From Their Own Mouths - Bible Modifiers


  • New Scofield Bible
  • New English Bible
  • New International Version
  • Todays Family Bible

  • The New Scofield Bible - 1967


    The New Scofield Bible has been said to be a new King James Bible, but not only is it not a new King James Bible, it is not even a New Scofield Bible.

    Dr. C.I. Scofield died in 1921 and so could not possibly edit a book in 1967. The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr.Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909 added material and published another edition in 1917. An author is entitled to alter his own work, but it is wrong for others, more than 45 years after his death, to make alterations and then sign his name to it.

    The editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work. In the introduction to their 1967 publication they admit such changes.

    "Among the changes and improvements in this edition are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and the addition of many new notes;: more marginal references; an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of these features are explained below."

    They admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many other features. The publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary choices of the revision committee.

    "Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a group."

    Lets look at an one example, the real Scofield Bible of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor had no footnote for Acts 8:12, but the New Scofield Bible has the following footnote for Acts 8:12:

    "Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)."

    It is not Dr. Scofield, but the nine revisors that believe there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". Think about it, if one group is defined as "Protestant" what is the other group called?

    The nine revisors claim that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion. The 1967 Scofield Bible also claims on its title page that the dead Dr.Scofield is one of its editors.

    The New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible. On the contrary, on almost every page the margin notes the twin Bible reading as "KJV".

    In recent years the size and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible, and many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake.

    Return to Contents


    The New English Bible - 1970


    The New English Bible was produced by an ecumenical group of Protestants and Roman Catholics in Britain in the 1940s and '50s. The New Testament portion was first published in 1961, and the entire Bible in 1970. From the earliest stages of the planning and translation, two member bodies of the United Bible Societies were involved in the production of the New English Bible. In the introductory pages of the NEB, we read:

    "The Bible, A New English Translation, planned and directed by representatives of ... The British and Foreign Bible Society. The National Bible Society of Scotland."

    The New English Bible is based upon the same corrupted Greek text as the RSV and the Today's English Version. Therefore it goes without saying that the New Testament portion of the NEB perverts the same verses, phrases, and words as the other two translations. For this reason, we will concentrate on the Old Testament Scriptures which are predictive of the coming Messiah, and see how The New English Bible has changed the translation:

    Genesis 3:15

    The King James Version reads: `And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.'

    The New English Bible reads: `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your brood and hers. They shall strike at your head, and you shall strike at their heel.'

    The NEB destroys the prediction concerning the coming Messiah as the special `seed of the woman,' which refers to Jesus Christ. The reference to the `seed of the woman' makes it unique for in all other references it is always `the seed of David,' not the seed of Sarah or the seed of Bathsheba. Also, the whole idea of the cross is removed by changing the words `His heel' to `their heel.' By changing the words `it' or `he' to `they,' the verse is altered entirely and no longer speaks of Christ. It also eliminates the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Christ.

    Isaiah 9:6

    The King James Version reads: `For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.'

    The New English Bible reads: `For a boy has been born for us, a son given to us to bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and he shall be called in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like, Father for all time, Prince of Peace.'

    The New English Bible here has weakened the meaning of this verse in reference to the Deity of Jesus Christ. He no longer bears the name of `Wonderful,' and they have changed `The mighty God' into `in battle God- like.' Three of the five titles of our Lord are completely taken away, without any textual reason whatsoever.

    Micah 5:2

    The King James Version reads: `But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.'

    The New English Bible reads: `But you, Bethlehem in Ephrathah, small as you are to be among Judah's clans, out of you shall come forth a governor of Israel, one whose roots are far back in the past, in days gone by.'

    The eternal pre-existence of Christ is here denied since the NEB seeks to give an origin to Christ. It limits Christ to days and to time rather than depicting Christ as eternal, for the Scriptures say that Christ is from everlasting to everlasting God.

    Psalm 45:6

    The King James Version reads: `Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.'

