Editors of newer translations of the Bible have adopted a viewpoint that Scripture, which is the word of God, has not endured unchanged throughout all generations. Instead of believing in the unchanging nature of the books of the Bible including the New Testament,1which is the essential core doctrine of preservation of God’s word, in addition to its inspiration a different viewpoint has begun to take hold on people’s imaginations, which suggests that a continuing revelation is taking place. In this newer worldview, there is a necessity for God’s people to revise and update various parts of Scripture. Indeed, the editors of the first “modern version” in 1880, which is the so-called “Revised Version” of the Bible, held such a view.
It turns out, according to these people, that the text of the real Bible is continuously being revealed to the world through new discoveries made by “authorities.”
To the end of supporting this, it has also been necessary in modern versions for references (in the Bible itself) about the unchanging nature of Scripture to be ‘modified.’ The editors of the modern versions felt a need for certain passages of Scripture that deal with this subject to be clouded or obscured in some way, or else in some way edited out of the Bible in these versions.
Otherwise, the readers of their versions would be more likely to call into question the changes being made; they would see that Scripture itself speaks against that very thing.
This is something which we find has happened.
The standard approach for these editors has been to handle the inspired scripture, the word of God, just like any other book. This is done by applying the historiographical approach. Editors treat the Bible as incomplete and as missing full details.
Typically, these assumptions are couched in dissimulating language rather than stated plainly. This is necessary for the editors to avoid raising the consciousness of many people at large toward what they are really doing, which we can see by comparison is just freely altering the Bible, in all their versions. What they present their own task to us as is that of contriving, through many different reconstructions of an incomplete source material, what they believe to be a new ‘reconstruction’ of the Bible. The implicit assumption that this all relies on is that no one possesses the preserved, original word of God. If we did possess it, then this exercise of reconstructing would be much worse than only useless, it would be destructive: all of these changing versions that we see coming out would be throwing people off from finding the real word of God, if that is what we have.
So they reluctantly assume the task of creating, what they freely admit to be imperfect reconstructions of the Bible. The ironclad rule for them is that, in their view, the Bible has no true standard. Since if there were one standard to judge by, then all of the reconstructing to create different versions, ever since the year 1880, with the efforts of the Revised version, would be subjected to the standard. They would be shown to be alterations and corruptions from the already-possessed original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, the received text.
The modern view, in other words, of “standardization” of the Bible becomes a perpetual task that anyone can undertake. Whichever is able to sell the most (it is presumed) becomes the “new standard” Bible. The “standard” is not a position based on any true objective testable standard of quality, but only on public acceptance. Many like to suppose this is the way it has always been. Or, as an alternative to this – they also would like people to think that anyone can make anything their own personal standard – a sort of relativism. Either way the new translations sell. The modern-translation editors are those who voluntarily offer themselves to the promotion of this task. The power to change words of the Bible becomes a means to gain audiences to them.2For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
—2 Timothy 4:3
In order to justify this practice, many of the same types of editors in their own literature3perhaps in defense of themselves at the same time paradoxically argue that there had never truly been a standard, and that they were really free to set their own. They do this while, at the same time, advertising their translations to the masses as “accurate,” thereby misrepresenting even their own position, and abusing the trust that others have placed in them.
The view of these editors is, in truth, that, from the Revised version onward, the “standards” will, forever now, be changing. And that there never was a true standard.
This is the mindset and the set of common assumptions which modern translation makers all wish to nurture and grow. They wish to promote this view among churches. However, these assumptions are untrue, as is shown in other articles and simply by studying God’s word as we will see below.
However, to those who would even nominate themselves to the task of creating a new version of Scripture which suits such predetermined ends, and then put the label “Holy Bible” on it – such concepts as truth being absolute, God’s word being truth, and real objective accuracy, do not appear to be barriers to such people at all.
As noted here, there has long been a trend toward including and retaining modern revisions into scripture. Some of these revisions cloud up and obscure the statements about the immutability and preservation of the word of God within Scripture itself. This is most apparent in the case of the more recent corruption of 2 Corinthians 2:17.
