Let me take a brief pause in our ongoing series on Calvinism to discuss my choice of Bible translations.
I primarily use the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible. It combines the accuracy of the New American Standard (NAS) and the readability of the New International Version (NIV) with the poetry and dignity of the King James Version (KJV).
But more importantly for my purposes, the NKJV translation has not suffered from the blatant Calvinistic interpretive bias which is found in various other Bible translations.
I am convinced that one reason for the rise of popular-level Calvinism in the United States over the past 30 years is because of the popularity of the NIV.
The NIV (as well as the ESV, the English Standard Version) is extremely Calvinistic.
People often think that Bible translators are theologically neutral. They are not.
The act of Bible translation is theological interpretation. That is, when a scholar translates biblical Hebrew and Greek into English, their translation will often reflect their theological bent.
So it is not surprising that the NIV, whose committee of translators heavily consisted of Calvinistic scholars, has a decidedly Calvinistic slant. I sometimes find that a verse in the NIV which seems to irrefutably support a Calvinistic position becomes much less supportive when other translations are consulted. This is especially true in 1 John.
I sometimes wish that Christians who use the NIV for their Bible study would simply rip 1 John out of their Bibles. This is not because I object to what John wrote—far from it! I love it!—but because the NIV translation of 1 John is so shockingly bad.
Has anybody else noticed this as they have used the NIV and ESV for preaching, teaching, or Bible Study? What verses or passages have revealed the greatest Calvinistic bias?
If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.
Titus 2.11. The NLT has, accurately, “For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people.” But since Calvinists believe in limited atonement, that’s not gonna work, so the NIV has, “For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.”
Forgot to include the ESV’s “bringing salvation for all people.” ‘Cause apparently dative Greek nouns can now be translated this way without a pronoun.
K. W. – I am not following how this translation is strictly Calvinistic. It appears to me that the word “offered” would specifically pertain to an Arminian view of salvation (God offers salvation to all but will not force His will upon anyone, hence He “offers” salvation and some choose Him and others don’t). I also personally believe that both Calvinists and Arminians limit atonement, one by limiting it to the elect (Calvinists) and the other by limiting it to only those who will choose to believe (Arminians). I would rather trust Jesus’ words in John 12:32: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
Arminians have no problem with God “forcing his will” upon humans. After all, he does decide when each of us is gonna die. Among other things. God’s still sovereign. He just opts out of an absolute sovereignty, ’cause free will.
But we have a big problem with the limited-atonement idea. Properly defined, it’s God-limited atonement. It’s not human-limited. Even if it were, Jesus paid my penalty: Rejecting that he’s done so, doesn’t mean he still hasn’t done so. It’s like being in lockup, finding someone paid my bail, and opting to stay in lockup anyway. The bail wasn’t unpaid. I’m still atoned for. I just don’t avail myself of it, because my heart is hard.
As far as God’s concerned, atonement is for all. Jesus died for all. God doesn’t limit atonement. Any interpretation which takes universal atonement, and turns it into any form of limited atonement, would be Calvinist.
If you know of any Arminians who do so, have ’em turn in their Arminian cards.
I do not believe God decides when each of us is going to die. That would, for example, mean He gives a couple a baby after they have been childless for many years, just to see the baby die a month old, etc., etc. Or He decided who will smoke themselves to lung cancer.
Unless you would say He decided the time, not the method. Then we’re on the topic of free will (e.g. the smoker or the reckless driver, etc.). Someone with a healthy lifestyle has a better chance for long life than one that does not have such.
Job felt otherwise. (14.1-6)
But what I mean is something closer to this. Say I’m dying, and I call for help, and a bystanding doctor chooses to do nothing. He could’ve saved my life, but didn’t. His will prevailed over mine.
Or say he shot me. Same deal.
I agree God certainly doesn’t cause every death. But his decision to not get in the way does mean every death is up to him. If he wanted to stop that death, he would. He doesn’t. He has better in mind.
