Should We Trust
The New
International Version
?

Also published in paperback and
titled "The Great News"

Reviewed by E.L. Bynum

   "The New International Version" of the New
Testament is now widely being heralded as a reliable
and trustworthy version by evangelicals.   (We shall
hereafter refer to this version as NIV and the "King
James Version"
by KJV).   We do not agree that it is
trustworthy and reliable.   In some respects it is
better than the Revised Standard Version, The New
English Bible, Good News for Modern Man
and the
Living Bible.   But in the end it may be more
dangerous than any of these because "a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump."
  I Cor. 5:6.   Many who
would not accept the RSV and others may be led
into accepting NIV which is contaminated with the
same kind of leaven as the others.   We will set
forth our reasons for not trusting this version and
let our readers make up their own mind.

NIV Omits Too Much Of The Bible!
   The omission of one word or one letter is too
much, but NIV goes much further than this and omits
many complete verses.   Please note some of these
examples.
   KJV Matt. 17:21, "Howbeit this kind goeth
not out but by prayer and fasting."
  NIV omits
this verse
from the text and places it in small print
at the bottom of the page.   The footnote says, "Some
MSS add verse 21."
  (MSS is the abbreviation for
manuscripts).
   KJV Matt. 18:11, "For the Son of man is
come to save that which was lost."
  NIV omits
this verse
from the text and places it in the foot-
note and says "Some MSS add verse 11."
   KJV Matt. 23:14, "Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour wid-
ows' houses, and for a pretence make long
prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater
damnation."
  NIV omits this verse in the same
manner as above.
   KJV Mark 7:16, "If any man have ears to
hear, let him hear."
  NIV omits this verse and
says, "Some early MSS add verse 16."
   KJV Mark 9:44, "Where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched."
  NIV omits
this verse
and does not even put it in the foot note.
   KJV Mark 9:46, "Where their worm dieth
not, and the fire is not quenched."
  NIV omits
this verse.

   KJV Mark 11:26, "But if ye do not forgive,
neither will your Father which is in heaven

forgive your trespasses."   NIV omits this verse
from the text.
   KJV Mark 15:28, "And the scripture was
fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered
with the transgressors."
  NIV omits this verse.
Of course this is a blow at Christ since this refers
to His fulfillment of Isa. 53:12.
   KJV Luke 17:36, "Two men shall be in the
field; the one shall be taken, and the other
left."
  NIV omits this verse that refers to His
Second Coming.
   KJV Luke 23:17, "(For of necessity he must
release one unto them at the feast.)"
  NIV omits
this verse.

   KJV John 5:3,4 "...waiting for the moving
of the water.   For an angel went down at a cer-
tain 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."
  NIV omits all of
this which is part of verse 3 and all of verse 4.
   KJV Acts 8:37, "And Philip said, If thou be-
lievest with all thine heart, thou mayest.   And
he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God."
  NIV omits this verse,
even though the eunuch's question is recorded in
verse 36 and is translated as follows: "Look, here is
water.   Why shouldn't I be baptized?"
  Philip's answer
in verse 37 is omitted, and he baptizes him with no
confession of faith if we are to believe NIV.   This is a
very serious matter involving the salvation of the
soul and we believe it is a serious error to tamper
with God's Word in this way.
   KJV Acts 15:34, "Notwithstanding it pleased
Silas to abide there still."
  NIV omits this verse.
   KJV Acts 24:7 "But the chief captain Lysias
came upon us, and with great violence took him
away out of our hands."
  NIV omits verse 7 as
well as a part of verses 6 and 8.
   KJV Acts 28:29, "And when he had said these
words, the Jews departed, and had great rea-
soning among themselves."
  NIV omits this verse.
   KJV Rom. 16:24, "The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you all.   Amen."
  NIV omits
this verse and places it in the footnote also.
   Above we have listed 16 whole verses that NIV has
omitted.   This writer believes that it would be deadly
and dangerous to accept such a version as the Word
of God.   We believe that the New York Bible Society
and the translators of NIV need to read and believe
Deut. 4:2 and Rev. 22:18, 19.

