Cheat Sheet #33

As you read this section, keep in mind that the New Testament is not merely a history book, it's meant to change us to become more and more like Jesus. When we read any passages in the New Testament, our goal should be to discern what God wants us to believe and do so that we can be obedient to Him.

All Bible translations are the work of a person or group who made interpretations, assumptions, and educated guesses about each verse of Scripture in order to translate it into a modern language such as English, and these people can easily be influenced by misunderstandings, misinterpretations, mistranslations, or biases. (Some of the interesting challenges of translating the Bible are described in my article called The "King James Only" View Is Mistaken.) Therefore, it's helpful to look at passages in different versions of the Bible rather than assuming that one translation is accurate and sufficient.

Consider that sometimes the U.S. sells fighter jets to other countries, such as Israel. Imagine if the training manual for those jets is translated into Hebrew, but there's a translation error. Because of this error, when an Israeli pilot first flies the plane and tries to lower the landing gear according to the manual, he gets ejected from the plane at low altitude instead, which could be dangerous. Or imagine a medical textbook that's translated into another language, but with a translation error telling the doctor to cut into the wrong internal organ. Translation errors can lead to major, sometimes dangerous, problems.

The NIV is generally considered to be a good translation of the Bible (it's not "bloodless" or "corrupt" as some people claim - see my article above). However, in some of my articles I've described how the paraphrases in the 1984 and 2011 editions of the NIV sometimes lead people to form wrong conclusions. These translation issues have caused Scripture to appear to contradict itself and have caused people to misunderstand Christian doctrines, including the doctrine of how to receive salvation.

Here are some of the translation issues I've seen, which demonstrate the importance of not relying on just one translation when we study the Bible:

From my article called Covenants, Dispensations, and the Ten Commandments - Part Three:

Ephesians 2:14-15 says that Jesus "destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations" (1984 NIV). Yet in Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them" (1984 NIV).

Prior to the 2011 edition, the NIV used the word "abolish" in both of the above passages, which makes it appear as if Paul's statement in Ephesians 2:14-15 contradicts Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:17. However, Paul and Jesus actually used different Greek words for "abolish" that have different meanings as explained in my article above.
From my article called Everything We Need to Know about Water Baptism - Part Four:

A disciple named Ananias told a man named Saul to "Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16 2011 NIV), and some people use this passage to argue that Saul needed to be baptized in water in order to receive salvation. However, my article shows that Ananias already knew that Saul was saved, so it would be reasonable for Ananias to tell Saul to be baptized "since you have already been calling on His name." This is consistent with the original Greek (unlike the NIV translation) as these Bible scholars point out:
"Unfortunately, the KJV, NASB, and NIV translate it "calling on," instead of "having called" or "since you called upon" His name" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, apolouo, emphasis added)

"The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated calling on His name refers either to action which is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb. Here Paul's calling on Christ's name (for salvation) preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated, "having called on His name." (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord and Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary, Acts 22:16, emphasis added)

"calling on the name of the Lord - rather, "having called," that is, after having done so; referring to the confession of Christ which preceded baptism, as Acts 8:37." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Acts 22:16, emphasis added)
Properly translating Acts 22:16 has a direct bearing on how we receive salvation so that we'll be allowed into heaven after we die as explained in my article.
From my article called Gentile Christians Are Not Spiritual Jews:

Here's Galatians 6:15-16 in the 1984 NIV:
"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God." (Galatians 6:15-16 1984 NIV)
Galatians 6:16 ("the Israel of God") is the main verse that some people use as proof that the church has "replaced" Israel. But notice that Galatians 6:16 does not say that the church has replaced Israel, and it does not say that the church is "the Israel of God." This means that people are reading something into this passage that's not actually there, and yet this is the main verse that they use as proof that the church has "replaced" Israel.

Part of the confusion in Galatians 6:16 (above) is that the 1984 NIV and other versions of the Bible have translated the Greek word kai ("and") as "even," which makes the passage appear to say: "even to the Israel of God." However, that's not the normal meaning of the Greek word kai, as we can see in a literal translation of Galatians 6:15-16:
"for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation; and [kai] as many as by this rule do walk - peace upon them, and [kai] kindness, and [kai] on the Israel of God!" (Galatians 6:15-16 YLT)
Notice that the Greek word kai occurs three times in the above passage. As quoted above, the 1984 NIV dropped the first occurrence of kai, and it translated the second occurrence of kai as "and" (which is its normal meaning), but in the third occurrence of kai in this passage the NIV changed the translation to "even." (The 2011 edition of the NIV tried to correct this by replacing the third occurrence of kai with a dash.) This inconsistency in translation has caused people to misunderstand Paul's meaning, which has a direct bearing on whether or not the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people as described in my article.
From my article called How to Receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - Part One:

Here's the first part of 1 Corinthians 12:13 in both the 1984 NIV and 2011 NIV:
"For we were all baptised by [en] one Spirit into one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13 1984 NIV)

"For we were all baptized by [en] one Spirit so as to form one body" (1 Corinthians 12:13 2011 NIV)
The NIV and several other versions of the Bible have paraphrased the Greek word en as "by," and this translation issue has caused numerous Christians (e.g., most mainline denominations such as Protestants and Baptists) to wrongly assume that we're baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, even though there's not a shred of scriptural evidence that the Holy Spirit does any type of baptizing.

For several reasons, 1 Corinthians 12:13 (above) does not teach that the Holy Spirit baptizes us into the body of Christ, which is something that the mainline denominations have completely misunderstood. The Holy Spirit does not do any type of baptizing.

Just as we're baptized "in" or "with" water, Scripture consistently tells us that we're baptized in (or with) the living water of the Holy Spirit by Jesus as described in my article. Since the mainline denominations have completely misunderstood this fact, based in large part on the above translation issue, they do not understand what the baptism of the Holy Spirit is, and therefore they are not being obedient to God in that area as my article explains.
From my article called How to Study the Bible:

Here's Acts 2:7 in the 1984 NIV:
"Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?"" (Acts 2:7 1984 NIV)
By comparing this verse in several different translations, we can see that the NIV translators added the word "men" to make the verse more readable in modern English (this has been corrected in the 2011 NIV). Some people have argued that only the apostles spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost because the apostles were "men from Galilee," and the NIV said that men (not women) from Galilee spoke in tongues at Pentecost (Acts 2:7, above). This translation issue has a direct bearing on our understanding of speaking in tongues in the New Testament as my article describes.
From my article called New Testament Passages Concerning Women - Part One:

Here's 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 in several different versions of the Bible. Notice that the 1984 NIV had the phrase, "As in all the congregations of the saints," at the beginning of a sentence (unlike the other translations below):
"For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14:33-34 1984 NIV)

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14:33-34 KJV)

"for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silent in the churches" (1 Corinthians 14:33-34 NASB)

"for God is not a God of tumult, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints. Your women in the assemblies let them be silent" (1 Corinthians 14:33-34 YLT)
In the above quotes, the 1984 NIV had the phrase, "As in all the congregations of the saints," at the beginning of a sentence, but many other translations have that phrase at the end of a different sentence. The location of that phrase is significant, because if the NIV were correct then this command for women to be silent would be a universal command for all churches, but if the other translations are correct then this would be a command that was originally written to the Corinthian Christians concerning their assemblies (their church services). There are several indications that in this passage the 1984 NIV was not as accurate as the other translations as my article shows (this has been corrected in the 2011 NIV). The 1984 NIV made it sound as if Paul was speaking to all women in all churches, when actually he was specifically talking about the married women in Corinth (see my article above).

Another NIV translation issue occurs in this passage:
"Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain." (1 Timothy 3:8 1984 NIV)
In the above passage, the 1984 NIV said that deacons must be men, but the Greek word for "men" does not appear in this verse in the ancient Greek manuscripts (the NIV translators added the word "men" here). For example, here's how this verse is translated in other versions of the Bible:
"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre" (1 Timothy 3:8 KJV)

"Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre" (1 Timothy 3:8 ASV)

"Ministrants - in like manner grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not given to filthy lucre" (1 Timothy 3:8 YLT)

"Likewise, deacons are to be reverent, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy of ill gain" (1 Timothy 3:8 Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
So the 1984 NIV provided a misleading translation by saying that deacons must be men (this has been corrected in the 2011 NIV). Women are allowed to be deacons and all other roles in the church as my article shows.
From my article called Our Lives Are Not Predestined:

Here's Romans 9:19 in the 2011 NIV:
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"" (Romans 9:19 2011 NIV)
In Romans 9:19 (above) the 2011 NIV says "who is able to resist his will," which is a misleading paraphrase from the original Greek, implying that no one can resist God's will. Other English translations (including the 1984 NIV) consistently translate that verse in the following way, showing that the 2011 NIV's implication is not in the original Greek:
"One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (Romans 9:19 1984 NIV)