You are correct, God does not the cause of death; he is the giver of life. Death was brought into the world by Adam’s sin. This act of Adam, the act of unrighteousness produced the opposite of righteousness, thus bringing death and chaos into God’s perfect creation.
Death is the enemy of God and the death is the last enemy to be destroyed by God. Death is brought on to us by the worlds chaotic situation, including all the diseases. Accidents, murders, diseases, tornadoes, etal, are tools used by evil to bring death to the earths inhabitants.
A person may prolong his life by eating right, good exercise, good habits, moral attributes that strengthen the mind, abstaining from harmful habits, resisting desires to go to clubs, parties, socials, etc, that includes mischief making mankind, etal. A person can lengthen their life by honoring their parents.
However, there are two sides to the coin. Satan may have planned to cause a certain individual to die due to one of the reasons above, but God is not ready for that person to die so he can intervene and prolong his life. A Christian may be shaming the Holy Ghost indwelling him and refuses to repent of his ways. God will not always strive with man and may turn him over to Satan (World) to take his body by the destroyer, but to the saving of the soul.
Yes, God will allow the destroyer (agent of Satan) to take lives, but Satan is also on a leash so that he cannot exceed God’s sovereign will. Satan is jealous that God made man and told the angels they would have to serve man. Satan is out to kill all of mankind, especially the Jews and Christians. Since God makes the sun to shine on the good and the bad, the rain to fall on the good and the bad, he is just and fair and lets the consequence of Adam’s curse on mankind to take its natural course. God is still in control of the overall results, but allows the individual results to take its course. Make no mistake about this, most of the results that happen to us are caused by our own decisions.
One last item: God does not have an individual plan for each person born into this world. We are a result of our decisions, but those who place their lives in the will of God are following God’s plan for all and their lives will be more blessed than those outside the will of God.
God made only one man and that was Adam. He was made perfect and Eve was taken out of him and given back to Adam. God never makes anything that is not perfect in righteousness. God is righteous, and it is impossible for unrighteousness to come from righteousness. God instituted the plan for the earth to be populated through Adam and Eve, but God does not make all other men who are born into this world. God only makes perfection, and all of mankind born outside of Eden are imperfect and are the result of sinful man.
No person can ever rightly state that God made him the way he is. A person’s makeup comes from 13 chromosomes from their father and 13 chromosomes from their mother. Each person born has a unique identify with certain inherent characteristics from their parents. However, if a person uses his God given free will, he can accept the grace of God and the Holy Ghost will place within him a new heart that can easily adapt to the will of God.
Man is responsible for his actions and his final destination after this life. God, through Adam, gave man the knowledge of good and evil and the free will to either accept the good (God/righteousness) or (Evil/unrighteousness). This is the major choice of all of mankind and determines his final destination.
I’m, what I call, a KJV mostliest…lol…but I do love the NLT for readability and devotional purposes. I am not against the use of any translation. I remember what Eugene Peterson (The Message) said about this subject. He said all translations serve a purpose even the bad ones.
Interestingly, John MacArthur (a Calvinist champion) said the NIV is one of the worse translations.
Interesting. Can you point to one or two specific passages in 1Jn that reflect Calvnistic bias in the NIV.
I’m not doubting what you say, I just hadn’t noticed it before. Generally I avoid telling anyone “don’t use this or that translation” – ALL have flaws. I recommend people remember that all English versions are subject to translators’ bias, so keep their minds open and compare versions.
Kyle,
1 John 3:6 is one example.
The NIV mistranslates meno (remain/abide) as “live” and then adds the words “keeps on” and “continues” to the verse. In essence, the NIV translation of this verse is saying that if you continue to sin, you do not have life in Him. This is a favorite proof text for the P in TULIP: Perseverance of the Saints.
But if we translate it literally, 1 John 3:6 is saying that when we are “abiding” in Him we do not sin. That is, sin does not come from a state of abiding in Christ.
An almost identical problem is in 1 John 3:9.