NIV Attacks Other Verses
   KJV Matt. 21:44, "And whosoever shall fall
on this stone shall be broken: but on whomso-
ever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."

NIV Matt. 21:44, "He who falls on this stone will be
broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be
crushed."
  Even though NIV includes a weaker trans-
lation of this in the text, the footnote says, "Some
MSS omit verse 44."
  This is a rather strong sugges-
tion that it may not belong in the Bible at all.   Matt.
12:47; 16:3 and Luke 22:43,44 are treated by NIV in
the same shoddy and shameful way.   To the uninform-
ed reader, such footnotes will tend to destroy confi-
dence in the Bible as the Word of God.   The passage
in Luke is the record of the angel strengthening Him
as He sweat as it were great drops of blood in His
Gethsemane agony.   How sad to see this passage

doubted!

NIV Says Mark 16:9-20 Not Reliable
   At the end of Mark 16:8 there is a 2 inch black line
through the center of the page.   In books and periodicals
this usually means the end of the chapter, passage or
article.   Just below this black line we find the follow-
ing in NIV, "(The most reliable early MSS omit
Mark 16:9-20.)"
  Then follows their translation of
this passage in the same size type as the text.   How-
ever, it is clear from the long black line and their
note, (which is not printed as a footnote at the bottom
of the page, but right in the middle of the page), that
the translators do not believe that this passage should
be in the text.   Some so-called fundamentalists wel-
come this opportunity to rid themselves of this pas-
sage since the baptismal regeneration groups quote
V. 16 and the snake handling cults cling to V. 18.   I for
one think it is more important to rightly divide the
Word of God, rather than seek to destroy it.
   John W. Burgon wrote the book, "The Last
Twelve Verses of Mark"
clearly showing beyond
any doubt that these verses are a part of God's Word.
To this day Burgon's book has never been answered.
These verses are not in the Vatican and Sinaitic
manuscripts, but as Burgon shows, the area where it
should have appeared was left blank.

NIV Denies The Woman Taken in Adultery
   After John 7:52 there is another 2 inch black line.
Then just below it is this quote, "The most reli-
able early MSS omit John 7:53-8:11)"
.   Then we
see another line after 8:11.   NIV gives a translation
of these verses but clearly by lines and by statement
indicate that it should not be in the text.   So accord-
ing to this version, the poor wretched woman of
John 8 is still in her sins.   Burgon and others have
skillfully defended the inclusion of this passage.
It belongs in the Word of God, and we shall accept
no Bible that removes it from the text.

   Words and phrases printed in ITALICS are found
in the KJV, but omitted by NIV.
  Matt. 6:13, "For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
ever.   Amen."
  Matt. 9:13, "repentance."   Matt. 11:23,
"hell" (hades) is translated "depths" by NIV.   Matt.
15:8, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their
mouth."
  Matt. 16:3, "Oh ye hypocrites."   Matt. 19:9,
"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth com-
mit adultery."
  Matt. 20:7, "and whatsoever is right, that
shall ye receive."
  Matt. 20:16, "for many be called, but
few chosen."
  Matt. 20:22, "And be baptized with the
baptism that I am baptized with."
  Matt. 25:13, "wherein
the Son of Man cometh."
  Matt. 27:35, "that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted
my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots."
  This is a quotation from Psa. 22:18.   Mark
6:11, "Verily I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for
that city."
  Mark 10:21, "take up thy cross."   Mark 13:14,
"spoken by Daniel the prophet."
   LUKE: The following printed in ITALICS are in
the KJV but omitted from NIV.   1:28, "blessed art thou
among women"
; 4:4, "but by every word of God"; 4:8,
"get thee behind me Satan"; 4:18, "He hath sent me to
heal the broken hearted"
; 7:31, "and the Lord said";
8:43, "which had spent all that she had on physicians";
11:2-4, "Our...which art in heaven...Thy kingdom

