In the next few posts, I will present what I feel to be the single most important problem with the NIV. It has already caused a change in the theology of many, and its influence has touched our own Adventist church as well.

This issue, in fact, is subtle, and appealing to us as sinners looking for an easy shortcut to relief from our burdens of guilt. In Paul's words, "I had not known sin, but by the law" (Romans 7:7). Therefore, the law, as it has always been, is the special object of Satan's attacks.

It is this law which has been greatly undermined in the NIV. Specifically, three major errors seem to surface in the NIV translation:

1) The law is not so important nor enduring;
2) The law can be changed from time to time; and
3) At the cross, it was completely abolished.

The NIV would have us believe that we are saved by grace, and that it is impossible for mankind, in our sinful state, to keep the law. According to the NIV, Christ's perfect life is our substitute, and we are not called to such perfection. Rather, we are under His grace, and no longer obligated to follow the law.

I will separate this into more than one post. The first one will give a more general sense of how the NIV translators treat the law in various places. It is important to see this, as it will demonstrate the lengths to which they would go to obscure the more critical texts which I will present in the second post. I may still post additional material on this same topic later as I have opportunity, for these next two posts will not exhaust this topic by any means.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD showed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them, (Exodus 15:25, KJV)	Then Moses cried out to the Lord, and the Lord showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There the Lord made a decree and a law for them, and there he tested them. (Exodus 15:25, NIV)
The NIV exchanges "ordinance" for "law" and "statute" for "decree." It would seem they are just changing words here for the sake of being different, since these words are no more "modern" than their KJV equivalents.
Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. (Exodus 23:6, KJV)	“Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. (Exodus 23:6, NIV)
What? It's ok to file lawsuits if you are poor? Notice also the switch from "judgment" to "justice."
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. (Exodus 24:12, KJV)	The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction.” (Exodus 24:12, NIV)
Commandments, here, become less emphasized in the NIV, by converting the word to "commands." This would seem quite a minor change were it not for the quantity of similar, small adjustments here and there made in the NIV.
In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. (Exodus 27:21, KJV)	In the Tent of Meeting, outside the curtain that is in front of the Testimony, Aaron and his sons are to keep the lamps burning before the Lord from evening till morning. This is to be a lasting ordinance among the Israelites for the generations to come. (Exodus 27:21, NIV)
Here the term "statute" becomes "ordinance." Additionally, "for ever" is downgraded to "lasting." There is a reason for this, for according to the NIV, even the law of 10 Commandments is considered abolished at the cross, which we will see later, so how could such a trivial "ordinance" be "for ever" (even in a spiritual sense)?
Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. (Exodus 31:16, KJV)	The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. (Exodus 31:16, NIV)
Again, "perpetual" gets downgraded in the NIV to "lasting," for the same reasons as mentioned above. The NIV will later abolish this law, so they do not wish to say here that it is to last forever.
And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he gave them in commandment all that the LORD had spoken with him in mount Sinai. (Exodus 34:32, KJV)	Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai. (Exodus 34:32, NIV)
The NIV translation is not incorrect, but this downplays the significance of the "Commandments" we have become accustomed to, as if they were ordinary commands. Either "commands" or "commandments" would have been a correct translation of the Hebrew. The question is, which word is more correct in terms of the English concept?
It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. (Leviticus 3:17, KJV)	“ ‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’ ” (Leviticus 3:17, NIV)
Remember how last time the NIV changed "ordinance" to "law" and "statute" to "decree"? Well, now they exchange "statute" for "ordinance!"
And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations. (Leviticus 17:7, KJV)	They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols [fn3] to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.’ Footnote: Or demons (Leviticus 17:7, NIV)
Again, the NIV plays musical chairs with the terminology.
Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 18:4, KJV)	You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 18:4, NIV)
And now, judgments become laws, and ordinances become decrees! (Are we confused yet?)
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. (Leviticus 18:5, KJV)	Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:5, NIV)
More musical chairs in the terminology here.
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 18:30, KJV)	Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’ ” (Leviticus 18:30, NIV)
Now "ordinance" becomes "requirements," a new term.
Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. (Malachi 4:4, KJV)	“Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. (Malachi 4:4, NIV)
Of the 22 times the "law of Moses" is mentioned in the Bible, this is the only one the NIV chose to change--doing so by reordering the words here. Do you see why? Do you see what else they changed in this verse?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:12, KJV)	For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. (Hebrews 7:12, NIV)