    The New English Bible reads: `Your throne is like God's throne, eternal, your royal sceptre a sceptre of righteousness.'

    Notice that in the King James Version the one seated upon the throne is called God, saying "O God," while the NEB version weakens the Deity of Christ by simply saying that the throne is `like God's throne.' Thus eliminating another of the Messianic prophecies, and once again rejecting Christ as God.

    Zechariah 13:6

    The King James Version reads: `And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.'

    The New English Bible reads: `What,' someone will ask, `are these scars on your chest?' And he will answer, `I got them in the house of my lovers.'

    Psalm 69:21

    The King James Version reads: `They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.'

    The New English Bible reads: `They put poison in my food and gave me vinegar when I was thirsty.'

    They did no such thing. Even the NEB itself contradicts this in Matthew 27:34. It was `gall' which they attempted to give Him. This is an attempt by Satan to destroy the death of Christ by His shedding His blood, and make His death one by food poisoning.

    Psalm 22:16

    The King James Version reads: `For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.'

    The New English Bible reads: `The huntsmen are all about me; a band of ruffians rings me round, and they have hacked off my hands and my feet.'

    The NEB strikes a blow at another Messianic prophecy, for their translation is in direct contradiction to John 19:36 which says `A bone of him shall not be broken.'

    Isaiah 53:9

    The King James Version reads: `And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.'

    The New English Bible reads: `He was assigned a grave with the wicked, a movement: burial-place among the refuse of mankind, though he had done no violence and spoken no word of treachery.'

    The NEB destroys this marvelous prophecy of Christ's cruifixion.When Pilate sentenced the Lord to be crucified between two thieves, it was undoubtedly assumed by both Pilate and the Jews that He would be buried among wicked men. However, Joseph of Arimathaea secured permission from Pilate to bury the body of Jesus in his own sepulchre, all in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that after His death He was to be buried in the tomb of a rich man. ... The translators of the NEB changed this verse so that it is no longer prophetic and declares that Jesus had `a burial place among the refuse of mankind which is not true.

    Psalm 2:12

    The King James Version reads: `Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.'

    The New English Version reads: `Kiss the king, lest the Lord be angry and you are struck down in mid course; for his anger flares up in a moment. Happy are all who find refuge in him.'

    The translators once again deny Christ by their perversion of this verse. They replace the specific word `Son' with the general term `king,' which could refer to any king.

    Genesis 49:10

    The King James Version reads: `The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.'

    The New English Bible reads: `The sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor the staff from his descendants, so long as tribute is brought to him and the obedience of the nations is his.'

    The NEB robs this verse of its prophetic foreview of Christ's second coming and the regathering of Israel.

    In the preface to the 1970 edition of the New English Bible, we read:

    "As Vice-Chairman and Director, C. H. Dodd has from start to finish given outstanding scholarship, sensitivity, and an ever watchful eye."

    By looking at the late C. H. Dodd's writings, will we get an insight as to why the New English Bible is so perverted.

    C. H. Dodd was vice-president of the British and Foreign Bible Society, a founding member of the United Bible Societies.

    In his book, The Bible Today, Dodd says that the Old Testament:

    `contains incongruities and contradictions, not merely in matters of fact, but in spiritual outlook and moral evaluation.'" (C.H. Dodd, The Bible Today, p. 10)

    `The famous `whale' or sea monster, is no zoological specimen. The ancient monster of chaos, the dragon of darkness, was a familiar figure in several mythologies of the ancient world.' (C.H. Dodd, The Bible Today, p. 17)

    In the same book he insists that Christianity gradually evolved in the minds of men, and also takes issue with what Christ said regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch saying,

    `The first chapter of Genesis is a relatively late composition. We have in the second chapter an earlier, and cruder Hebrew story of creation. The account in the first chapter was written after the prophets had done their great work toward a purer and more spiritual religion.' (C.H. Dodd, The Bible Today, p. 30)

    Dodd also rejects the doctrine of the Last Judgment:

    `Creation, the Fall of Man, the Deluge and the Building of Babel are symbolic myths. The Last Judgment and the End of the World, it they are not in the strict sense myths, have a similar symbolic character.' (C.H. Dodd, The Bible Today, p. 112)

    Dodd believes all men will eventually be saved:

    "The logic of the biblical revelation seems to demand an equal universality for the final `restoration of all things' ... every human being is ultimately destined, in His mercy, to eternal life." (C.H. Dodd, The Bible Today, pgs. 118-119.)

