KJV VS. NIV IN THE WCG, Part 2
by Richard Burkard
(NOTE: Updated 10/9/04 for Ex. 20:10)
In 1992 the Worldwide Church of God made a change in its "official Bible translation," for lack of a better term. The Plain Truth and Worldwide News stopped quoting primarily from the King James Version, and switched to the New International Version. A Church official explained the KJV was becoming harder to understand with the changing English language. "....Adopting the NIV as a standard for our publications will benefit our readers, making biblical truths easier to grasp." (WN, 6/16/92, pg. 3)
Yet this change may not have been as small and subtle as WCG leaders made it seem. A close look at the doctrinal changes over the last decade reveals many could have their roots in the choice of translations used by the Church. A different translation provided a different "spin" on a particular verse, which affected the doctrine tied to that verse.
In part 1 of this study, we examined the differences between KJV and NIV that were cited by the Pastor of a WCG spinoff congregation. We noted the verses were explainable in almost every case - that either the context explained missing words, parallel passages included edited words, or the "Authorized Version" was in fact the only version to state a passage in a particular way, while all other major translations do not.
Now we'll turn to some verses where the difference between KJV and NIV is more profound, especially as they apply to the Worldwide Church of God's recent history. In some cases the change of wording is very small, yet the implications on doctrine were large.
PART 2: DIFFERENCES AFFECTING WCG DOCTRINE
We've arranged these verses somewhat by topic, focusing on the New Testament first, followed by the Old.
Mk. 1:1 - "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ...." the King James says. "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ," the New International says.
What a difference a preposition can make! Herbert Armstrong argued for years that the gospel of Jesus was not about Him, but about the Kingdom of God. If the gospel is about Christ, the point of reference changes markedly. The New American Standard and Moffatt translations use "of"; the Revised Standard and Contemporary English Versions use "about."
Other New Testament verses show a Gospel limited strictly to "the Kingdom" can be too confining. It's called "the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24), "the gospel of peace" (Rom. 10:15; Eph. 6:15), "the gospel of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13) - not to mention numerous references to "gospel of God" and "gospel of Christ."
II Tim. 2:8 - The KJV quotes Paul as telling Timothy, "Remember that Jesus Christ.... was raised from the dead according to my gospel...." The NIV puts it, "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead.... This is my gospel...."
This verse again raises the question of what the gospel is. The NIV clearly declares Jesus is the gospel, while the KJV suggests the resurrection of Christ was part of the gospel, but not all of it. Again the NASB and Moffatt agree with the KJV, while the CEV sides with the NIV. But is this debate really a false choice?
"The word gospel refers to the evangelizing as well as to the evangel." (New Bible Commentary: Revised, 1970, pg. 1179) Both the KJV and the NIV agree on the gospel as Paul defines it in I Corinthians 15:1-4 - concerning the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. They also agree that God's coming judgment of humans through Christ will occur "according to my gospel." (Rom. 2:16) And lest you think Paul corrupted Jesus's message, he says he received his gospel "by revelation from Jesus Christ!" (Gal. 1:11-12)
Mk. 16:9 - The KJV says, "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week...." The NIV puts it: "When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week...."
Readers of Herbert Armstrong's autobiography will recall how big an issue this was. He embarrassed a blowhard preacher right out of a room by having a woman read this verse in the King James (vol. 1, pp. 573-576). Yet it turns out this preacher was ahead of his time, reciting the NIV! Ministers in today's WCG may use this wording to make their argument, "All Christians agree Jesus was resurrected on Sunday morning." (This implicitly hints believers in the "old WCG" Wednesday-Saturday formula are NOT Christians.)
One complication in finding the truth here is that some New Testament manuscripts end the book of Mark with verse 8. Everything from 9 on is in the margin of the RSV, and is called an "appendix" by Moffatt. My NIV notes "The most reliable early manuscripts...." leave it out. And my CEV has an alternate ending, with no mention of "rose vs. was risen" at all.
Scholars have debated this "end-game" issue for centuries, and we won't attempt to solve it here. One book says, "....all scholars agree that these verses are canonically authentic.". (N.B.C., p. 886) But another argues, "The evidence of Mark 16:9-20 must be discounted, as clearly not belonging to the original text." (Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1962, vol. 4, p. 45)
Jhn. 20:26 - After Jesus's resurrection, the KJV says: "And after eight days again his disciples were within...." The NIV says: "A week later his disciples were in the house again...."