The NIV changes the meaning here so that it can better fit the Roman Catholic priestly order. The subtle change in this text now allows for a change of law every time there is a change in the priesthood. The original text referred to one and only one change in priesthood, that of Christ.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, (Hebrews 7:15, KJV)	And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, (Hebrews 7:15, NIV)
The KJV asserts that there does arise another priest after Melchisedec. The NIV questions this fact, and makes it dubious with the word "if".
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. (Hebrews 7:16, KJV)	one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. (Hebrews 7:16, NIV)
The changes here in the NIV make the original meaning obscure. The two verses seem hardly similar. Indeed, less than a third of the words are the same as the KJV, even though the NIV added fifty percent more words.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (Hebrews 7:18, KJV)	The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (Hebrews 7:18, NIV)
Was the law useless? Pay special attention to the NIV use of "regulation" in place of "commandment" here. In other words, in the NIV, "regulation" is a rather important word.
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Hebrews 7:19, KJV)	(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:19, NIV)
The verb tenses have changed. This may have more significance when combined with other passages.
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. (Galatians 3:12, KJV)	The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” [fn5] Footnote: Lev. 18:5 (Galatians 3:12, NIV)
I understand the KJV rendition differently from the NIV rendering here.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: (Colossians 2:16, KJV)	Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. (Colossians 2:16, NIV)
This is a special attack on the Sabbath commandment by the NIV translators. They opted to capitalize it to make certain the reader will interpret this as the seventh-day Sabbath. Paul did not mean this at all. The "sabbaths" he referred to, and this is clear from the context as well, were the ceremonial sabbaths which might fall on any day of the week. The ceremonial system had ended at the cross, but the fourth commandment did not!
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, KJV)	Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, NIV)
The NIV here makes it appear that the law of Moses could justify some things, whereas the KJV rendition would have us believe that the law justifies nothing. The difference is a comma!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The BIG DEAL! ~ The Law ~
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:6, KJV)	But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:6, NIV)
Instead of being "delivered from the law" (from its penalty), the NIV changes this text to say that we are not longer required to follow it! The NIV translators would have us believe that we are now "released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The KJV translation shows us that we serve with renewed courage ("newness of spirit"). In short, the NIV flipped this text on its head and converted the meaning to exactly the opposite of the original intent.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. (Romans 10:4, KJV)	Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4, NIV)
Wow! Whereas the KJV tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the law, the NIV claims He ended it so that we could be righteous (without it)! The KJV use of the word "end," in the Old English sense here, gives the meaning that when we follow the law, we end up at Christ. The law leads us to Him. However, the NIV gives us the promise of "modern English" and therefore leads us to conclude the law is finished, over, and past. Such is simply not true!
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13, KJV)	By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Hebrews 8:13, NIV)
"Old" does not mean "obsolete." If we use these terms as synonyms, it will be a very simple step to reject the "Old Testament" as "obsolete," or even the "Old Book" as "obsolete!"
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:14, KJV)	having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:14, NIV)
Remember all those things the NIV converted "ordinances" to before? Well, now it's a new term. This time, "written code" only occurs four times in the entire NIV, all of them in the New Testament. This removes any possible correlation to the Old Testament equivalent to which Paul is referring in this text. (And of course this term "written code" never appears in the KJV at all.) So the writers of the NIV have essentially written you a blank check with this term, which you can apply however you like! Compare this with the verse in Ephesians, which also uses the word "ordinances," but which the NIV treats differently, and I think you will see their agenda very clearly. Pay special attention to the "handwriting of ordinances" term in the KJV. This refers to the sacrificial/ceremonial laws, and to the rules set down for civil governance in Israel, which were handwritten and placed in a pocket outside of the ark of the covenant. The Ten Commandments were engraved upon stone by God Himself, and were kept inside the ark. These two sets of laws then, were not given the same degree of importance.
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (Ephesians 2:15, KJV)	by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, (Ephesians 2:15, NIV)
Here the NIV translators could hardly have stated their claim more clearly! ALL of the following are now abolished: the law, the commandments, and the regulations! No need to obey the law! We're free of it! Rid of it! It's GONE! (Too bad the KJV still tells us the truth, though, that it was only the commandments given in those "ordinances" that were kept outside of the ark that have been abolished.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:23, KJV)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23, NIV)

