The following is the online edition of a 6 sided leaflet which we have prepared on the New International Version. The leaflet includes two pictures which cannot be reproduced here online. As the leaflet itself acknowledges, it is not an exhaustive study on the subject.

WHICH BIBLE SHOULD I USE? 
THE AUTHORISED VERSION 
OR THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION? 

DEFINING THE ISSUES
The Authorised Version (AV) was translated in 1611 with several very slight revisions afterwards. The edition mostly in use today is the 1769 edition. The New International Version (NIV) dates back to the late 1970's. I mention it specifically because it is commonly used among evangelical Christians who profess to uphold the word of God. Many of the arguments employed to expose the weaknesses of the NIV may be employed against other modern translations. None of the arguments used here are exhaustive (6 sided leaflet?) A helpful website address appears at the end of the leaflet for those who wish to pursue the matter further.

SETTING OUT MY STALL
The writer is an Authorised Version (or King James Version) man and has been for much of his Christian life. While at first this tended to come with the furniture in the evangelical circles he moved in...he has since studied the issues, looking at the arguments from both sides, weighing up the pros and cons, his answer to the question posed in the title is:

"WHY USE THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE"
"HAS GOD PRESERVED HIS WORD...IF SO HOW and WHERE?

If all scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) then the Bible is no ordinary book and not therefore subject to the severe limitations which ordinary books have. It is unreasonable to suppose that God gave us His word and then allowed corrupted versions to be in general use in his church until late into the 19th century. God declares that the faith was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) God's word was preserved through the ages through general use by his people...not hidden in the pope's library or a remote monastery in the Sinai desert, as effectively claimed by those whose translation is based on manuscripts which were relatively lately discovered. 

ARE OVER 90% OF ALL AVAILABLE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS WRONG?
The AV is based on the readings from over 90% of the available Greek mss. The NIV is based largely on 2 mss (the Vaticanus and the Sinaticus) although these are older texts, yet they are in a very small minority.

MUST THE 2 OLDEST AVAILABLE MANUSCRIPTS OVERRULE THE REST?
It is not a weak argument to say that the nearer we get to the original autographs (which are lost) then the less likely the text will be corrupted. However, this is built on the assumption that the oldest mss now available are indeed copies of the original. This is not proven and it is a big step to remove the ancient landmarks which our fathers have set (Proverbs 22:28) on its basis. Many well loved portions of scripture are jettisoned on this basis...including the prayer of the Lord Jesus for His crucifiers: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." (luke 23:34) If the NIV texts are right...the Lord Jesus never said this at all and the much preached on "7 cries from the cross" series needs to be radically revised to remove the somewhat pious though uninspired thoughts of a mere scribe. Click here for a fuller treatment of this verse.
It is therefore best to keep with the vast majority of available mss than to ditch them for a meagre 2 very questionable mss. The case is far from proved and until it is, we should keep with those mss which have served the church of Jesus Christ through some of its most fruitful periods in history e.g. the Protestant Reformation and the Great Evangelical awakenings.

CAN I HAVE MY 6,000 VERSES OF SCRIPTURE BACK PLEASE?
It is estimated that the modern versions, based on Pope's texts, differ from the Received Text of the AV in about 6,000 places. Important doctrinal verses are compromised (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:16 "God" is changed to "he") while parts of verses are omitted (e.g. Hebrews 1:3 ("by himself") often entire verses are omitted altogether. (e.g. Luke 23:34). Along with Mark 16:9-20, the NIV footnotes tells us that 7:53-8:11 are not found in what it is pleased to pronounce "the earliest and most reliable mss" This is the passage where we read of the woman taken in adultery. However when we read it in the NIV - we are introduced to a great doubt as to its authenticity. Did the Lord Jesus really say: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."...or is this another spoof case of forgiveness, fostered on the word of God by an over zealous scribe?

WHAT GOD INTENDED TO SAY? 
The controversy many have with the NIV - as opposed even to some of the "older" modern versions - goes beyond what group of mss to translate from. The AV translators believed in giving us (as far as possible) a word-for-word translation. They managed to do this without appearing "wooden" as translations from one language into another can often appear. By contrast the NIV translators abandoned this ancient and accepted practice to adopt a new method. Their argument is that we need a thought-for-thought translation. The NIV translator wants to know what was the writer thinking when he wrote his piece in the 1st century ad and how can we render it in such a way that 21st century folk will understand. This sounds good. Obviously the Bible must be made relevant to people living in every age. It is not a dated book, but the very eternal word of God. However, it introduces a very subtle though dangerous shift in Bible translation. We are no longer getting what God said...but what the translators think God said. It is the job of the preacher or the commentator to apply what God actually said into the modern setting. It is certainly not the job of the translator to do so and to incorporate it into the text as if it came from the mouth of God. It may well be that the interpretations which the NIV give are correct...but how can we search the scriptures to see whether they be so (acts 17:11) when the interpretations themselves have "become" the scriptures? A new edition of the NIV has been recently published called "Today's NIV" building on the principle that you can introduce into the very text what you think God thought when he wrote his word, the translators here have introduced a gender neutral translation which leaves the door open for women office bearers in the church. While many of "yesterdays (?) NIV" readers are unhappy with this...yet they do not have a consistent argument to raise against it. The new edition is only exercising the same "right" to rewrite God's word as the old one has done. "Today's NIV" and its gender neutral ideas has not encroached upon the masculine description of God but perhaps "Tomorrow's NIV" will. The precedent has been set. The stable door has been left open and it is only a matter of time before the horse bolts altogether. Where does it all end? probably somebody rediscovering "the form of sound words" which we are to "hold fast" in the first place! (2 Timothy 1:13) We reject the NIV therefore on the basis of its text and its dangerous principles of translation.

DO SINNERS UNDERSTAND THE AUTHORISED VERSION?
Admittedly some of the langauge of the AV has become archaic. However this is far from saying that it cannot be understood. Set up a microphone in the open air and start denouncing sin in AV langauge and you will discover just how much the sinner really does understand. The sinner does not need a new version...he needs a new heart! But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14) The most modern up to date version in the world will not change this. The sinner errs, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Matthew 22:29)

MORE INFORMATION?
Trinitarian Bible Society,
Tyndale House, Dorset road, London SW19 3NN, England, UK.
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org
e-mail: TBS@trinitarianbiblesociety.org
 THE END