Here is a section of Scripture which denounces the very act of corrupting the word of God. But irony becomes apparent when we realize it too has been corrupted by others recently. Consider the Bible verse below:
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. — 2 Corinthians 2:17 (A.V.)
Notice this scripture. Paul in this passage uses the verb corrupt, with respect to the word of God. Now, in the dictionary of the English language, the word “corrupt” signifies the degrading of quality by introduction of impurity.
However, in the modern translations this word is substituted out, and, in place of the word “corrupt,” the word “peddle”4or sometimes, “hawk” is placed.
“Peddle” is a word that signifies the act of selling trifles5trifles, as defined, are things that are of low quality— such as the word of God— for a profit.
It can be shown immediately that these words (corrupt and peddle) are not equivalent in English, and also that the word “peddle” does not match the Greek root word in its context in this verse: See the explanation of that here.
This corruption of the word “corrupt”6which almost every modern version has followed can be seen to line up conspicuously with a number other highly arbitrary changes we find in the modern versions. All of these changes seem also to lessen the place of God’s word, perhaps to the level of importance of a trifle, such that one might peddle it, as these people believe. Consider this verse:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. — John 5:39 (A.V.)
You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! (NLT)
Observe and consider what the “New Living Translation” or NLT (which is a modern version) has done in the quotation immediately above. For context, this is a statement by Jesus in the Gospel of John. It turns out that, by changing the first clause of this sentence from an imperative to indicative, it completely changes the reason why the statement was made.
In the A.V., Jesus imperatively commands to “search the scriptures.” But in the modern versions it seems to indicate they were searching them already, but that they should have done otherwise. In other words, they make it out as though they were being chided for searching the scriptures when they should have been doing something else.
In the NLT, he says, “But the Scriptures point to me!” Thus, seemingly implying that they should have been doing something other than searching the Scriptures, which is what they had already been doing.
It is almost as if the NLT version itself was trying to tell us that, by giving this translation of John 5:39, how meaningless it is to search scriptures.
From this context, a peddler might also profit from selling something so unprofitable, and trifling as what the NLT editors cause Jesus to say about Scripture here. If people were wasting their time in searching the scriptures, as this verse in the NLT implies, then it seems unlikely that there would be a reason to condemn corrupting the scriptures either, if the NLT version of John 5:39 is true. If, and only if, as the NLT implies, people were searching the scriptures but should have been doing something else – Rather than that they should start searching the Scriptures now as a command from Jesus, as the KJV says in John 5:39. Most other modern versions make a similar change in this same verse – So we have to ask if this is purely coincidence or if there is not any motivation behind this particular choice of translation in the modern versions, in light of the other changes, such as in 2 Corinthians 2:17 and across the New Testament, that these translations make. The changes so far seem to align with a worldview that would treat the word of God as something that is subject to be changed over time, as the modern versions have done; and thus, “trifling” as well – rather than something that should not be “corrupted,” as Paul says of it in 2 Corinthians 2:17 in the accurate translation which says “corrupt.”
We see that these verses,72 Corinthians 2:17 and John 5:39 when changed together, begin to build a new and different kind of continuity, where Scripture is already of low quality. In this continuity, Scripture is not something to be degraded any further8as the term corrupt being applied to it would imply, and a mere trifle.9as the term peddle being applied to it would imply These changes act together to build a kind of continuity more amenable also to the changing of scripture, which is something that the modern bible version makers also do.
These changes, taken together, make it out to be a light matter for someone (such as a modern bible version editor) to “trifle” with the sentence and word structure of the original received text of the sacred Scripture. It is interesting to note then that modern bible version editors are also at the same time the originators by choice, of these changes. In their versions, at least.
But let us continue on. Perhaps the similarities end there – How about we look at another key verse defining for us the foundation of the word of God? Let us consider the Bible verse in 2 Peter 1:21, where it says:
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. — 2 Peter 1:21 (A.V.)
