Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Modern Versions

Let’s take the NIV as an example. While the translators of the NIV may indeed believe in plenary inspiration, they obviously do not fully believe in verbal inspiration. They may confess adherence to the doctrine, but in their practice they deny it. In the introduction to the NIV Interlinear Greek English New Testament Canon J.B. Phillips states regarding Alfred Marshalls literal English version that he has "... done this work of putting the nearest English equivalents to the Greek words with great care and skill and his work should prove of the highest values to any student of the New Testament."^[i][1] However, he goes on and says, "... It need hardly be said that this giving of verbal equivalents is not a full translation, but it is an essential stage in that process. The art of translation itself in not only the transferring of words from one language to another but also the accurate transmission of thought, feeling, atmosphere and even of style."^[ii][2]

The problem, however, with this concept of translation is that the translators decide as to what the thoughts of Peter or Paul or John might have been and then introduce those thoughts into the text, not as their interpretations or ideas, but as the very "Words of God". This is even admitted in another Preface of the NIV, which states, "To achieve clarity the translators sometimes supplied words not in the original texts but required by the context." (Zondervan, 1984).^[iii][3]

Now of course, when translating from one language to another, sometimes extra words must be supplied in order for the passage to make sense. This is done, for the most part, in many of the older translations by the use of italics. This is done so the reader will know which words were in the original language and which words were added by the translator. But this is not what the NIV translators have done in the vast majority of the cases. They simply introduced extra words, without any distinction, as part of the text, thus allowing the unsuspecting reader to think he or she is reading the words of Paul, or Peter, or John, when in reality they are reading the words of the translator, and thus, in some cases, allowing the whole meaning of text to be altered.

Dear brethren, this is not the job of a translator. It is not up to him to decide for you what the original intent of the Holy Spirit was in a particular passage. That responsibility is reserved for the Holy Spirit who continues to illuminate the seeking Christian as to the truth of the Word. And it is the responsibility of Christian Elders and Teachers, filled with the Holy Spirit, to share with the saints as to what they might think the thoughts of the original writers might have been. And, indeed, it can even be the responsibility of translators, to share forth their ideas concerning a passage, if it is done either in 1) footnotes, or 2) in the main body of the text, if it is always done in such a way that the reader may know that it is the translators own ideas and not necessarily the ideas of the original writers. This can be done either by italics or brackets (as the NIV translators did in a few places). However, in the majority of places they added their own thoughts and let the reader think it was part of the inspired Word of God.

This concept of translation, that one can add or detract words from the original manuscripts because it is really the thoughts that are important rather than the words, is an affront to the Sovereignty of the original author of the manuscripts – the Holy Spirit. Only the Author is allowed to add, detract or change words of his manuscripts. And that author is God Himself. (Prov. 30: 5-6; Jer. 26:2; Deut. 4:2; II Tim. 3: 16-17)

Dean Burgon in" The Fundamentals", a group of essays published in the early part of this century as a dissertation of Evangelical beliefs, states this concerning such a concept:

"You cannot dissect inspiration into substance and form. As for thoughts being inspired, apart from the words which give them expression, you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No such theory of inspiration is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless, and cannot be too sternly put down." ^[4]

The NIV would never have been accepted by one named Evangelical 70 years ago, because such a translation would more have been in the camp of a Modernist than a fundamentalist. But the fact, that such a translation can so readily be accepted by today's Evangelicals, shows how far we have fallen. Modernism could not come in through the front door 70 years ago, but it is in danger of coming in through the back door today. Everywhere you look, from letterheads, to devotionals, to commentaries the NIV has become the Bible of the Evangelical and if he only knew that it was not the Bible alone he was using, but the Bible plus the translators own opinions, perhaps he, like his forebears of 70 years ago, might turn away from it. It is dangerous when translators take upon themselves the liberty to expand or change the original words of scripture without letting the reader know that the extra words he is reading are not the Words of God, but just the words of the translator. Or conversely, it is dangerous to believe that, when words are deleted from the original manuscript, the original intent of Holy Spirit can be maintained. As a case in point is the deletion of the word "spirit" in a number of verses which aid the understanding of the functions and qualities of the human spirit.

A Christian cannot come to full maturity unless he fully experiences the difference between the soul and spirit – to discern the difference between his thoughts and the voice of the Holy Spirit in his heart or spirit – to discern the difference between his emotions and the peace of God that deeply guards his heart, or the difference between his will and the will of the inner man filled with the Spirit of God. Indeed, to be a spiritual Christian one must have a strong "spirit" (Luke 2:40 KJV), – a pure “heart”– that is under the control of the Holy Spirit as opposed to a Christian that is primarily governed by the various functions of his soul – whether it be his mind, emotions, or volition. That is what makes the difference between a purely "natural" or "soulical" Christian and a "spiritual" Christian. However, the translators of the NIV are robbing many Christians of a full insight as to the functions of the human spirit by, in some cases, deleting the actual word itself. Let's look at a few instances.