    The Bible:

    `It has long ago become clear that in claiming for the Bible accuracy in matters of science and history its apologists had chosen a hopeless position to defend.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 13)

    Revelation as sub Christian:

    `The most downright claims to infallibility are made by the apocalyptists, as for example, in the New Testament Revelation ... a book which some of the early Church wished to exclude from the Canon, and which as a whole is sub-Christian in tone and outlook.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 15)

    `God is the Author, not of the Bible, but of the life in which the authors of the Bible partake and of which they tell in such imperfect human words as they could command.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, pgs. 16-17)

    `The Old Testament contains not only the epoch-making writings of the great prophets, but legends and traditions which reflect the elementary piety of the common man.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 139)

    Moses as just a legendary figure:

    `Moses has left us no writings, and we know little of him with certainty. But it is scarcely questionable that the Hebrew religion, before the time when its literature begins, had felt the impulse of some tremendous personality. Tradition calls him Moses, and so may we. We are not, however, in direct touch with him, but only with men who drew their inspiration from the impulse he communicated.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 27)

    `Moses was a magician, a medicine man, whose magic wand wrought wonders of deliverance and destruction. ... To separate history from legend in the stories of his career is impossible and not very profitable.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 45)

    Jesus Christ's sacrifice not rational:

    `For indeed the bare idea of vicarious expiation [the substitutionary death of Christ in the place of sinners] is not wholly rational, and easily lends itself to fanaticism. After all, if God demands the suffering of one in order that the sins of others may be forgiven, a meaning is found for suffering, but at the expense of the rationality of God for which the prophets contended so vigorously.' (C.H. Dodd, The Authority of the Bible, p. 215)

    Return to Contents


    The New International Version - 1978


    The New International Version is based on the 26th edition of the Greek text of Eberhard Nestle published in 1979. It, like the New American Standard Version which is based on Nestle's 23rd edition of 1969, is an Egyptian bible. These and most modern translations (except the New King James Version and New Scofield Version) are all products of Origen's tainted manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt.

    Virginia Mollenkott, a literary consultant for the New International Version translating committee, worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed. She is a pro-abortion feminist, who worships an idolatrous female god of her own imagination. Today she is an Episcopalian, and moves in the most radical ecumenical feminist circles.

    In 1978 she co-authored (with Letha Scanzoni) the book, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?. The book argues that the Sodom account in Genesis does not teach the evil of homosexuality, but the evils of violent gang rape and inhospitality to strangers.

    ". . . the Sodom story seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1)violent gang rape and (2) inhospitality to the stranger." (p.57)

    The Bible plainly states that the sin for which God judged Sodom was connected with gross and strange immorality. Jude 7 refers to Sodom’s fornication and "going after strange flesh." God did not send fire upon Sodom for its inhospitality. About Jude 7 she writes;

    "The 'unnatural lust' thus could, in the context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and heavenly beings."(p.59)

    Virginia Mollenkott’s book also claims that:

    "the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible." (p. 71),

    and that Romans 1 does not fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian.

    "The key thought here seems to be lust, 'unnaturalness,' and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid the acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's existence?" (p.62).