Then there is 1 John 3:12. As an explanation for why Cain murdered Abel, the NIV says that Cain “belonged to” the evil one. But really, the Greek only says that Cain “was of” the evil one, which leaves open the question as to why Cain acted as he did. For example, another option could simple be that Can “was acting according to” the evil one.
Again, this verse is sometimes used to defend the idea that anyone who commits murder proves that he/she does not have eternal life, but “belongs to” the evil one.
This same idea is carried on into 1 John 3:15. Here, the NIV completely omits the word “abiding.” The NIV says “…you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” Instead, it should say, “…you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.” Again, the two are very different.
Having eternal life and abiding in eternal life are not the same. The first implies that anyone who murders proves that they do not have eternal life. This supports Perseverance of the Saints again. Including the word “abiding” however, says that someone who has eternal life might actually murder someone, but if they do, it is not because they have (or don’t have) eternal life, but simply because they are not acting according to the eternal life that they have from God.
I could go on and one. These are just a few examples out of chapter 3.
NT Wright does not like the NIV. His complaint concerns Rom 3.21. But now a righteousness FROM God apart from the law has been made known’. Paul is alluding to Isa 56.1 which says ‘For my salvation is about to come and my righteousness to be revealed’ For Paul the gospel was the fulfilment of Isa 56.1. Thus by reference to Isa 56.1 righteousness from God should read God’s righteousness (his own not what he gives Christians) as it does in the NKJV. Righteousness from God was the way Luther (and later Calvin) read Rom 3.21. This should not be translated into the text.
I didn’t know this about NT Wright. Since he is a leading Pauline scholar, I am always interested to hear his perspective on Paul. Thanks!
You must read NT Wright ‘Paul and the faithfulness of God. It is 1700 pages long but it will form the basis for Pauline studies for a decade. It challenges some of the comfortable assumptions of evangelicalism and Protestantism. An important thesis of Wright is that Romans is not primarily written to say ‘there is a new way to be saved and its not by good works (i.e seeking to gain Gods favour) but it is now by faith(alone)’, but rather ‘the people of God are now constituted, not by the works of the law (i.e being Jewish and fulfilling all that Jews needed to do under the Law) but by faith in a faithful Messiah’. In Rom 3.29 the little word ‘or’ which is translated out of the NIV (bad people!) is important for his argument. For Wright Rom 3 is arguing that the people of God are now constituted by faith in the Messiah and if this were not true then the people of God would still be the only the Jews. i.e those who had the law. This makes sense of ‘Or is he the God of the Jews only’ and it is a pity that the NIV omits OR. This isn’t deliberately done, I believe, but they have allowed their general reading of Romans to influence their translation and thereby exclude the possibility of alternative readings.
This is the 2-volume work, right? I have it, but have been putting off reading it. I really need to dive in.
What? where? 🙂 Seriously though where in 1 John or should the whole chapter be ripped out? Can you give an example of this calvinistic bias like Kyle Knapp is asking? Also have you read the book “The Reformers and their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin? This book speaks about the subject of Calvinistic influence in the church today, it is a Great read.
I agree that the NIV is one of the worst translations, but here are the interesting things I can add. I was brought to Christ by exclusive use of the NIV, but this happened from cassette tapes and the Old Testament only. I was definitely a Christian before making it to the NIV New Testament. A Church of Christ Church I attended for 3 years relied on the NIV as their translation to go to the most and they were as Armenian as could be. So go figure.
Yes, I used the NIV for most of my growing up years. For readability, I like it. I just have some misgivings about recommending it to others.
John Sheasby, who has been living and ministering in the US for decades now, calls the NIV the Not Inspired Version. Heh-heh.
While using a considerable variety of Bibles together (e.g. NKJV, Geneva, KJV, Interlinears, Complete Jewish Bible, 1917 Tanakh), my two basic versions are the 1933 Afrikaans translation (my home language) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Not one of them is perfect, but I have found them to give me a good basis to work from.
With respect to Afrikaans translations, more recent versions have taken the NIV type of direction.