In the modern versions, it simply reads “men.” Not “men of God” or “holy men.” Simply “men.”
But according to the word of God, these were “holy men of God.” They were not undescribed. Deuteronomy 18:22 describes qualifications,10“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.”
— Deuteronomy 18:22 and in Ephesians 2:2011“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
— Ephesians 2:20 these men are described as, “the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” They are a very specific set of men, they are not just an ill-defined vague collection of people, as the term which is found in the modern versions of 2 Peter 1:21 might suggest. The verse might imply this, if it said merely “men” in this place rather than “holy men of God” as it does in the Authorized version, thereby clarifying for us who it was that spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So, this revision of the verse becomes an attack, in the modern versions, on the apostles’ and prophets’ defining identity. Those who were inspired by God12as it says in this passage in the AV / King James version were all among the group of holy men of God. There was not someone outside of that who had inspiration from God, to whom was imparted the God-breathed Scriptures as it is called in another passage (2 Timothy 3:16).
While we are on the subject, the NRSV, another modern translation, also substitutes “men and women” here, including the role of women as being among those who were moved by the Holy Ghost in the inspiration of Scripture.
This attack, also, by its very implication, lessens the status of the word of God. According to this change, “the prophecy came,” according to 2 Peter 1:21, from an ill-defined set of individuals that we do not know anything in particular about according to the changed version of 2 Peter 1:21 in the modern versions. Their version of 2 Peter 1:21 simply says “men” or in some cases, “men and women” gave the prophecies. That could be anyone. It doesn’t have to be the apostles and prophets.
This might make it seem as if the word of God “comes cheap.”
Just as the change to 2 Corinthians 2:17, which implies that people are “peddling cheap wares,” with the cheap wares (or trifles) in this case being the word of God, according to the modern version of 2 Corinthians 2:17 – this change to 2 Peter 1:21, which makes “the prophecies” seem common, goes hand in hand right with that. Furthermore, if anyone can speak the word of God and it isn’t limited to holy men of God13the apostles and prophets specifically, and if it is a cheap trifle, then the version of John 5:39, lambasting the people for searching the scriptures14rather than commanding them to search the scriptures starts to make more sense in the light of all these other changes as well.
One might say, this is just due to textual criticism. Yet we have shown here that different modern versions take different eclectic sources at various points and they do not always agree, so it amounts to a conscious decision for them to choose to include this change to 2 Peter 1:21. They include and exclude other changes at will, and selectively change word definitions and alter grammar almost at will, especially against passages of Scripture which they are motivated to change, as we are showing now.
Now let us consider another key passage, Romans 10:17,15“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
— Romans 10:17 where, in modern translations, “the word of God” is, atypically even, replaced with various other phrases,16Examples: “the word about Christ” instead of “the word of God,” or “the Good News about Christ” instead of “the word of God,” or “the preached word of Christ” instead of “the word of God” seemingly with no reason, except to distance this particular verse from other references throughout the Bible that also mention the word of God.
What this change in the modern versions does – by making it say something unusual instead of the “word of God” – is it avoids making the connection that “faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God.” Faith does come by this, and not by other things. This is important to understand, yet modern versions atypically change the phrase “the word of God” in this verse alone, in order to make the point of this verse less clear or unclear. As Paul wrote in Romans 10:17, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
It is important to know where faith comes from. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the word of God.
In light of this, it follows the warped logic of the modern versions, which paint a picture of the “word of God” as being a trifle17as in the altered version of 2 Corinthians 2:17 in modern versions which people were wasting time in searching18as in the altered version of John 5:39, that it makes little sense to suggest that faith must come by the word of God.
The modern bible version editors would rather not have readers make that connection at all, because it greatly emphasizes the importance of the word of God, so they are motivated to choose an unusual translation choice for the term “the word of God” in this key verse of Scripture in Romans 10:17 – and we see that this is what nearly every modern version has done in this one verse. However some make different choices than others in what they substitute in place of it.