The Biblical basis for Sunday worship rests in part on this verse. The NIV rendering supports an "every Sunday" approach, while the "old WCG" and spinoff groups cite "after eight days" to claim the second meeting was on a Monday.
Most Bible commentaries agree with the NIV count, claiming the King James phrase "after eight days" (which RSV and NASB also use) actually means seven. But there's a problem with this view: the translating of "after" with numbers is inconsistent in the NIV. We plan to discuss this in detail in a future article, but let's cite one example: in Matthew 17:1, both KJV and NIV agree the transfiguration happened "after six days." To be consistent, shouldn't the NIV have five?
Rev. 1:10 - The KJV quotes John as saying: "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day...." The NIV puts it, "On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit...."
While these readings are almost exactly the same, some might argue the initial emphasis on the "Lord's Day" in the NIV implies the vision occurred on a Sunday. The CEV and Moffatt put "on the Lord's day" first in the verse, while RSV and NASB do not.
Most commentaries we found indicated the early church made "Lord's Day" a catch phrase for Sunday. "It happened... not.... as though John was transported to live in that day, but 'on the day consecrated to the Lord,' a phrase which became technical in the 2nd century for Sunday. The term 'the Lord's day'.... is probably the defiant Christian replacement of 'Emperor's day,' which was celebrated at least monthly in Asia Minor, if not weekly." (N.B.C., p. 1282)
But we also read this: "The most likely origin of Sunday observance is the extension of the Saturday-night meetings into the early hours of the first day." (Clarke's Concise Bible Commentary, 1953, p. 938)
Ex. 20:10 - "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...." the King James declares. But the New International Version has: "the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God."
No biggie, you say? It was to a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher I heard in October 2004. "It's not a day to God; because it's God's day already!" he contended - adding the use of "a" implies there can be other sabbath days, so NIV is watering down the true one.
If you've spent any time in Church of God groups, you probably can spot one flaw with his logic. The Old Testament does speak of other Sabbath days - annual Sabbaths, or "Holy Days." The NIV specifies one of them in Leviticus 23:27-32: "The tenth day of this seventh month is the Day of Atonement.... It is a sabbath of rest for you.... From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath." These are days the Adventists tend to ignore. (See also Ezek. 20:12-13)
I asked the preacher about that reasoning after the worship service -- and he admitted he "might accept that" if not for Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy." It's a matter of consistency, he said - and admittedly NIV calls it "the Sabbath" in verses 8 and 11. Two out of three apparently isn't enough for this minister. (By the way, note Sabbath is capitalized throughout this section of the NIV - while it's never capitalized at all in KJV.)
Jhn. 14:3 - The King James quotes Jesus as saying: "....I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there you may be also." The NIV says: ".... I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."
Some might use the NIV wording to argue Jesus is coming to "rapture" the Church, and it will be "taken" to where He is in heaven. The CEV goes so far as to put it: "I will come back and take you with me...." But the KJV perspective is along the lines of Jesus receiving believers WITHOUT a full withdrawal, based on other scriptures indicating he will come to Earth and reign on it.
Some commentaries say without hesitation this refers to heaven -- but not all: "This future coming most naturally refers to the second advent, but some have interpreted it as referring to the resurrection or to Pentecost or even to a coming at the death of believers (cf. Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23)." (N.B.C., p. 958)
Mt. 17:9 - After the transfiguration, Jesus tells three disciples either, "Tell the vision to no man...." (KJV) or, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen...." (NIV)
Were the disciples seeing a supernatural "vision" or not? The NIV might lead you to think Moses and Elijah are in heaven NOW, while Jesus clearly said in John 3:13 that no man has gone to heaven. (This is the only place in the three Gospel accounts of the transfiguration where it's called a "vision.")
Most other translations we checked (RSV, NASB, Moffatt) agree with the word "vision." The Greek root horama is used when the Lord brings Ananias and a blinded Saul/Paul together (Acts 9:10-12), and when Peter and Cornelius are brought together (Acts 10:3, 17, 19). Should we believe all kinds of animals and reptiles are in heaven with God? (10:12) Those who claim this seem to have a flawed argument. [Notice the link there?]
Phil. 3:14 - Discussing his spiritual focus, Paul says in the KJV he presses toward "....the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." The NIV says he presses toward "....the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."
A clear split develops here on whether Paul expected to go to heaven at death. The King James implies a "high" calling as in nobility or morality, and Moffatt agrees with this view. But the NIV clearly implies Paul is called to discussing the afterlife -- and the CEV goes even farther: "The prize of being called to heaven."
