I know the New International Version Bible is considered undesirable among the churches of Christ. What I'm wondering is... why? Are there verses in that version you believe to be translated incorrectly, altered, or just plain wrong? If so, can you name the verses in question? Thank you.

Sincerely, Textual Critic

Dear Textual Critic,

The New International Version (NIV) is designed for readability and widespread religious acceptance, not for accuracy. If you read the foreword of an NIV Bible, you will find an explanation of how they went about creating the translation. The following is an excerpt from that explanation:

The New International Version (NIV) is a translation made by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It was conceived in 1965 when, after several years of study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, a trans-denominational (emphasis mine – AYP) and international group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and agreed on the need for a new translation in contemporary English. Their conclusion was endorsed by a large number of church leaders who met in Chicago in 1966.

One of the major goals of the NIV version was to create a translation that was acceptable to a great deal of religions- regardless of what the text said. Consequently, there are many verses left out of the NIV version. Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mk 9:44, Mk 9:46, Mk 11:26, Mk 15:28, Lk 17:36, Lk 23:17, Jhn 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, and Rom 16:24 do not exist in the NIV version.

The American Standard, New American Standard, King James, and New King James are considered ‘word for word’ translations… meaning that they translate word for word what is written in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The NIV version is considered partially a ‘word for word’ translation and partially a ‘thought for thought’ translation. A ‘thought for thought’ translation does not attempt to keep all of what is found in the original text, but it is comfortable paraphrasing what the translators think the writers intended. This is a very dangerous proposition with the Bible. God says that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired (1 Cor 2:13, Matt 5:18). A great example of this paraphrasing is in Matt 5:44.

• AV (word for word) reads: “But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”.
• NIV (thought for thought) reads: “But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

The NIV leaves out numerous important details from that verse because the translators deemed them ‘unnecessary’. There are literally hundreds of examples of this paraphrasing in the NIV.

The NIV also uses ambiguous synonyms for words because they thought the precise words were too archaic. The problem is that by using these synonyms, they make many verses mean very different things. Some examples are:

• ‘Grace’ becomes ‘favor’ (Ex 34:9; Ps 84:11)
• ‘Righteousness’ becomes ‘does what is right’ (1 Jhn 3:7)
• ‘Believe’ becomes ‘trust’ (Jhn 14:1)
• ‘Comforter’ becomes ‘Counselor’ (Jhn 14:16)
• ‘Think’ becomes ‘feel’ (Php 1:7)
• ‘Dead’ becomes ‘useless’ (Jas 2:20)

All of these details add up to a translation that is much easier to read, but no longer the exact words of God. The NIV sacrifices accuracy for popularity.

I believe the Bible does not contradict itself in any way, as it is inspired of God.  Yet, I have pondered two scriptures and wonder about them.

In Psalms 37:25, King David writes: "I have been young, and now am old; Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, Nor his seed begging bread."

But what about Luke 16:19-20?

As the story goes, the beggar died and was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom while the rich man also died, but found himself in Hades in torment.

I am curious about your thoughts on Lazarus and the fact that he was a beggar before he died.

Sincerely, Begging For Answers

Dear Begging For Answers,

The most likely reason for this seeming inconsistent is the nature of how the Psalms are written. The Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are written in a generic way. They are intended to highlight what happens in 99.9% of the cases. Even David admits that he was stating what ‘he had never seen’ – the Psalm is an observation of what happens most of the time. It could even be argued that David begged for bread from Nabal during his time in the wilderness (1 Sam 25:5-8), so that even David knew he was making a generality. The fact that there have been some righteous people who have suffered such economic loss that they had to beg does not negate the fact that the vast majority of the faithful do not ever have to.

There are other examples of this generality of speech in the wisdom books (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon):

1. Pr 22:6 – not all children that are raised well remain faithful later in life… but the majority do.
2. Pr 28:11 – not all rich people are conceited, but many are.
3. Ps 112:3 – not all righteous people are wealthy, yet prosperity does come to God’s faithful more often then not.

In fact, Solomon addresses that there are exceptions to these rules (Eccl 8:14), and that those exceptions are sad and grievous things. Lazarus is an exception that proves the rule of Ps 37:25. But even though Lazarus suffered in this life, great is his reward in heaven (Lk 16:25).

What does the Bible say about two people sleeping in the same bed together if they aren't married but aren't having sex either?

Sincerely, Two In The Bed

Dear Two In The Bed,

If you are talking about two people of opposite gender who aren’t related to each other – you’ve got a problem. For the sake of brevity, I’m going to assume you aren’t talking about two brothers sharing a bed at Grandma’s house, or Great Aunt Bessie sharing a queen sized bed with Great Aunt Marge during a family reunion weekend. Everyone feels comfortable with those circumstances.