    This is the exact position taken by one of the actual translators of the NIV, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, in a report he assisted in producing for the Christian Reformed Church in 1973. About Luke 10:12, she writes;

    "Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the context of sexual acts, but in the context of inhospitality." (p.59)

    In the early 1980s Mollenkott was a member of the National Council of Churches' committee that produced an inclusive-language lectionary which addressed God in feminine terms. At a news conference at the NCC's governing board meeting on November 10, 1983, Mollenkott claimed there is some evidence that Jesus Christ was really a woman. She cited the research of biologist Edward Kessel, who argued that Jesus was "born in parthenogenesis; that parthenogenetic births are always female; that in some cases, therefore, he would be willing to refer to Jesus as 'she' -- up until the last minute of sex reversal, in which case Jesus remains chromosomally female throughout life, but functions as a normal male and looks like a normal male" (Christian Challenge, August 1984).

    In October 1985, Mollenkott’s signature appeared on a statement supporting homosexuality which was published in the Sojourners magazine.

    In her plenary address before the July 1986, convention of the Evangelical Women's Caucus International (EWCI), in Fresno, California, Mollenkott warned against "heterosexism," the idea that everyone must be heterosexual.

    In 1987 Mollenkott wrote an article claiming that refusal to ordain homosexual "clergywomen" is unscriptural discrimination. She wrote:

    "To ask lesbians and gay men to pretend they are like the majority is to deny them the self-identification and affirmation that is the natural legacy of every healthy adult. Forcing gay Christians into silence also denies them the opportunity to celebrate in gratitude to God for their authentic nature and for their life-enriching mutual relationship with a loving partner" (Christianity and Crisis, Nov. 9, 1987).

    In the June 1991, issue of the Episcopal monthly entitled The Witness, she testified;

    "My lesbianism has always been a part of me. ... I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful."

    In 1993 Mollenkott published a book entitled Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroad), in which she reflected on her rejection of fundamentalism, her lesbian "coming out," and her belief in a female God. Mollenkott concludes that,

    "in a very physical sense we are all gay, we are all lesbian, we are all heterosexual, we are all bisexual--because we are all one" (p. 153). Her view of the kingdom of God on earth is a society in which "lesbian women, bisexual people, and gay men are going to be accepted as first-class citizens in the church and in society as a whole" (p. 153).

    She defines sin as "the absence of trust" (instead of disobedience to God’s law) and defines salvation as,

    "being brought back into a trusting relationship by remembering Who We Are: God’s children, never actually separated from God’s love even though we had imagined we were" (p. 157).

    Her view of the new birth is as follows:

    "In the instant of remembering our true identity, we are at-oned, restored to a trusting relationship with God, with our Selves, with other people, and with the universe" (p. 157).

    Mollenkott claims that providing mutual sexual pleasure, whether it be homosexual or bisexual or whatever, is one of the most important things in life,

    "Learning to love ourselves and others (including mutual pleasuring) is the greatest contribution we can make to the creation of a just society. And I am confident that the day will come when most Christian churches will teach a creation-positive method of glorifying God and enjoying Her forever" (p. 158).

    "pleasure haters" (those who believe God made the sexual relationship for heterosexual marriage only) who are the "unjust" (p. 158).

    She claims her lesbianism,

    "is simply a good gift, as all sexuality is a good gift" (p. 162).

    She admits that when she first started publically voicing her lesbianism she,

    "felt slightly soiled, as if I needed a good shower,"

    but later she recognized,

    "that the soiled feeling was residual heterosexism" (p. 162).

    Mollenkott worships a [wo]man-made idol she identifies as,

    "our tender Father and our demanding Mother and then again our loving Friend, faithful Companion, and cosmic Lover" (p. 166).

    In November 1993 Re-imagining conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Mollenkott said:

    "[Jesus] is our elder brother, the trailblazer and constant companion for us--ultimately is among many brothers and sisters in an eternal, equally worthy sibling-hood. First born only in the sense that he was the first to show us that it is possible to live in oneness with the divine source while we are here on this planet. ... As an incest survivor, I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive parent [referring to Christ's death on the cross] and Jesus as the obedient, trusting child."