Some Bible commentaries say the meaning of the verse is unquestionably clear: "The prize is God's heavenly summons." (Concise Bible Commentary, Clarke, 1953, pg. 879) But others suggest this verse can have many meanings: "It is possible to think of the prize as Christ Himself (cf. v. 8), as 'God's call to the life above' (NEB) or as 'the crown of life' (Jms. 1:12), the gift of His grace to those who persevere faithfully in their calling to the end." (N.B.C., p. 1136)
Mk. 7:19 - Asked to explain a parable about what defiles a man, Jesus says things from without CANNOT do so. The KJV says such things "goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" The NIV says such things enter the stomach, "'then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')"
The issue of eating Biblically unclean meats hinges to a large extent on these words of Jesus -- and which translation you follow. My KJV puts this entire verse in red, indicating it's a direct quote of Christ about the digestive system. But all other translations we checked made the comment about making foods "clean" parenthetical; in other words, Mark makes a side remark clarifying what Jesus said.
"The comment in parenthesis.... may well be a reflection of Peter's in the light of his experience at Joppa (Acts 10:9-16)." (N.B.C., p. 867)
Rom. 8:16 - The KJV quotes Paul as saying: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit...." The NIV says, "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit...." (See also v. 26)
Is the Holy Spirit a "He" or an "it?" This verse is a prime example of how the translation can affect your decision. The NIV suggests the Spirit has a "personality," making "Him" similar to God and Jesus in a trinity. The old WCG view of "supporting power for the God family" is reflected by the KJV and NASB. The Moffatt and CEV take a neutral course here, using only "this spirit" or "God's Spirit."
I Pet. 1:23 - The KJV quotes Paul as promoting pure-hearted love, "Being born again...." The NIV puts it, "For you have been born again..."
The process of conversion is arguably at stake in this verse. The old WCG would use the KJV to argue you're not really born again until the second coming of Christ, while the NIV indicates the process is in the past. (The new WCG might actually argue both are right - that conversion is over and settled in one sense, but continuous in another.)
The King James almost stands alone here, as the RSV, NASB, New English Bible and Today's English Version all use "have been." Moffatt puts it, "You are born anew...." And in fact, "being" is not even in the original Greek; the lack of a number after it in Strong's Concordance indicates it was added either for a clearer translation or to represent some inflectional form.
Eph. 2:8 - Paul writes in the KJV: "For by grace ye are saved...." Or in the NIV, "For it is by grace you have been saved...."
Again the question arises: is salvation complete? NIV readers in the "new WCG" would say yes, based on the past tense. But KJV readers in the "old WCG" might conclude salvation is an unfinished process, by tying this verse with others such as Matt. 24:13. (To be fair, the new WCG explanation seems to embrace both viewpoints - it's ours now, yet also in progress.)
The KJV is more isolated here than in the pervious verse - as even Moffatt puts salvation in the past tense: "you have been saved...." But some commentaries see a more all-inclusive salvation here: "Paul's summary of past, present and future is epitomized in this creed-like, pregnant sentence. Salvation is complete (hence the perfect tense)...." (N.B.C., p. 1110)
Rev. 22:14 - The King James says this about the second coming of Christ: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life...." The New International puts this verse in red, quoting Jesus: "Blessed are they who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life...."
Is this a verse ordering Commandment keeping, or something else entirely? Strong's Concordance is on the side of the KJV here; the Greek for "commandments" and "robes" are very different words. Yet curiously, a high-ranking United Church of God minister recently said in a video sermon both renderings could be correct -- since the issue here is sin!
Heb. 8:13 - The King James explains changing covenants by saying: "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." The New International says: "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
There are really two issues on the table here. The first is whether the first covenant is obsolete or simply old. Strong's translates the first "old" in the KJV as "make worn out; declare obsolete." This goes beyond age of the present tense, to putting a covenant practically in the past tense.
I say "practically" past because of the second issue, in the last part of the verse. It does not say the old covenant has vanished or disappeared; it's ":ready to" and "will soon." If the new covenant began with Jesus's resurrection, as today's WCG contends, why doesn't Hebrews go ahead and say the old one is dead and gone? Some church leaders seem to argue the old covenant disappeared with the conquest of Jerusalem by Rome around 70 A.D. (Many historians estimate Hebrews was written between 60 and 70 A.D.) But that puts an extra-Biblical, historical presumption on the verse.