come.   Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth...but
deliver us from evil."
  How sad, the way they have
mutilated the model prayer!   22:31, "and the Lord said";
22:64, "they struck Him on the face"; 23:38, "in letters of
Greek and Latin and Hebrew"
.
   JOHN: The following omitted in NIV.   1:27,
"preferred before me"; 3:13, "which is in heaven"; 3:15,
"should not perish"; 11:41, "where the dead was laid";
16:16, "because I go to the father."
   ACTS: omissions in NIV.   7:30, "of the Lord"; 7:37,
"Him shall ye hear"; 10:6, "He shall tell thee what thou
oughtest to do"
; 15:18, "Known unto God are all his
works from the foundation of the world"
; 20:24, "But
none of these things move me"
; 23:9, "let us not fight
against God"
; 28:16, "The centurion delivered the
prisoners to the captain of the guard."

   NIV omits the following: Rom. 8:1, "who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit"
; Rom. 13:9, "Thou
shalt not bear false witness"
; I Cor. 6:20, "and in your
spirit which are God's"
; I Cor. 7:39, "by the law"; I Cor.
11:24; "Take eat...broken for you"; II Cor. 10:4, "but
mighty through God"
; Gal. 3:1, "that you should not
obey the truth"
; Gal. 3:17; 4:7, "in Christ", "through
Christ"
; Eph. 5:30, "of His flesh and of His bones"; Phil.
3:16, "let us mind the same thing"; I Tim. 6:5, "from
such withdraw thyself"
; Heb. 7:21, "after the order of
Melchisedec"
; Heb. 10:30, "saith the Lord"; Heb. 10:34,
"in heaven"; Heb. 11:11, "was delivered of a child"; I
Pet. 1:22, "through the Spirit"; I Pet. 4:14, "on their
part He is evil spoken of, but on your part He is
glorified"
; I John 2:24, "from the beginning"; I John
2:20, "and ye know all things"; I John 4:3, "Christ is
come in the flesh"
; I John 5:13, "and that ye may believe
on the name of the Son of God"
; Rev. 5:14, "Him that
liveth for ever and ever"
; Rev. 11:17, "and art come";
Rev. 14:5, "before the throne of God"; Rev. 21:24, "of
them which are saved"
.
   Remember that all of the above in italics has
been removed in NIV!
  How can anyone say that NIV
is the word of God?   Shame upon men who will mutilate
God's word in this manner!!!

NIV And The Deity Of Christ
   NIV, like most of the new versions, tends to human-
ize our Lord Jesus Christ.   The name "Christ" has
been omitted in passage after passage.   "Christ" is
His messianic name, showing that He is the anointed
one.   In some cases when He is called "Jesus Christ"
or "Jesus the Christ", NIV removes "Jesus" which
tends to deny that Jesus is the Messiah.   "Lord" is
removed in some instances which is a blow against
His Lordship.   NIV does not deny the deity of Christ
completely, but it does tend to humanize Him, as we
are sure our readers can see.
   The deity of Christ in the Gospels.   ITALICS
reveal the words removed in NIV.
  Matthew 1:25,
"firstborn son", 8:29, "Jesus, thou Son of God?";
16:20, "Jesus the Christ"; 24:36, "My Father",
NIV reads "the Father"; 27:54, "Truly this was the
Son of God"
, NIV footnote says, "or a son".   There is
a world of difference in these two statements.   Mark
1:1, "Jesus Christ, the Son of God", NIV footnote
says, "Some MSS omit the Son of God"; 9:24, "Lord
I believe"
; 15:39, "Truly this man was the Son of
God"
, NIV footnote says, "or a son"; Luke 2:23, "And