"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"" (Romans 9:19 NKJV)

"You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" (Romans 9:19 NASB)

"Thou wilt say, then, to me, 'Why yet doth He find fault? for His counsel who hath resisted?'" (Romans 9:19 YLT)

"You will say to me then, "Why does He still blame me [for sinning]? For who [including myself] has [ever] resisted His will and purpose?" (Romans 9:19 AMP)

"But you will say to me, "Then why does he still find fault with us? After all, who resists his will?" (Romans 9:19 Complete Jewish Bible)
So the 2011 NIV has a misleading paraphrase from the original Greek, wrongly implying that no one can resist God's will as my article shows.
From my article called Sex Outside of Marriage Is Not Always a Sin:

Here's 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 in both the 1984 and 2011 editions of the NIV:
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 1984 NIV)

"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 2011 NIV)
In the original Greek, 1 Corinthians 7:9 (above) ends with, "for it is better to marry than to burn." The idea of burning "with passion" was added by the NIV translators. In addition, the Greek word for "burn" in that passage means "Figuratively, to burn, be inflamed as with anger, to be incensed (2Co 11:29); with lust (1Co 7:9)" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the Old and New Testaments, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, puroo, emphasis added). So Paul was not specifically referring to two unmarried people who are burning with passion for each other (as I had thought because of what the NIV says), but instead he was referring to any unmarried person who is burning with sexual desire or lust as my article shows.

Another issue is that the NIV translation of 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 has a very different meaning than most of the other English translations of the Bible such as the ones shown here:
"If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin - this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better." (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 2011 NIV)

"But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better." (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 NKJV)

"and if any one doth think it to be unseemly to his virgin, if she may be beyond the bloom of age, and it ought so to be, what he willeth let him do; he doth not sin - let him marry. And he who hath stood stedfast in the heart - not having necessity - and hath authority over his own will, and this he hath determined in his heart - to keep his own virgin - doth well; so that both he who is giving in marriage doth well, and he who is not giving in marriage doth better." (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 YLT)

"But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry. But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching his own will, and hath determined this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, shall do well. So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better." (1 Corinthians 7:36-38 ASV)
As we've seen, the NIV frequently paraphrases Scripture passages into modern English, and it gives the impression that the above passage is referring to two people who are engaged to each other. The problem is that the original Greek does not refer to the virgin that "he is engaged to," and it does not say "if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry." It also does not say "he who marries the virgin does right" because the Greek word means "gives in marriage" (not "marries"). Those are all just paraphrases by the NIV translators that give a false impression, as we can clearly see in numerous non-paraphrased translations of that passage such as the ones shown above (see more translations, some paraphrased and some not, at biblegateway.com ). You can verify for yourself what the Greek actually says at Interlinear Study Bible - 1 Corinthians 7 (scroll down to verses 36-38).
From my article called Understanding Jesus - Part One:

Here are a couple of passages in the 1984 NIV:
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell [hades], where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side." (Luke 16:22-23 1984 NIV)

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell [tartaroo], putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment" (2 Peter 2:4 1984 NIV)
In Luke 16:22-23 (above) and in other passages, the 1984 NIV translated the Greek word hades as "hell" (the 2011 NIV usually translates hades as "Hades"). This has given people the impression that hades is hell, but hades and hell are two very different places as my article shows.

In 2 Peter 2:4 (above), the NIV translated the Greek word tartaroo as "hell" in both the 1984 and 2011 editions. But again, tartaroo and hell are two very different places as my article shows.
From my article called Understanding Jesus - Part Two:

Unfortunately, the 2011 NIV (and sometimes the 1984 NIV) uses the word "punished" in several places in reference to the Atonement, which gives a completely wrong impression of what Jesus did for us at the cross. Unlike what the NIV says or implies, my article shows that Jesus did not receive the punishment that we deserved as our Substitute on the cross, and He did not pay the penalty for sin, as most Christians seem to believe.

These examples are not intended to imply that the NIV is a poor or inaccurate translation of the Bible; it's considered to be a very good and very useful Bible translation. The point here is that all Bible translations are the work of a person or group who made interpretations, assumptions, and educated guesses about each verse of Scripture in order to translate it into a modern language such as English, and these people can easily be influenced by misunderstandings, misinterpretations, mistranslations, or biases. Therefore, it's helpful to look at passages in different versions of the Bible rather than assuming that one translation is accurate and sufficient.