The King James version was translated from different manuscripts than all the more modern translations, which are not as accurate. NKJV is from the same. Not wise to use those.
agreed, NKJV suffers from same weaknesses as the KJV.
I actually am a proponent of the Majority Text, and so believe that the textual family of the KJV and NKJV is stronger than those translations based on the NA / UBS text…. but that’s just me.
So I’m I. To think that the “Apostasy” on Thes. 2 will not infiltrate modern transalations is (no offense) ignorance. I personally like ASV 1901 ( though it contains archaic English), and the NKJV for its readiability. In Spanish I stick to RV 1960.
The KJV and NKJV were translated from different manuscripts than all the Calvinist Evangelical translations since 1901, and those manuscripts the KJV/NKJV used are complete rather than mangled and missing verses, so its very very wise to use the KJV/NKJV. If, however, you do want to see what the Alexandrian Text says as well (and the footnotes in the NKJV don’t satisfy you on that point) then use a ASV/NASB since they’re more literal than a paraphrase like the NIV. Quite frankly, these days, why would anyone use only one translation? Get something like the Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible that has the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT in it.
I also believe the Byzantine/Majority Text is superior to the Critical Text. In standard textual criticism, although notes were sometimes incorporated into the text, it was more common for scribes to leave text out, than to add text.
Like John 15:2 – it has “cut off” for “airo” – very bad. Best – “lift up” or “raise up”. Another one Gal. 2:20, it has ” we live by the faith in the Son”, should be “… of the Son.”
I am agast and appalled to hear that all translations of the Bible are not strictly scrutinized and agreed upon by all biblical scholars prior to release. Lol yea as if all scholars could all agree everything else. Too funny. Growing up I went from KJV (just aged myself) to Living to NIV. For the past many years I have used NKJV as my primary but still cross reference to others.
Thanks Ron, but that doesn’t point a finger at the NIV, nearly every translation says either “cut off” or “takes away” in John 15:2 (I can’t find any that say “raise up”)
Jeremy specifically referred to 1Jn – I was hoping for some examples of Calvinist bias there.
Such sweeping condemnations of months of careful work by scholars who love the Bible is cruel. And what about 1 John? That critique must be supported.
And, Jeremy, would you please look at topic of commonly-heard ideas that may or may not have biblical basis–one mentioned in these comments–is that God chooses the time of our death. It’s all fixed. So are we wasting our time wearing seat belts and going to doctors when sick?
Yes, I made a broad statement which unfairly condemns the excellent work of many notable scholars.
That was probably wrong of me…. especially since I owe much of Bible knowledge and theological foundation to the NIV. It was the translation I used for most of my growing up years, and did not switch until a few years into pastoral ministry….
As for the question about the time of our death, I am not certain it is set. I don’t believe in fatalism (not even the divinely ordained kind), and so always recommend wearing seat belts and going to doctors when sick.
Interesting post here Jeremy.
I agree with your judgment on the ESV, which is highly biased. They’ve translated out female apostles and leaders because of their theology and other such things.
However I wouldn’t say the NIV is in the same boat. Its an evangelical translation but not a distinctively conservative, reformed one like the ESV. Many die hard ESV users will slate the NIV because it’s too ‘liberal’ or some other nonsense.
NKJV on the other hand isn’t a great translation, i believe it still uses the textus receptus like the KJV which is far newer than many of the manuscripts found since. it suffers from the same weaknesses as the the KJV. It was not recommended to us when I was studying theology.
I use the NRSV which seems to be widely regarded as one of the best translations for study. Being a literal translation, yet not as wooden as the NASB, it is very close to the originals. Yet it is also an ecumenical translation which does something to iron out the bias of other translations such as the ESV and to a lesser extent the NIV.
I use the NKJV (because I hold the Majority Text position), but as a second choice, I would go with the NRSV as well. I often go back and forth between the two.
I also believe the Byzantine/Majority Text is superior to the Critical Text.
Jeremy:
You are becoming predictable, slanting the argument your way in order to get your point across. No Calvinist I know uses the NIV, not one. All versions may or may not be useful to some people, depending on their age, background, education, etc…
Most Calvinists I know use a variety of tools, mostly LOGOS 5 comes to mind plus other software.
