New Bible translations compromise Christ's deity - 11/30/2004
Thank you for sending this newsletter to me. I do not remember requesting it but thank you anyway. I am a King James Bible believing Christian, and I do not agree with your article on some points though. I want to say, painting all King James Bible advocates with the same brush is wrong. I have never read Gail Riplingers stuff or Ruckman either. I did read a book by Pastor DA Waite called "Defending the King James Bible", and I was shocked at how many doctrines were attacked in the newer versions.(Especially the doctrine of the Diety of Christ) I'll give you a few examples...1 John 3:16, 1 Timothy 3:16, Revelation 1:11, 1 Corinthians 15: 47(just a very few.)
I know there are lots of people that get saved reading modern versions of the bible. I praise God for that. And I do not look down on others for not taking the same stand that I do on this issue. On the other hand, I do believe that "EVERY WORD" of God is very precious. It bothers me that "Alpha & Omega" is taken out of the newer versions in Revelation 1:11, and so it should. This is an important scripture proving the diety of my Lord! Coming from a JW background, I can assure you that taking away from Christ's diety in a bible does much damage to the cause of Christ.
I agree that some churches can get legalistic as far as certain dress, and this I believe is not good. On the other hand, I see many KJ Bible believing churches preaching the Gospel in an uncompremising way, and for that I am grateful. I hope you will give Pastor DA Waites book a read, and see all the many times the diety of Christ is attacked in modern versions [as well as other fundamental doctrines].
I want to end with one question...has all the modern translations that have come out in the last 100 years strengthened the cause of Christ? Just a question in warm Christian love,
Mrs Laurie C.
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Hi Mrs. C. Thanks for writing. You say you disagree with my article, and that's perfectly fine, but it sounds like you didn't read it fully. I say this because many of the scripture references you mentioned are covered in the article. The fact remains, that of the passages that are key in the deity of Jesus, the NIV and NASB are slightly clearer than the KJV. I encourage you to go back and read the article to verify that. I have Mr. Waite's book. I found his scholarship to be lacking and his book to be misleading. He consistently only covers half the picture, when the other half is very relevant. I also agree that every word of God is important. However, you are assuming that the KJV represents an entirely accurate portrait of God's Word as it was originally written by the prophets and apostles. That is simply not backed up by the evidence. It's faulty thinking to start with an assumption, and disregard anything that doesn't support that assumption. If you read my article, I don't see how in good conscience you can believe that the NIV and NASB attack the deity of Christ. In answer to your question: No, not all modern translations have helped the cause of Christ. The NWT is a prime example of that. The NWT is really not a translation though, as no one on the NWT translation committee knew Greek or Hebrew. The NIV and NASB have been instrumental in furthering the cause of Christ though. Let me ask you a question. I think we both agree that we should not take away from the Word of God. Would you not also agree that it's dangerous to ADD to the Word of God? The KJV does just that in many places. However, it does not pervert the key doctrines of the Bible by doing so, so I don't have a problem with that. By the same token, by using older and more reliable manuscripts, the NIV and NASB don't have certain words, phrases, and verses that were later added and included in the KJV. Yet they do not pervert the key doctrines of the Bible either.
I appreciate very much the fact that we were able to discuss this in love. That should ALWAYS be the case. Too many KJO advocates do not handle it in this way. I'm sorry if you felt I painted all KJO advocates with the same brush. I know there are various positions within the KJO camp, and I primarily address those who believe the KJV is the only accurate English translation, and are militant that everyone else accept that faulty premise. By the way, you or someone you know signed you up for this newsletter on May 26, 2004. If you have any other questions, comments or concerns after reading the article, I encourage you to write back.
Love in Christ,
Ben and Jennifer Rast
p.s. We praise God for those who accept Christ, whether they were led their with the KJV, the NIV, or the NASB. Mormonism is a works-based cult that only accepts the KJV, so we frequently use the KJV when witnessing to Mormons.