "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)" (Luke 23:17)
  11. "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." (John 5:4)
  12. "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (Acts 8:37)
  13. "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still." (Acts 15:34)
  14. "But the chief captain Lysias came [upon us], and with great violence took [him] away out of our hands," (Acts 24:7)
  15. "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves." (Acts 28:29)
  16. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen." (Romans 16:24)
       
• A process was begun in the NIV to produce a gender free Bible. The following masculine words were reduced by count. ('he' 758 times, 'him' 1240, 'his' 1313, and man, 509). The NIV has already sold and then withdrawn a gender free edition right here in America.

Here are a few verses to show the seriousness of what these apostate translators have done to the Word of God.

Exodus 6:3:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

"I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them."

Psalm 83:18:

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

"Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD - that you alone are the Most High over all the earth."

Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

I John 5:7-8
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Luke 1:28
"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

"The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

Luke 2:22
"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;"

"When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord."

Luke 2:33
"And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him."

"The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

Luke 6:48
"He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock."

"He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built."

Luke 9:56
"For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

"and they went to another village."

Luke 17:36
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Scripture removed from the NIV

Conclusion
Making a case against the NIV is a simple matter. This version is loved by a compromising church but it cannot be anointed by the Spirit of Truth. Truth is either pure or it is not truth. To dare use a Bible that has blasphemed the Son of God by declaring His truth to be a lie cannot be accepted by a Bible believing person.

For the church world to accept two manuscripts right out of the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church is unthinkable unless you are on your way back to Mother Harlot. The proof is now available for all to see. The evangelical world is going home to her greatest enemy of all the ages of the church dispensation.

I receive thousands of calls, letters, and E-mails. Often these callers tell me of being glorious saved by the blood and then a growing concern begins to develop that something is wrong with the Bible they are reading. It does not take long for a saved, Spirit filled person to feel like they are reading from a Bible that just does not feel right. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and He will lead a true disciple to the total and ultimate truth.

The Bible (truth) is forever settled in Heaven and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth. His saving presence will lead you into all truth. "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint." (Isaiah 40:31).