I’m guessing that you are asking whether or not two people who are of similar age and opposite gender can sleep (but not have intercourse) together. That situation isn’t honorable. God wants us to do that which is honorable in the sight of all men (Rom 12:17, 2 Cor 8:21). He also wants us to avoid all forms, which literally means ‘appearances’, of evil (1 Thess 5:22).

God tells us to treat young women as sisters and young men as brothers (1 Tim 5:1-2). Let me ask you...

1. Would you want a man sleeping in the same bed as your sister before they were married?
2. Would you advise your brother to sleep in the same bed as his girlfriend before they were married?
3. Would you want your son or daughter to sleep in the same bed with someone before they were married?

The advice we would give to our children and siblings is the same advice we should take ourselves. Flee immorality (1 Cor 6:18) and don’t put yourself in that situation.

Titus 1:6 speaks of "the husband of one wife".

Can a divorced brother who is remarried be referred to as “the husband of one wife” and thus be ordained as a deacon?  His wife is also a divorcee.

Please help; I am confused!

Sincerely, Choosing Wisely

Dear Choosing Wisely,

He may be qualified; he may not – your congregation will need to properly judge whether he fulfills the requirements of Tit 1:6. The phrase ‘husband of one wife’ literally means a ‘one woman man’ in the Greek. He must be devoted exclusively and faithfully to his one wife. A man who is widowed and then remarried could still be properly described as a ‘one woman man’ because he was completely devoted to his first wife until her death, and now is fully devoted to his current wife.

The question you will have to wrestle with is if this divorced brother has shown the character trait of monogamous fidelity. Why did he get divorced? Was it for infidelity? Was he always faithful to her? Did she leave him, or did he leave her? How does he behave with his current wife? How long has he been married to his current wife? The answers to these questions will help you to assess whether he is a faithful ‘one woman man’.

You are right to be concerned about him serving as a deacon. Divorce is a red flag that should make us pause before appointing a man as a qualified deacon, but depending on the circumstances surrounding his divorce, he may still be qualified.

I've been a member of my church for my entire life, and I was raised based in this doctrine.  I see some major inconsistencies with the doctrine and the Bible.  I have looked into other congregations that might better fit the Bible's description of what we are supposed to be doing, but I can't find anything that's completely proper according to the Bible.

I can't justify moving to another church (that is also imperfect) even though I understand that some things aren't being done according to Scripture.  What should I do?

Sincerely, Church Shopping

Dear Church Shopping,

Don’t look for another church with another doctrine; look for a church that is trying to follow the New Testament pattern as closely as possible. A congregation doesn’t need to be full of perfect people, but they need to be trying to faithfully follow God’s Word and not their own ideologies. The following are a few markers of what you should find in every church that is faithful to Christ’s Word:

1. Their name should be Biblical. Church of Christ (Rom 16:16), the church (Acts 14:27), church of God (1 Cor 1:2), the Way (Acts 24:14) – all of these are Biblical names given to a local congregation. Having the right name on the front of the building doesn’t mean they are the right church, but if they can’t even get their name from the Bible, they probably aren’t worth wasting your time on.
2. Their doctrine should be a copy of the New Testament (Acts 2:42). Any creeds, ‘statements of faith’, articles of belief, manuals, or handbooks are from man and not from God. You want a congregation that uses the Bible to decide their practices.
3. They are autonomous. Every congregation of the New Testament had independence. Only local elders were over them (1 Pet 5:1-2, Acts 14:23). They were bound to follow Christ as their only head (Eph 5:23). No boards or committees, no headquarters in some other state, no popes or potentates – what you are looking for is a local body of believers which is accountable to Christ and His Word.
4. The church’s work should be simple. The church of the first century wasn’t involved in every community and political arena. Their work was focused on three things – caring for needy christians (Acts 4:34), preaching to the lost, and teaching the saved (Acts 15:35). Find a congregation who is committed to being about Christ’s work.
5. They should be open to examination. Any congregation that is serving Christ should be willing to explain why they do what they do. They should be willing to be examined because they are constantly examining themselves (2 Cor 13:5). There is nothing wrong with asking a congregation where their practices can be found in the New Testament. Ask questions and expect Bible answers for them.

These five things are by no means all of the characteristics of Christ’s church, but this should help narrow down your options significantly. Most people accept mediocrity from their church; don’t do that. It is unfair to expect the people of a congregation to be perfect… you will never find perfect humans. However, you should demand intellectual honesty and Biblical faithfulness from any congregation you want to be a member of. If you would like additional help as you look for a faithful congregation in your area, please email us at askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org and we would be happy to help you look.