    At the same conference, Mollenkott said she longed to see the creation of an interfaith "worship community" in which each member respected completely the religion of the others and Christians ceased to make missionary efforts to target members of other religions. She labeled soul-winning evangelism as "imperialistic attempts to make others such as I."

    In 1994 Mollenkott published The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female (New York: Crossroad). This book is filled with heretical statements;

    "The pursuit of holy peace within and the pursuit of peace on earth are perhaps the best of all reasons for lifting up the biblical image of God as the One Mother of us all" (p.19) and "because God is womanlike--women are Godlike" (p. 78). Mollenkott suggests that "the Lord’s prayer might be addressed to ‘Our Father/Mother who is in Heaven’" (p. 116).

    Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Centre writes:

    "It has come to my attention that false rumours are circulating, in both oral and written form, that the NIV is soft on sodomy (that is, homosexual sins). The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals and lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact. Thus they are simply untrue. And those who make such false charges could be legitimately sued for libel, slander and defamation of character. Here are the facts. It is true that in the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960s and early 1970s), Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the sixties what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions."

    The following report about the above is by Michael Penfold, Box 26, Bicester, Oxon, OX6 8PB, England, UK.

    "This is a very cleverly worded statement and one which we can allow Virginia Mollenkott to answer herself. In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:"

    [Virginia Mollenkott writes] "I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept "homosexual" is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.

    "Somewhere in my files is the letter I got thanking me for my work on the NIV when the project was completed. I also have the slipcase version sent out to the whole NIV team in 1978 by Zondervan; and I have the tenth-anniversary edition sent out to the whole team in 1988 by the International Bible Society. Various other editions were also sent out gratis to the translation committee and stylists, but I have received nothing since 1988 that I can remember. Because I am idealistic and sincere, it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about my contributions, so I was not meticulous about keeping records. Thank you for anything you can do to set the record straight. You may utilise this letter to do so, and I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of anything you generate. Sincerely, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott."

    "Why could not Dr. Barker have told the truth in the first place? Taking Mollenkott's words at their face value, the NIV publicity machine has nothing to worry about. Does their anxiety to distance the NIV from homosexual associations reveal something more sinister?"

    "In the light of the following, I believe it does, as it has now come to light that the chairman of the NIV'S Old Testament Translation Committee, DR. Marten H. Woudstra, was a homosexual. This is much more serious than Mollenkott's involvement. Here we have one of the leading scholars on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact was well known by his colleagues for many years. However, only now is this fact coming to the notice of the general public through articles like the one you are reading.

    Dr. Marten Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee.

    "Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends. ECI's address is 311 East 72nd Street, New York, NY 10021. They can be found on the internet at http://www.korpi.com/ECWE/

    "It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra's homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to 'homosexual orientation'. The 'sodomy' of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Notice the similarity between this view and that of Virginia Mollenkott. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them 'bigger' names than Dr. Woudstra.

    "As to Dr. Marten Woudstra theologically, he was once the OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic). Over 70% of this denomination's churches now use the NIV. Dr. Woudstra was considered very 'conservative' within Calvin Seminary. He wrote the Joshua Commentary in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans) which was also contributed to by such illustrious 'evangelical' names as F.F. Bruce.

    "I submit this research as I feel it has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend' by being 'active'; and this is the position of the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary, Evangelicals Concerned, and who knows, quite a few other members of the NIV Translation Committee other than the late Dr. Woudstra. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as such ethical condemnations do not apply today! "A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17)."

    Michael Penfold, November 1997
    P.O.Box 26, Bicester, Oxon. OX6 8PB, England UK.
    PenfoldBooks@characterlink.net"

    Advertising for the New International Version has often included references to the translation of Job 36:33. Promoters of the N.I.V. ask us which version we would rather read.