Only one word differs in the translation, but this one word makes a significant difference. There are two ways to understand the grammar in the KJV: 1) We have a compound verb (i.e. "have sinned" and "have come short"). This puts the sinning in the past tense where it belongs. 2) The words "come short" mean "do not equal" instead of indicating a state of sinfulness. We will never match God's glory, even in eternity, so this would be forever true. However, the NIV use of the word "fall" destroys both of these two possible interpretations: 1) The word "fall" is in the present tense, and not the past, so that if this refers to sin, it means we must continue to do so. 2) The word "fall" suggests that one has once been at a higher level, and has now descended, i.e. sinned. Throughout the Bible, to fall is to sin. Thus, the NIV translators would have you believe, here, that it is not possible for fallen humanity to cease falling, but that we must continue to sin...presumably until we are transformed at the Lord's appearing.

Now, let's take a careful look at the words "come short" (just one word in Greek). Lest we come to the wrong conclusion on this point, it is helpful to understand just how this word was used in the Greek. Again, referencing from BlueLetterBible.org, we can see the Strong's numbers and meanings for this word. We can also see a sampling of other verses which use the same word.

Rom 3:23 For 1063 all 3956 have sinned 264 , and 2532 come short 5302 of the glory 1391 of God 2316; Luk 15:14 And 1161 when he 846 had spent 1159 all 3956, there arose 1096 a mighty 2478 famine 3042 in 2596 that 1565 land 5561; and 2532 he 846 began 756 to be in want 5302 . Jhn 2:3 And 2532 when they wanted 5302 wine 3631, the mother 3384 of Jesus 2424 saith 3004 unto 4314 him 846, They have 2192 no 3756 wine 3631. 2Cr 11:9 And 2532 when I was present 3918 with 4314 you 5209, and 2532 wanted 5302 , I was 3756 chargeable 2655 to no man 3762: for 1063 that which was lacking 5303 to me 3450 the brethren 80 which came 2064 from 575 Macedonia 3109 supplied 4322 : and 2532 in 1722 all 3956 [things] I have kept 5083 myself 1683 from being burdensome 4 unto you 5213, and 2532 [so] will I keep 5083 [myself].

Outline of Biblical Usage 1) behind a) to come late or too tardily 1) to be left behind in the race and so fail to reach the goal, to fall short of the end 2) metaph. fail to become a partaker, fall back from b) to be inferior in power, influence and rank 1) of the person: to be inferior to c) to fail, be wanting d) to be in want of, lack 2) to suffer want, to be devoid of, to lack (be inferior) in excellence, worth Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 16 AV — lack 3, be behind 2, want 2, come short 1, be in want 1, fail 1, come behind 1, be destitute 1, misc 4

In other words, what this well known verse might actually be telling us is that we need more of God's glory! Isn't that a beautiful thought? Instead of telling us we have to keep sinning, it is telling us where to go for help.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding Rom. 3:22, "sinned" is the aorist (punctiliar past tense) while "come short" is the present indicative. Young's Literal Translation has:



I'm not sure why they chose "are" instead of "do"; i.e.



This reads better, I think.

Anyway, there's two different tenses involved in the Greek.

There are some who believe the first part (the aorist) is dealing with humanity corporately sinning in Adam. Perhaps Colin might step in here to comment, as I believe he holds this view.

Regarding post 116613, I'm not understanding much of your point here, and I have no love lost for the NIV. For example:



This, and several other similar comments, make it sound as if the NIV were translating from the KJV. But, of course, they're translating from the Hebrew. So to speak of them "changing words" in this context doesn't make sense. They're not changing any words from the KJV, but translating them from the Hebrew.