Using such horrible blog posts to continue to tear apart the body of Christ is sinful. While no longer a Calvinist, I resent this weak effort to cast stones at brothers and sisters.
MK
No Calvinist you know uses the NIV? Most probably use the ESV, right? Almost the same criticism could be leveled at the ESV. And as it is a translation that is only …. what? …. 10 years old or so, many notable Calvinists used the NIV up until the ESV came out.
Regardless, that wasn’t the point of my post. I was pointing out that the NIV is somewhat responsible for the widespread popularity of Calvinism over the past 3 decades. People (not scholars!) who read the NIV were influenced to believe Calvinistic theology simply by reading and using the NIV. That was my point.
Baptist Calvinists use the NIV, or did until the ESV came out and the new marching orders came down from all the big name Calvinist pastors, so they burned their NIV and switched to a ESV like a good little slave.
Thanks. I see what you mean now.
Interesting Jeremy…I like the NASB and have always thought that the NIV was a little thin…but why do Calvinists (who are on the upswing for whatever reason) like NIV…I thought this was the choice for libs….
I am not really saying they “like” it. Many Calvinists actually use the ESV (which is also a Calvinistic-leaning translation). What I am saying is that the popularity of the NIV has led to an uprise in people agreeing with Calvinistic teaching when they hear it.
Baptist Calvinists like the NIV. Non-baptist Calvinists like the ESV.
Yes, I agree with myself there a year later. That’s it exactly. Amazing insight you had last year on this me!
Psalm 51:5 is Calvinist biased in almost every translation but the KJV, NKJV, NASB. From “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” To “Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” The idiotic theory of original sin as in “I was born a sinner, ha, ha, ha, and I can’t do no better so I’ll just wallow in it like a moron” is the beginning of Calvinism. If you don’t identify as a Calvinist and you believe in it, you’re a liar who says you aren’t a Calvinist but who clearly is one.
The Trinatarian influence on both the NIV and KJV is far worse than anything Calvinism has done.
Are the two really that distinct? They kind of tend to go together. Calvinism is tradition over scripture, and one of the biggest (Catholic) traditions that Protestants still peddle today is the Trinity. The second is eternal conscious torment rather than conditional immortality (aka anihilationism), and Jesus said “fear him who can DESTROY both body and soul in hell” and Psalm 37:20 “But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.” How can you get around that???
David-I agree with you 100% on both points you mention (Trinity, anihilationism) .Rarely do I find someone like that . Checkout the REV. Revised English Version ,which agrees on both points and has an appendix with commentary on both subjects. It actually has commentary on nearly all the verses that deal with those 2 subjects.
Let’s look. The Trinity. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and there is a clear manifestation of the Trinity. Steven is stoned to death and what does he see and says? I see the Son at the right hand of the father. After Christ resurrection He breath on his disciples/ then instructs them to wait for the promise of the Holy Spirit. In the OT God says “Adonai”=plural – let US make men in OUR image and likeness. I’m not a scholar, but the truth is not complicated. I highly recommend Jacob Prash as a Bible teacher.
Hi Jeremy, I really appreciate you bringing up this issue. John Stek was my great uncle, my grandma’s brother. My grandma is the strictest Calvinist I know, and I have no doubt that Uncle John was the same way. (I went to Calvin College and talked with him once after a concert, and he was working on an updated translation at that time.) It occurred to me a few years ago that since John was the chairman of the translation committee, the NIV was bound to have a Calvinistic bias. I can’t even read the NIV anymore now, because of verses like Ephesians 2:8, which make it sound like faith is the gift of God (a Calvinist idea), when, as you point out, the whole salvation package — really, the work of the cross for us — is the gift of God. So thanks for bringing this up, it is very important to recognize!
Wow! Well done on breaking the family tradition and finding your own way. You are right about Ephesians 2:8. I have many problems with the entire book of 1 John in the NIV.