    "The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (King James Version)

    "His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach." (New International Version)

    Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, which translation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read and understand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any good technical commentary will tell you this. The New International makes it clearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for us what the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather than what it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leaves to us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means. This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the Priesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.

    The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation, even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words.

    Return to Contents


    The Bible for Today's Family - 1991


    The following report is from Time magazine:

    "In the beginning, the American Bible Society decided to develop Scripture for kids. Translators spent hours on end watching Sesame Street and TV cartoons, puzzling out ways to make the Bible understandable for youngsters ages 5 to 13--the Bart Simpson generation. But when versions were tested in local churches, adults reported back that they needed stripped- down Scripture too.

    "Lo, that revelation led to the ultimate in simplified Holy Writ, the Bible for Today's Family. The Bible society has just published the New Testament portion, with the Old Testament due by 1996. The new Bible is the work of three translators living in Springfield, Mo., plus dozens of consultants, and comes in both Protestant and authorized Catholic editions.

    "A generation ago, the Bible society produced another simplified version, the Good News Bible (113 million Bibles and Testaments in print); the 1991 Bible is even less highbrow. In Today's Family Bible, for example, angels proclaim Jesus' birth by saying, `Praise God in heaven! Peace on earth to everyone who pleases God.' The Lord's Prayer runs, `Our Father in heaven, help us to honor your name. Come and set up your kingdom..."

    "The new Bible banishes words, like whom, that are dying out in everyday American speech, as well as theological favorites, like righteousness. Even grace, the term that launched Luther's Reformation, has been replaced with the bland `kindness.' The graceless Bible is also as genderless as possible. For all that, the Bible society claims that the Good Book's `majesty and poetry' have survived.

    Will Americans buy this Bible? A new poll in the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant group, shows that despite a marketplace clogged with modernized competitors, 62% preferred the complex, but inspiring, phraseology of the 1611 King James Version. Nonetheless, the Family Bible is sure to be popular, at least among those with scant interest in church tradition"(Time, May 6, 1991).

    Note: The American Bible Society glories in the fact that their new translation is available both in Protestant and Catholic versions. This apostasy has become normal operating procedure with the Bible Societiesis.

    Note: The Bible society translators studied popular television programming for youth as preparation for their work. This is the dynamic equivalency philosophy. They changed God's Word to conform to the modern child.

    Dynamic equivalency seeks to adapt the Bible to the culture for which it is aimed. It unabashedly changes the Bible text to fit the receptor language. Thus, the translator seeks to fulfill the role of a teacher.

    The Wycliffe Bible Translators employ dynamic equivalency in their foreign language versions. In a version for Eskimos, Wycliffe workers replaced "lamb" with "seal pup." In the Makusi language of Brazil, Wycliffe translators substituted "older brother" for "Son of man." In another Wycliffe translation, "fig tree" became "banana tree." It becomes apparent that many Bible translators of our day feel free to make great changes in the words of Holy Writ.

    The King James translators employed the traditional method of Bible translation whereby the words of Scripture are translated literally and clearly into the receptor language, this gave the English-speaking people a faithful translation of the inspired Word of God.


    Return to Top

    Return to Contents at top of page

    Previous Page

    Next Page

    Return to From Their Own Mouths Contents

    Return to King James Controversy Contents

    Return to Home Page


    to theology. It is also said that there is no difference in any of the Greek texts in the matter of theology. This is even said by those who are looked up to as Bible believing leaders. There are two phases of their theological denial:

    (1) These men believe that the Greek textual variants between the two basic Greek texts do not affect theology or doctrine. They believe that the false Westcott and Hort Greek text (when compared to the Greek text of the KJV) contains nothing that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is false.

    (2) These men also believe that the modern English versions do not contain changes from the KJV that affect theology or doctrine. They believe that you can take any modern English version you wish and when you compare it to the KJV, that version does not have anything in it that is theologically deficient or doctrinally incorrect. This is also false.

    Dr. John R. Rice stated: "The differences in th