In Psalm 138:2 also,19“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”
— Psalm 138:2 the fact that it says, “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” is obscured in modern versions. This is done in different ways again, either by changing the word “above” and placing his name “with” his word (not above it)20for example, the ESV says “for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.” instead of “your word above your name.”21for example, the NASB says “For You have magnified Your word according to all Your name.” instead of “your word above your name.” or else it is done by removing “word” altogether and replacing it with a different word.22Ex: CSB says “promise” instead of “word,” NIV says “solemn decree” instead of “word,” NLT says “promises” instead of “word”
This change in the modern versions again serves to de-emphasize the importance that is placed on the word of God as opposed to other things.
Continuing on further, in another example, the corruptions we find also act to throw scripture in misalignment with itself. What this does is it creates internal contradictions with other parts of Scripture, and it turns the New Testament according to the modern versions into an unreliable witness because of these changes. Whereas the Authorized version is a faithful witness.
This fact is absolutely clear in the change that the modern versions all choose to make in Mark 1:2, which reads as follows:
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. — Mark 1:2-3 (A.V.)
In the modern versions, again, the phrase “written in the prophets” from verse 2 is replaced with the phrase “written in the prophet Isaiah”.
How could anyone act like this is not a big deal, when it creates a factual error in the gospel?
What about the fact that, the first part of Mark‘s quote, comprising verse two, is only found in Malachi chapter 3 and not in Isaiah.
The second part, in verse three, is written in the book of the prophet Isaiah. This is the reason why Mark states “the prophets.” This is the proper sourcing for the two quotes. The two prophecies, one from Malachi and one from Isaiah, are stated in Mark 1:2-3. The first part, in verse two, is from Malachi, not the book of the prophet Isaiah.
Changing the Gospel of Mark to state that both parts of the quote are written in the prophet Isaiah, i.e. that the part from verse two must be written in the book of Isaiah, is factually untrue. The modern version of Mark 1:2 here then by making this change creates a contradiction with the book of Isaiah, because it says that something is written in the book of the prophet Isaiah when it is not written in that book, but rather, it is only written in Malachi (at the very end of the minor prophets).
One could read through the entire book of Isaiah and never find the quote.
Therefore, if one were to follow the modern version of Mark 1:2, they would be able to say that the verse, which states that this is written in Isaiah, is unreliable.
If one part of it was unreliable, that would mean that the whole account was fallible as opposed to being infallible as God’s word would be.
Whoever wrote that error in Mark 1:2 which we see reflected in the modern versions, did it for some reason other than to accurately represent the words of Mark. We know this because, this error, which is found in the modern versions, is not found in the preserved original of the Greek version of Mark, which is unchanged from when it was written, which we possess, where the phrase “the prophets” is accurately reflected in that place. This is what the preserved original words in the original Greek version of Mark say, and as the Authorized Version which uses the received text as a basis also accurately represents here as well.
For anyone who believes that the word of God must not be corrupted, and that we should search the scriptures, as the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and that God has magnified his word above all his name – it is also true that the entire Gospel of Mark including Mark 1:2 is a faithful witness to the facts, not an unreliable witness.
A likewise change also occurs for Luke 4:4,23“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
— Luke 4:4 where in the modern versions the words, “but by every word of God” from the received version are, usually, selected to be removed entirely from the sentence. Despite the claim that this somehow “doesn’t matter” since Matthew 4:4 is left intact, it still follows that a cut-up Luke 4:4 changes the substance of what was said into something completely different. This is proved, because a removal from a sentence can change the meaning of a sentence just as much as an addition.
The fact is that, because of this alteration existing in the modern versions, a person can turn to Luke 4, and draw a completely nonexistent meaning from one of the corrupted modern versions if they so choose. In such a case, the existence of Matthew 4 on another page will make no difference in that moment to them. So we see why, therefore, it does matter.
This change to Luke 4:4 is similar to the removals of small but important parts from Matthew 5:2224“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:”
— modern versions remove “without a cause” and Mark 10:2425“But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!”