Eph. 3:14-15 - Paul says in the KJV, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." The NIV puts it: "I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name."
Whose name is on the people of God? This is one unusual case where the NIV takes the "old WCG" side that we're named after the Father. The King James would appear to take the "new WCG" view of being named after Jesus. But the debate here seems to be one of sentence structure; the second "of" in King James could refer to either Jesus or the Father. The old WCG did this same sort of thing for years with Matthew 24:5 - claiming people would come preaching Jesus is the Christ, as opposing to taking that title on themselves.
(All the translations we checked, by the way, agreed with the Father's name being the proper one.)
Heb. 9:11 - The KJV says, "But Christ being made an high priest of good things to come...." The NIV says, "When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here...."
Talk about a contradiction! My NIV implies the "good things" are here now - but the margin admits some early manuscripts agree with KJV: they "are to come," implying they aren't here yet. To make matters more confusing, the NASB agrees with the King James about the main text - but its margin has the present tense, "that have come," also based on "early manuscripts." And the Moffatt translation goes so far as to put the process in the PAST tense: "Christ arrived as the high priest of the bliss that was to be...." (See also CEV margin)
(A scan throughout the book of Hebrews reveals an inconsistency about "good things" in the NIV. Note 10:1: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming...." It doesn't seem reasonable to conclude there are two separate sets of "good things.")
This verse seems to come down to which Greek New Testament text you consult. Scholars say the King James was based on one particular text, while the New International and other versions were based on another. (Click here to read more background on that issue.) "It is a question of whether [two different Greek words] stood in the original text. Both have good MS backing and both make good sense when we consider that the author regarded salvation, in the main, as future, but its goals as experienced now, at least in part." (Interpreter's Bible, 1955, vol. 11, p. 697)
Those who reject the concept of "now and later" salvation (which the new WCG promotes) based on the King James must explain away several New Testament verses. The strongest one is Titus 3:5, where Paul writes, "....according to his mercy he saved us...." Another is I Pet 3:21, which declares "baptism doth also now save us...." Now tends to mean "now" throughout the New Testament.
Gal. 5:5 - The KJV has Paul teaching, "We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith." The NIV puts it: "By faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope."
A difference in wording hear can mean a difference in hope. The KJV's "hope of righteousness" could be inferred to mean the return of Jesus, while the NIV suggests believers wait for righteousness itself, and everything involved with that.
This matter calls for a study of "hope" in the New Testament, which we plan to make a separate article. Suffice to say much of the hope detailed by Paul and Peter revolves around Jesus -- His resurrection, indwelling through the Spirit, and promised return. As for righteousness: believers in Jesus have that made known to them now (Rom. 3:21-22, 9:30) - and they should be "instruments of righteousness" now (6:13, 19), filled with "the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:11).
Heb. 0:0 - That is, the title of the book of Hebrews. The King James declares the book is "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle...." Other translations do not - and since the text of the book never identifies the author, that's led to long debate between Bible scholars about who actually wrote it. My NIV's introduction to Hebrews says: "....Since the Reformation it has been widely recognized that Paul could not have been the author. Apollos and Barnabas are those most often suggested."
"When a human writer of Scripture was providentially led to hide his identity there is no need to try.... to discover it. It is wiser to be content not to know." (N.B.C., pg. 1191). Besides, if "all scripture is written by inspiration of God," (II Tim. 3:16, KJV) believers know Who really wrote Hebrews....
Isa. 26:13-14 - Isaiah quotes these words from a future "song of Judah" in the KJV: "Other lords beside thee.... They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise...." The NIV puts it: "Other lords besides you.... They are now dead, they live no more; their departed spirits do not rise...."
Some might argue the traditional WCG doctrine about death and resurrections is affected by these verses. KJV implies these "lords" shall never rise at all. NIV says their "spirits" remain in the grave now, but implies they may come up later. In fact, the old WCG teaching was neither of these - that spirits return to God at death, to be "reinstalled" when a bodily resurrection occurs.
Yet it must be kept in mind that this song of Judah is future "In that day this song will be sung...." (v. 1) Based on Isaiah 24-25, the time setting is at least millennial -- and possibly even post-millennial. So the song about "no more rising" may follow ALL the resurrections.
Num. 22:20 - What did God say to Balaam the night before the donkey talked? The KJV has this quote: "If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them...." The NIV says: "Since these men have come to summon you, go with them...."