Joseph and his mother marveled", NIV reads "The
child's father and mother"
; 2:43, "Joseph and his
mother"
, NIV reads "his parents"; 23:42, "And he
said unto Jesus, Lord remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom"
, NIV removes "Lord"
and this is a very important error that affects the
salvation of the repentant thief and the deity and
Lordship of our Saviour.
   Omissions from John.   4:42 "is indeed the
Christ"
; 6:47 "he that believeth on me hath ever-
lasting life"
; 9:35, "Son of God", NIV changes to
"Son of Man"; NIV omits "begotten" from John 1:14,
18; 3:16, 18.   Instead of "only begotten Son" NIV reads
"one and only Son".   This is incorrect, for every
saved person is a "son of God."   But in 1:14 and 18
"Son" is put in brackets which is to indicate that it
does not belong in the text.   "Begotten" is a transla-
tion of the Greek word "monogenes".   It comes from
two Greek words, "monos" and "gennao".   "Monos"
means "alone" or "only".   "Gennao" means "be-
gotten"
or "begat", but NIV does not translate this
at all.
   ITALICS indicate omissions.   Acts 2:37, "ac-
cording to the flesh He raised up Christ"
; 7:30, "of
the Lord"
; 9:6, "Lord what wilt thou have me to
do"
.   This affects His deity and Saul's salvation.   13:33,
"As it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
  NIV says,
". . . today I have become your Father."   Quite a dif-
ference!   16:31 "Lord Jesus Christ"; Rom. 1:16,
"gospel of Christ"; Rom. 9:5, NIV's translation
plus the footnote make for confusion.   Rom. 10:17, NIV
changes "word of God" to "word of Christ"; I Cor.
5:4, "Lord Jesus Christ", "Christ" omitted twice
in this verse.   I Cor. 9:1, "Jesus Christ our Lord";
I Cor. 15:47, "the second man is the Lord from hea-
ven"
; I Cor. 16:22 "Lord Jesus Christ"; I Cor.
16:23, "Lord Jesus Christ"; II Cor. 4:6, "Jesus
Christ"
; II Cor. 4:10, "The Lord Jesus"; II Cor.
5:18, "Jesus Christ"; II Cor. 11:31, "Lord Jesus
Christ"
; Gal. 3:17; 4:7; 6:15 NIV omits "in Christ",
"through Christ" and "For in Christ Jesus".   6:17,
"Lord Jesus".
   The following words that are printed in
ITALICS are omitted from NIV.
  Eph. 3:9, "God,
who created all things by Jesus Christ"
; Eph. 3:14
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ"
; Col. 1:2, "Peace, from God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ"
; Col. 1:14,
"Redemption through His blood"; Col. 1:28, "Christ
Jesus"
; I Thess. 1:1, "from God the Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ"
; I Thess. 3:11, 13, "Christ"
omitted twice by NIV.   II Thess. 1:8, "Lord Jesus
Christ"
; I Tim. 2:7, "in Christ"; I Tim. 5:21
"Lord Jesus Christ"; II Tim. 4:1, "Lord Jesus
Christ"
; II Tim. 4:22, "Lord Jesus Christ"; Titus
1:4, "Lord Jesus Christ"; Philemon 6, "Christ
Jesus"
; Heb. 3:1, "Christ Jesus"; I Pet. 5:10,
"Christ Jesus"; I John 4:3, "Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh
"
; II John 3, "the Lord Jesus Christ";
Rev. 1:9, "Jesus Christ"; Rev. 12:17, "Jesus Christ."

"God Was Manifest In The Flesh"
   KJV I Tim. 3:16, "And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness; God was
manifest in the flesh..."

   NIV I Tim. 3:16, "Beyond all question, the mystery
of godliness is great: He appeared in a body . . ."

   The KJV is very clear in showing that "God was

manifest in the flesh", but NIV says "He appeared
in a body . . ."
  The KJV shows that Jesus was God,
while the NIV makes it unclear by substituting "He".
We do not have space to discuss this at length, but
Burgon proved that "God" is correct.   Also, "True
or False"
edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller, contains
17 pages of solid proof of the KJV rendering written
by Terence H. Brown.