— modern versions remove “for them that trust in riches”, in that, the removal of a few words completely changes the teaching. Additionally, the fact that this one is known to be a variant only discovered in Tischendorf’s time (c. 1859) also summarily invalidates the argument for the change because it is proven therefore not to be received.
Additional passages that have been changed in modern versions of the bible, to the same effect, are provided with some examples to consider below:
The words of the Lᴏʀᴅ are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O Lᴏʀᴅ, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. — Psalm 12:6-7 (A.V.)
…You, O LORD, will keep them; You will preserve him from this generation forever.
— (NASB) 1971
…You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
— (ESV) 2001
…You, LORD, will guard us; you will protect us from this generation forever.
— (CSB) 2017
In the original, it is stated that the words of the Almighty Lord are being preserved, as the original Psalm 12 teaches when it says “thou shalt keep them.”
But you will see in the more modern versions that “them” is eventually changed to be referring to “us.” You will notice that the plurality and person is changed from “them” to “him” to “us” in the second part of the verse as the versions get more modern. These changes were enacted one step at a time over time to make this passage less and less about God keeping his words pure. We can see the process clearly by comparison here. All modern version translators seem to have a special aversion to this passage in Psalm 12, because we see that each one in turn has made their own unique changes to the verse, as can be seen here.
First it says in the NASB (1971) “You will keep them, you will preserve him (instead of them).” Then in the ESV (2001) it reads “You will keep them, you will guard us.” Lastly in the CSB (2017), the most modern one, it says “You will guard us, you will protect us.” So now it says “us” twice.
So which is it?
The real version in the Holy Bible has said “them” both times all along, in reference to the words of the Lord, because this is the true antecedent to this verse.
But people who are interested in making modern versions are also interested in changing Psalm 12:7 in order so that it does not say that the Lord preserves his own words. They are particularly interested in changing this verse, this is why it has so many revisions.
Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. — Proverbs 13:13 (A.V.)
The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded. — (NASB)
Whoever scorns instruction will pay for it, but whoever respects a command is rewarded. — (NIV)
People who despise advice are asking for trouble; those who respect a command will succeed. — (NLT)
From these examples you can see that the “corruption” spreads over these particular passages of Scripture. The people who are interested in “corrupting” it have a hand in promoting a new version which de-emphasizes Scripture and places the word of God as common and trifling, something to be peddled. It is very much likely that, anyone who would be inclined to create a “modern version” of Scripture, would not be someone that believes in the preservation by providence of the original. It would be a person who just wants to make the Scripture say what they want. Whatever the reason for doing so may be.
It follows reason that future modern versions, if they are released, will change yet further passages.
For example, not even the 1880-1881 Revised Version went so far as to remove the word “corrupt” out of 2 Corinthians 2:17 as we have discussed here. It still had the word “corrupt” in it. But then later modern versions were written. And as soon as they were, we see that they decided that they did not like that word and so they changed the word to “peddle” in their version that they made.
Future modern versions will take what we have seen so far (as we have seen that they build on each other), and will change even more scripture passages. There is no reason to think that they won’t.
The proclivity to change these passages is visible in what would otherwise be inexplicable and erratic behavior by these translators around these particular passages. As the translators on these projects do not believe the prophecies about preservation in Scripture, and therefore, it reflects in the work that they have done here.
There is motivation for all of these editors to corrupt 2 Corinthians 2:17 itself. Having established that, it can also be seen very reasonably that this motive also supercedes and prevents the accurate translation of these passages of Scripture for these editors as well. The common motive26which is against preservation prevents and impedes those translators from making accurate translations of the Scripture passages in question. This point has been demonstrated by example.
We can conclude that because some individuals have assumed that there is no true standard for Bibles, they began to consider how they might start establishing “new standards.” This is the modern versions, which are not standards at all. The creators of these have an aversion to passages of scripture that teach contrary to their own assumptions, such as passages that deal with the purity and corruption of Scripture, and passages that stress the singular importance of the word of God. Hence, they have made these passages misleading – and inaccurate – in the modern versions.