This contrast raises an interesting question about God's anger. The "if" in KJV indicates God put a condition on Balaam going - and when Balaam ignored the condition, God took action (v. 21-22). But the NIV suggests God was angry with Balaam for going, even after He'd told Balaam he was free to make the trip. In effect, this implies God gets angry without good cause.
This all boils down to a two-letter Hebrew word: im. One of its common translations is "if," according to Strong's concordance, and it's translated that way in the King James dozens of times. It's added to the text as "whereas" once, in Job 22:20 - but it never appears as "since" in the KJV. In fact, the im's in Numbers 22:18, 34 are translated "if" in both KJV and NIV! And here in verse 20, the New Revised Standard and New American Standard agree that im should be "if."
(On the other hand, the NIV turns im into "since" in Gen. 47:16, but this is a case where the interpretation of what Joseph is saying does not seem to affect the text that much.)
Deut. 14:28 - God gives Moses this instruction about tithing in the KJV: "At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year...." The NIV puts it: "At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce...."
The old WCG taught believers to keep three tithes, including a "second tithe" for Holy Days. The KJV indicates the "third tithe" in the third and sixth years of a seven-year cycle should be turned over at the Feast of Tabernacles. (To be honest, the Churches of God never really have done it this way; worshippers were expected to "pay as you go" each month with first and third tithe.) The NIV's use of the plural "tithes" suggests all three tithes were supposed to be taken and turned in at the Feast.
If that's not puzzling enough, the CEV wording adds a different issue - one that Bible scholars debate more often regarding this verse: "Every third year, instead of using the ten percent of your harvest for a big celebration, bring it...." In other words, the third tithe may have been a substitute for second tithe in the third and sixth years of a seven-year cycle. Among ancient writers, Maimonides apparently took this position - but Josephus and Tobit wrote otherwise. (The Tithe in Scripture, Dr. Henry Lansdell, 1908, posted at biblestudy.org)
The answer to all this may hide in the last part of the verse, a part which all branches of the Church of God seem to overlook. WHERE is this money to go? KJV says: "....lay it up within thy gates," for Levites, strangers, fatherless and widows. "Store it in your towns," says NIV. "Deposit it at home," states Moffatt. "Put it in a community storehouse," says CEV. Unless your town hosts a Feast site, the money is not to go there at all! At least the "third tithe" is for needy people in your own congregation. Yet historically, the money's been handled through a Church denomination's central office. One writer put it well: "The Church's administration, or more properly, adaptation, of the third tithe law is pragmatic, not Biblical." (Jubilee and the Sabbath Year, Richard Nickels, biblestudy.org)
So should THREE tithes be kept at home, two out of seven years? If so, some people would not go to Feast sites in those years. With "Internet webcasts" of the Feast, these people can still "e-ttend" services today. But it begs the question of what happened years ago. Were Feasts called off in "third tithe" years, when presumably everyone was on the same seven-year schedule? Probably not, because they were an annual command. (Lev. 23:33-43)
One respected Bible dictionary draws this conclusion: "That a tithe, in all probability a second tithe, was to be applied to festival purposes.... in every third year, either this festival tithe or a third tenth was to be eaten in the company of the poor and the Levites." (Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1986 ed., p. 703)
(This also raises the question: shouldn't tithe money in such years be handled by a local congregation - and NOT a central office at all?)
Summary: On several key topics in the Church of God, clear differences in understanding emerge based on which Bible translation is consulted. Doctrines on everything from the Gospel and worship days to the status of a believer's salvation can be affected.
The verses of contention we've cited may not be a complete list; they're simply the ones we found. If you've found others or have questions, you're invited to contact us. And you may notice a few of the verses we mentioned are left unresolved. It may be because the issue is unsettled for us personally - but let them serve as a starting point for your own personal study, so you can "be fully persuaded in your own mind." (Rom 14:5)
After we posted part 1 of this study, we heard from an old friend who's now an Elder in the Worldwide Church of God. He told us the change in translations was not a factor in the WCG changes of recent years, based on his discussions with people at Headquarters. We'll take him at his word on that. Yet Pastor-General Joseph Tkach has said many of the changes occurred as top officials did their own studies of the Bible, then compared their notes. It seems unlikely that those leaders used only the King James Version in their personal studies. If you consult other versions as you study the Bible, you may find your understanding expanded, revitalized - and even challenged a bit.
To reply to this article, e-mail: wwwcg
© 2001-04 Richard Burkard, all rights reserved.