None of these comments make sense. It doesn't matter how the NIV reads compared to the KJV, but how each of these compares to the Hebrew. If the NIV is being inconsistent in the way its translating Hebrew words, that would be a valid argument. But to just present verses in the KJV that are different from the NIV doesn't mean anything.

Similar comments would follow for the rest of the post. I don't see how you can possibly make an argument that the KJV is more accurate than the NIV without presenting the original text, and seeing how each translate that text.

Great job on the HTML tables! Looks great.

I'll comment on more text, Romans 10:4.



On what basis to dyou think the KJV tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the law? You make the claim that the KJV is using the word "end" in the "Old English" sense here. Why is this claim being made? That is, what is the basis for this claim? I don't think "end" ever meant "fulfillment". What it meant, and still means, to my understanding, is "goal." (at least, that's one of the meanings).

So when one says, "Christ is the end of the law to righteousness," this can be understood as meaning, "Christ is the goal of the law to righteousness." The word "end" still has this meaning in Modern English, as much as it did in Old English. For example, "To what end are you doing this?"

So when the NIV translates



there's no reason this can't mean



The word "telos" in the Greek has the same ambiguity as the word "end" in English. The reader has to decide from the context whether it should mean "goal" or "termination," and the NIV is allowing the reader as much an opportunity to do this as the KJV is, it looks to me.

Here's where I would pick a bone with the NIV translation. The KJV says that Christ is the end of the law "for righteousness to everyone that believeth." What does the "for righteousness" mean? There's a lot of debate about that, as much as in regards to what "end of the law" means. For example, does it mean "Christ is the end of the law ... for righteousness" or does it mean "Christ is the end of ... the law for righteousness"?

This particular verse (as well as many cited in Hebrews and Romans) is quite difficult, and lends itself to many interpretations. Something I like about the KJV is that it often preserves that same ambiguity that exists in the Greek. Young's Literal Translation does this too. But the NIV resolves it for you. So the NIV solves the problem of possible interpretations by translating the verse



The "so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" I find to be objectionable in a translation (but not in a paraphrase, where I would expect this sort of assistance) because that phrase in the Greek (which the KJV nicely leaves open, by translating it "Christ is the end of the law to righteousness for all who believe") can be interpreted in many different ways. The NIV interprets it for you. I'd rather the translation leave the different possible interpretations open for the reader.

Yes and no. It is most certainly true that they were not translating from the KJV, but it is also true that the NIV translators had several incentives to translate differently from the KJV.

1) If it were not sufficiently unique, people would just keep using their KJV.
2) They had an agenda to reduce the influence of the KJV, so by providing a different translation, they could effectively cause people to wonder about the KJV's own rendering.
3) U.S. copyright law--and I suppose this was the biggest deal of these three, as the NIV committee definitely wanted some revenue from their product--apparently requires that a work be at least a certain percent original in order to be eligible for a copyright. The NIV happens to be one of the most strictly-copyrighted modern translations. (I wish I could remember where I came across this detail.)

An interesting documentary-style piece on the KJV which touches on the NIV's relationship to it, I found online.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There are several hindrances to posting the original text and/or references to it here. One is that it would raise the level of scholarship necessary to understand the points here considerably, and most people would simply not bother to read it.

However, I have made it a point to link every single text here to BlueLetterBible.org, where anyone who chooses may find the Strong's numbers for the Hebrew and Greek words used, and where you also have access to the Bible dictionaries and to a number of commentaries.

I have frequently looked words up in my own concordance before including them in my list. I have not, however, taken time to look up everything. You are welcome to provide feedback on what is here.

I would encourage people to use the links provided to find out more about these texts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, I agree with most everything in your post #116622. I may have chosen the wrong word with "fulfillment." I was looking for a way of expressing my understanding, and struggling...like that "Taboo" game where one is supposed to give clues to a word without using the word itself or certain synonyms of it.

Thanks for your input.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.