I will check it out. I use biblehub.com to compare translations.
God bless you Deborah! I honestly think that Calvanism has done the body of Christ an immense amount of harm. I’m not saying that there are no calvanist brethren that truly love the Lord. In short from my studies- calvanism is a philosophy made into a theological doctrine. I highly recommend Jacob Prash explaining the Philosophy of calvanism. God bless.
Have you actually read the Institutes of Christian Religion by Calvin? It is amazing how distorted the views are on Calvin! If God is all powerful he has to know absolutely who is saved – isn’t this correct? If you deny this you deny God’s all power and omniscience.
I actually arrive at Calvinistic theology no matter which translation I read, even more so when I read the Greek and Hebrew.
Me too ?
Calvanism is highly attractive to the intellect. Nevertheless it’s a philosophy made into a theological doctrine. I recommend Jacob Prash explanation on the Philosophy of Calvanism. There is much more to God than just our reasoning.in love. God bless.
NIV definitely supports Calvinism better than KJV. See Ephesians 1:11
which has “In him we were also chosen” but KJV has “obtained an inheritance not “chosen”. The word in Greek is not chosen, how did it happen?
I am not Calvinist and according to scripture I contend for the faith and proclaim the good news, willing to reveal Calvinism’s (faulty) human theological conclusions that work against doctrines of our faith.
I love the NIV and have no problem watching my doctrine closely, using the NIV translation. This includes using the NIV to challenge the spirit of Calvinism, and that a proclaimed Calvinist may be reading the NIV translation with a Calvinists bent lens.
Any questionable translated word structure is solvable when seeking further into the Greek or Hebrew. Through the multiple cross references of the testimony of scripture on a word, any unintentional bias can be eliminated. It appears to me that translators of both translations wanted to be empty of theological lens , translating the words of the prophets and not interpreting them.
While , I believe both the NIV and the ESV translators worked to be unbiased, I believe the ESV reveals more of a Calvinist bent.
I tend to find the ESV ,by maybe trying to avoid bias , might end up leaning into it. Yet, still, the depth of meaning of God’s communication, looking into etymology of a word leaves the translations unveiled. Again, context at least in a paragraph , cross referencing in the translation itself and checking on the translation of a word should unveil for the reader any unintentional bias.
The example for my opinion is Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5. Check both verses in both translations and check the Greek. ( In my personal discovery(new) ‘calvinist’ prefer the ESV.)
Dear Translators, who have served our Lord with the greatest of discipline, both for the believing and the (lost) inquirer, I am thankful that our God calls you by name and am blessed by your faithful service! Holy kiss on the cheek xx
The NIV takes out both biblical uses of the word regeneration. I had an out a calvinist argue with me today that regeneration is not in the Bible and that the calvinist definition of it as being the drawing of John 6 is the standard meaning of regeneration. That is so sad because Titus 3 makes it clear that it is equivalent to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Also the NIV replaces the Old Testament name of God with the adjective “sovereign” which is the literal equivalent of the word Lord, replacing the title and Name Lord God or Lord Yahweh, with the generic Lord, Lord.
Also they change the words “First Believed” from Ephesians 1:12, which is really one Greek word that means pre-believed (the condition of salvation) and replace it with seven words that indicate that these people were the first people to believe, destroying the meaning of the passage.
It is a common calvinist tactic to lead somebody up through a Ephesians 11 as a proof text for Sovereign election and then leave out verse 12 which sites the purpose of God’s will, which includes the condition of Salvation being belief.
Don’t get me started on what it does when you start studying eschatology.
You make very bold assertions that the NIV is strongly biased toward Calvinism in 1 John, but you never make your casein this article! Please tell us which 1 John verses you believe to be mistranslated, and why.
Most calvinists I know teach against using those translations.
Thanks for this. I was just given an NIV study Bible and I was wondering if the study “helps” would lean towards Calvinism.
What is wrong with the Calvinist interpretation? It is fully Bible based and logical. I can never correlate how so many attack Calvinism and predestination….