Jesus Cannot Be Especially Emphatic In NIV
   "Amen" is translated from a Hebrew word about
50 times in the New Testament KJV.   NIV sometimes
translates this word "Amen" and sometimes it is left
out completely.   This same Hebrew word is used to
introduce or emphasize a statement many times and
the KJV uniformly renders it "verily" as in Matt.
5:18, 20; 6:2, 5, 16 and many other places.   NIV
usually translates this word as "I tell you the truth"
or "I tell you".   In the book of John "verily,
verily"
occurs 25 times, always on the lips of
Jesus, and is thus rendered in the KJV.   This is the
especially emphatic use of the word.   However, NIV
does not render this in the especially emphatic
form in even one instance, but translates it each
time as "I tell you the truth."   NIV will not allow
Jesus to be especially emphatic.   We think that
"verily, verily" is correct, but the Revised Stan-
dard Version
renders it better than NIV, by saying
"truly, truly".
   We cannot close without calling attention to at
least two other passages badly mangled by NIV.   KJV
Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the re-
mission of sins..."
  NIV renders this, "Repent
and be baptized everyone of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ so that your sins may be forgiven."
  The chang-
ing of "for" to "so" is a blunder.   Even though the
KJV translates "eis" several different ways, it is
never translated "so".   If NIV is to be taken literal-
ly, then baptism is essential to salvation.   KJV Heb.
1:3, "When he had by himself purged our
sins..."
  NIV renders this, "After he had pro-
vided purification for sins . . ."
  The omission of
"by Himself" and "our" sins certainly weakens
the text.   No italics are used in the text of NIV, so
this leaves them free to add words without the
reader knowing this.   The KJV uses italics to show
the words added by the translators, and in our
opinion any honest translation should do this.

Why Did NIV Turn Out So Badly?
   1. We are convinced that the number one rea-
son why NIV is such a poor translation is be-
cause they used the wrong Greek text.
  From the
"Preface" of NIV we quote, "The Greek text used
in the work of translation was an electic one.   No
other piece of ancient literature has so much manu-
script support as does the New Testament.
  Where
existing texts differ, the translators made
their choice of reading in accord with sound
principles of textual criticism."
  Their "sound
principles of textual criticism"
should be la-
beled "unsound principles of textual criti-
cism."
  We can thank the "unsound textual
critics"
for the many terrible versions in circula-
tion today.   It is clear that the translators have
slavishly followed the Wescott and Hort text and
textual theories.   In spite of all their claims, this

theory elevates the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts
above all others.   When in fact, these two manuscripts
are among the most corrupt manuscripts in existence
today.   They did not rely on the Textus Receptus
which the KJV was translated from, even though 90
to 95 percent of all manuscripts are in essential
agreement with this text.
   To prove the above statement we have checked on
151 key corruptions found in the Westcott-Hort text
and we have found that NIV either in the text or
in the footnotes have agreed 138 times, or over
91% of the time.
  Out of 162 scriptures often cor-
rupted by the new versions we find Westcott-Hort
in agreement 93% of the time, and NIV in agreement
92% of the time.   On the same basis the New English
Version
rates 92% and the Revised Standard Ver-
sion
97%.   Some highly recommend the New Ameri-
can Standard Version
, but it also rates over 90% in
agreement with these corrupt versions.   The King
James Version and the Textus Receptus rate
0%.
  The lower the percentage the better.
   We do not doubt that some of the translators la-
bored hard and long to produce a good version, but
they could not do it.   Why?   They followed modern
textual criticism, and we are convinced that even
the most fundamental scholars cannot come up with
a good version of the Bible if they follow the
modern textual theories.   The best carpenter will
fail if his lumber is rotten and decayed.   Skill in
any trade will go just so far, but if the craftsman is
deceived into working with inferior material, he will
fail in the end.   No where is this more evident than in
Bible translation.
   2. The second reason for NIV's poor quality
may be found in the translators themselves.