Mark 8:12 NIV "He sighed deeply and said..." (In the Greek, Mark wrote, he sighed deeply in "His spirit." They completely leave out the words in "His spirit," that were placed there under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If one believes in verbal inspiration, then one believes every single word is inspired down to every jot and tittle, as Jesus says in Matt. 5:18, and, as such, should not be deleted. God put the word "spirit" in that verse. Is it not presumptuous for translators to decide that such a word is not needed in the text?)

Acts 17:16 NIV "...he was greatly distressed..." (In the Greek it would read "...his spirit was greatly distressed..." Again, the word spirit is left out).

Acts 18:25 NIV "...with great fervor..." (In the Greek, Luke wrote "with great fervor in spirit." The word "spirit" is there again and shows us that Apollos just didn't speak with great fervor, but spoke with great fervor in spirit, not just with outward emotion, but with an inward conviction in his spirit).

Acts 19:21 NIV "After all this had happened, Paul decided to go to Jerusalem..." (In the Greek it tells us that Paul decided "in the spirit" to go to Jerusalem. This verse shows us that decisions should begin in the human spirit, but because the translators delete the word spirit, this truth is forever obscured from the mind of the reader).

These are just a few of the verses where the word has been deleted or mistranslated. This alone shows that they do not believe that every single word of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such is a violation of Duet. 4:2 and Jer. 26:2. Jeremiah 26: 2 (NASB) says –

“Thus says the LORD, ‘Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!”

In other places, by adding words that are not in the original, they obscure spiritual truth. For example, in I Cor. 2:14, Paul tells us that "...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God..." but in the NIV they change it and add the words "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God..."

The Greek word that is translated "natural" in the KJV, NKJV, and the NASB is the Greek adjective for the Greek word for soul. In other words, it refers to one that is soulical, one that is primarily controlled by his soul. In the same way, "spiritual" is the Greek adjective for the Greek word for spirit – one who is primarily controlled by his spirit. By obscuring this truth and adding the words "man without the Spirit," (which most Christians would think are the words the Apostle Paul originally wrote), Christians are led to believe that only a unbeliever can be a "soulical" or natural person – whereas in reality, even a Christian can be a natural person (I Cor. 3:3), just as a Christian can be a carnal person, like an unbeliever. The Lord, of course, wants us to be is a spiritual believer. Christians may rest content in the fact that they are not carnal, but they may not realize that being a soulical or natural person is just as damaging to their faith. By adding words to Scripture that are not in the original, they are lulling Christians into a false sense of security in regards to their spiritual well being.

Now, no doubt, the translators would say that they just gave what they believe to be an expanded translation of the word "natural", which, of course, is their prerogative, if only they would do so in a footnote, thereby giving God's people the word Paul originally used in the text, and thus letting the reader decide the meaning of the word for themselves. It is not up translator to make these editorial decisions about God's Word. God's Word is not a daily newspaper that can be freely edited, but is the eternal Word of God that endures forever.

The spirituality of many Christians is being hindered by men who believe it is alright to add and delete words from the original text of the Bible. If one really understood the distinct function of the human spirit, as opposed to the more external functions of the human soul, there is no way that that such a one would delete the word "spirit" in those important verses where the Lord reveals to us, (in a revelatory manner), the functions of that human spirit. Nor would such a one insert their own thoughts into verses where spiritual truth, in regards to our walk with the Lord, is revealed. Such a person would understand that true spirituality could only be achieved through the exercise of the human spirit under the control of the Holy Spirit. But, even without such an understanding, it seems that one, who adhered to "verbal inspiration," would not delete a word out of respect to the integrity of God's Word. And what makes this all the more appalling is that our Christian leaders are not crying out in protest to such a treatment of the Word of God, which, unfortunately, makes one wonder if perhaps “Christian Humanism” is spreading more rapidly than we suspected and is slowly replacing "Spiritual Christianity."

The writer knows we all have our own faults, but that should not cause us to remain silent, but cause us to fall down before our Lord and Maker and seek from Him the searching light of His Holy Spirit to make known to us our own shortcomings so that we might be a vessel cleansed and useful to our Master, ready to "convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching"(II Tim. 4:2), and that we, "speaking the truth in love," may grow up in all things into Him who is the head – the Lord Jesus Christ. (Eph. 4:15). Truth should be our all encompassing passion, for Christ is the Truth, and one need never apologize for speaking out against error, if it is done in love under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I pray it is so in this case.

There are many other examples that could be brought forth where words are added to God's Word based on the thoughts of the translators. Perhaps, we will give one more example. The NIV translates Eph. 3:6 as, “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together on one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.” Here the translators add the words “with Israel”. These words are not in the original. Paul did not write the words “with Israel.” The translators added them to God’s Word. They have changed the whole meaning of the verse by adding their own words to God’s Word, allowing the reader to think that he or she is reading the inspired Word of God, when indeed he or she is not! They have confused Israel and the Church in this verse, when Israel and the Church are distinct and should not be confused.