The Preface to NIV says, "Certain convictions and
aims have guided the translators.   They are all com-
mitted to the full authority and complete trust-
worthiness of the Scriptures, which they believe to
be God's Word in written form."
  There is at least
two things wrong with this statement.   (1) While it
sounds good on the surface, it is entirely too am-
biguous to suit us.   It is open to a number of inter-
pretations, and this we believe they had to make it
that way, in order to make up their 100 member
committee.   How much simpler to have said that all
the translators believed in verbal (word for word)
inspiration.   I am sure that part of the committee
does believe in verbal inspiration, but until they say
so in writing, we are going to doubt that they all do.
(2) Frankly we are not impressed with the long list
of names and the schools that they are associated
with.   It is very evident that the "New Evangelical"
schools are heavily represented on the translation
committee.   Among others, we find that this com-
mittee contains 6 men from Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School, and several from Fuller, Wheaton,
Dallas, and even Oral Roberts University.   Why does
Oral Roberts University need to be represented?   How
sad to see Clyde T. Francisco of Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary represented.   In the early 60's
Dr. Ralph Elliott stirred a furor in the Southern
Baptist Convention with his book, "The Mes-
sage of Genesis."
  Dr. Elliott's book denied the
historical accuracy of the first 12 chapters of
Genesis.   Adam meant mankind and Moses did not
write the Pentateuch, the tower of Babel is a
parable, Enoch was not translated, and the age of
men before the flood is doubtful
, these as well as

other heresies are contained in Elliott's book.
And where did Elliott get his ideas?   In his
introduction he said, "Though the material in this
book is mine, and I do not wish anyone else to be
charged with its deficiencies, I do wish to express
my appreciation to Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, my
teacher and later a colleague on the faculty of
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville,
Kentucky.   It was in an elective course in the Pen-
tateuch under his guidance that I first gained in-
spiration and purpose to attempt a serious study of
the Book of Genesis.   Thus, I am sure that many
of the insights which culminated in my own
mind were placed there in seed-bed fashion
by him."
  To this date we have never heard of Dr.
Francisco denying this.   Even the Revised Standard
Version
sponsors chose a better man from among
Southern Baptists, when they chose Kyle M. Yates
for the translation committee of the RSV.   (3) The
translators that even believe in verbal inspiration
must not believe in the Divine preservation of the
word of God, since they are searching among the
manuscripts for it.   If their view is correct, then the
Church has been without the true word of God for
over 1500 years and is still searching for it among
the manuscripts.   What a mess!   Surely God is not the
author of such confusion.
   3. We question this version on the basis of
some of its enthusiastic supporters.
  Dr. Billy
Graham
wrote, "The New York Bible Society is ren-
dering a distinct service to the English-speaking
world by sponsoring a major new translation of the
Bible by the leading evangelical scholars of Ameri-
ca."
  That sounds good, but Billy Graham has en-
dorsed the Revised Standard Version, Good News For
Modern Man
and the Living Bible.   So his endorse-
ment is not reassuring.   The National Association of
Evangelicals has been in sympathy with the produc-
tion of NIV, and many of the translators are mem-
bers of this group.   The NAE is shot through and
through with new evangelicalism.
   One church leader quoted in a NIV promotional
brochure said, "I have read the New International
Version and found that it preserves the dignity
of the K.J.V.
and the accuracy of the R.S.V.
and the New American Standard Bible along
with the free-flowing readability of the Living
Bible."
  We believe he put NIV in the right class.
Need we say more?

   If your are interested in more information on
the modern versions, we recommend the fol-
lowing books:
"Which Bible?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller,
"True or False?" by Dr. David Otis Fuller,
"God Wrote Only One Bible" by J.J. Ray,
"The King James Version Defended!" by Dr. Edward
   F. Hills.

Tract # A-217 Order From: Tabernacle Baptist Church
1911 34th St., P.O. Box 3100, Lubbock, Tx 79452
Send payment with order and we pay the postage!
If total order is less than $5.00 add .50 cents.
10 for $2.00   100 for $ 8.00   500 for $28.00
50 for $5.00   250 for $16.00   1,000 for $44.00
··All foreign add 40% and send U.S. Funds··
For current discount prices send stamped envelope!

[Christian Helps Ministry (USA)] [Christian Home Bible Course]