Another instance is Eph. 3:18,  "And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ." The words "is the love of Christ" were not in the original and were added to the verse. Most reading the NIV would presuppose that Paul said the width, length, height and depth was the love of Christ because of these added words. However, Paul was not referring in this verse to the love of Christ, but to the wisdom and omnipotence of God the Father that is wide, long, high and deep (cf. Job 11:7-9).

Paul is praying that we may understand the great wisdom and omnipotence of the Father that put into motion the great plan of redemption. This is the wisdom of God that confounds the wise of this world and reveals the eternal purpose of the Father for the Church. It is only with this understanding, coupled with the knowledge of the love of Christ, (which Paul does talk about in verse 19), that the body of believers can be filled to all the fullness of God. In other words, Paul's desire for the Church to be filled with all the fullness of God, cannot be accomplished if only the love of Christ is understood, the Church must also understand the omnipotence and wisdom of the Father as revealed in the Cross of Christ. If one does not fully understand this wisdom as seen in the cross (I Cor. 2:2-10), one cannot go on to full maturity, and, if one does not go on to full maturity, the Church will never go on to being filled with all the fullness of God.

So one can see that when translators abandon the concept of "verbal inspiration," whether by the deletion or addition of words, great harm can occur to the spiritual well being of the individual and of the church. It is not up to translators to determine what they think was really in the mind of the Apostle Paul and then change God's Word to reflect their opinion.

For example, perhaps they are right in thinking the breadth, length, height and depth is the love of Christ. And, perhaps, the view I mentioned is wrong. But that’s not the point. The point is that they have forever robbed Christians of the freedom to determine the correct interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit by changing God's Word to conform to their own opinions. And it is a dangerous thing when a small group of men can so easily change the thinking of millions of Christians because of the misplaced trust of those same Christians in those men. It is only natural to assume that when a Bible is published, it is the Bible, and can be trusted. But when the Bible has been altered, then a few men have the potential to mislead millions of Christians into thinking the Apostle Peter said this, or the Apostle Paul said that, when in reality they said something totally different. Whole ways of thinking can be changed or modified by a small group of men.

We are in a spiritual warfare. Let’s look to the future. Satan knows if you want to change the thinking of God's people then just change the words of God's Word. Words convey thoughts and if you change, add or delete "words" you can change, add, or delete "thoughts". And that is the danger of Christians accepting anything less than a translation that adheres to the "verbal plenary inspiration" of Scripture.

What we see occurring before our very eyes is the wholesale conversion of a generation of Evangelicals away from biblical spirituality to what can now be known as "Christian Humanism," and one of the tools aiding in this transformation is the NIV. The problem is not that major doctrines have been affected by the changes, additions and deletions of the NIV. (Although one doctrine has – see the book "Understanding the Trinity"). The problem is the concept has been accepted that it is all right to change, add, or delete the words of God – that is the real danger. This sets the stage for a further departure from the truth in future revisions and/or translations when major doctrines will be affected by such additions or deletions. And when that occurs, the whole course of the Church can be changed. And so, as Dean Burgon said, such a concept of translation “cannot be too sternly put down” ^[iv][5]

In conclusion, does this mean the NIV translation is not worth having on our bookshelves? No, the NIV can be useful in some places if it is used with the proper understanding. If one knows those places where they have not added or deleted words of Scripture, then it can be used as any translation. However, many are not able to do so and so it would be wise to look for another version. The KJV, NKJV, and the NASB are all reliable translations.

There is nothing wrong with welcoming new translations. To believe one particular translation is the only worthwhile translation is going too far in the opposite extreme. There are no perfect translations. Any new translation should be welcomed if, indeed, it is a translation, because what we seek is the Truth, not self-made opinions jealously guarded. Older translations like the KJV, or newer ones like the NKJV, and the NASB have tried to give a completely “verbal equivalent” translation, and if they have made any changes, additions, or deletions they are more the "exception" rather than the rule, but with the NIV they are the "rule," rather than the exception. However, versions like the NIV may sometimes be useful if it they are understood not to be accurate translations of God's Word, but combination translations/paraphrases. If they are viewed in this way, then they can be seen as a sort of commentary, which may helpful as any commentary may be helpful, but which can also be viewed as someone's own opinion and not inspired truth.

In many ways the NIV can be viewed as a modern day Targum. The Targums were Aramaic translations/paraphrases used by Jews during the time of our Lord. They were translated out of the original Hebrew into the common language of the people. They were understood by the Jews, however, not to be equal to the Word of God, but instead were the opinions of fellow Jews translating the inspired Word of God into a loose translation or paraphrase. The Targums never pretended to be on the same footing with Holy Scripture – neither should the NIV.

B.P.H.