The Bible Complements Itself

It is interesting that in debates over biblical truth, we so often hear someone try to refute someone else by saying, “Yes, I know what your verse says, but I have a verse that says just the opposite.” This seems to be especially common when the debate is over “Calvinism” and “Arminianism.”

When we analyze such debate tactics, we must either conclude that the Bible does, in fact, have contradictions, or that the Bible is truly consistent and must be allowed to interpret itself. If the first is true, then we have nothing and all debate becomes meaningless. However, if the second is true, which it clearly is, then the Bible is a complete presentation of all that God intends for us to know about Him. In some cases, we must work at the process of understanding rather than expect our English translations to just spoon-feed to us every nugget of truth that is there.

The truth is that there is no such thing as a passage of Scripture that “says just the opposite” of another passage. God, who is always consistent with Himself, would not, did not, and could not tell us opposite things in His Word. Such would be contrary to His very nature. If we think there is a contradiction, then the problem lies with us, not with the character of God. We are limited and finite. He is infinite and all-wise.

We must not attempt to negate Scripture with logic or even with other Scripture. Such is a fool’s errand. Instead, when we come across something that confuses us, we need to dig a bit and determine how the Scripture in question fits with the rest of the Bible. For example, in the KJV, 1 Timothy 2:3-4 says, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” At first glance, this seems to teach that all men will be saved – universal salvation. Of course, we know such a teaching is preposterous, since the whole of Scripture makes it clear that many will perish. So what do we do? Do we try to find other Scriptures to disprove this one? Or do we make a legitimate study of the Scriptures and find an answer that does not question the integrity of God and the unity of His Word? The answer is obvious. If I believed in “Universalism,” the teaching that all will ultimately be saved, I would most certainly run to 1 Timothy 2:4 in the KJV to find a Scripture to support my preconceived notion.

It is necessary to note that, while the KJV is a well-respected translation that has been used for hundreds of years, and which I still use a great deal, there are a number of weak translations found within it. I know that such a statement will label me as a “heretic” in some circles, but the fact remains that the Bible was not originally penned in English but in more precise languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. English has changed a great deal in 400 years, and the common understanding of words back then is not always the common understanding today.

The wording of 1 Timothy 2:4 is certainly one of those confusing translations in the KJV. It says that God “…will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” That seems to be very straightforward and easy to understand, yet neither the underlying language nor the rest of Scripture bears out universal salvation. If we look at the same verse in the NASB, we find these words: “…who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Even in the English, we now have a clarification that indicates a “desire” on God’s part, not a statement that he “will” save everyone. Going a step further, a study of the literal meanings of the underlying words reveals that there is a huge difference between God’s desires, based on His heart of love, and his sovereign will, based on His eternal purpose. If God had decreed the salvation of all men, then all men would be saved. It really is as simple as that. Instead, there will be those from “every nation and tribe and tongue and people” who will be saved. It would be absurd in the extreme if He had decreed the salvation of all men and then had been unable to make it happen. Such would not be an act of the all-powerful God, the Sovereign Lord of the Universe. Interpreting Scripture in light of all Scripture can clarify such things for us.

As we study the Scriptures, it is important to rely on the Holy Spirit to instruct us and to do the work of studying diligently, comparing Scripture to Scripture. Isolated verses can often only give us questions, but the whole of Scripture will give us answers. The Bible never contradicts itself; it complements itself.

The Foolishness of Preaching

I received the following comment by email concerning my article, "A Review of The Shack."

I have read your review on The Shack and although I refuse to read that book, many of my Christian friends have and they all rave about the book and say that it has taught them about forgiveness and to understand forgiveness a lot better. I told them that to understand the things of God they need to go to the Bible. So, I have sent them your review and hopefully they will accept it and see all the unbiblical things in The Shack for what they are.

There is just one thing that I want to clarify. You have quoted 1 Cor 1:21 from the NKJV and although I am a KJB fan, I don't mind other versions, but I want to ask you what you think.

The KJB says: it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

The NKJV says: it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

I just want to say that the NKJV is wrong here, because the message of the Bible is not foolishness, but preaching is. God could have used movies, etc. but He chose to use preaching.

I am not criticizing, but merely stating my opinion.


Following is my response:

There are three versions of Scripture that I use at various times: the King James Version, the New King James Version, and the New American Standard Bible. This is not to say there are not other good translations, but three are enough for me at this point. These three are my choices because they are literal translations rather than dynamic equivalent translations or paraphrases. I teach Sunday school from the King James Version, when I teach classes in the Christian school I use the New King James Version because the school has adopted that translation, but I believe the evidence says that the most accurate of all English translations is the New American Standard Bible. Nevertheless, I do not rely on just one translation but consult all three as I study. It is not a wise choice to hold up one English version as the standard, as many do with the King James Version, and determine that any wording that differs from it is wrong. A wording cannot be determined to be wrong simply because it differs from the King James.

When I run into something that cannot be accurately determined by comparing version to version, I consult study helps, such as the Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W.E. Vine. Such books are extremely valuable to someone like me, since I do not have a knowledge of biblical languages, but I want to be as accurate as possible in my teaching.

In I Corinthians 1:21, the Greek word translated “preaching” in the King James, and “the message preached” in the New King James and New American Standard, is literally rendered, according to Vine, “a proclamation by a herald, a message, a preaching (the substance of what is preached as distinct from the act of preaching)…” This would tend to lend credibility to the translation as rendered in the NKJV and NASB as opposed to the KJV.

I Corinthians 1 does not teach that either “preaching” or the “message preached” are actually defined as “foolishness.” We see clearly in the passage that the preaching of (or the “word of” or the “message of”) the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but “the power of God” to the saved. Unbelievers see the Gospel message as nonsense. If a believer gives out the Gospel and an unbeliever says, “Your preaching is stupid,” or “What your are saying is stupid,” the believer could rightly turn the unbelievers words back on him and reply, “But God has used that ‘stupidity’ to bring sinners to Himself.” Paul was not teaching that either “preaching” or “the message preached” are foolishness – rather that unbelievers see it that way.

(Note: I plan to address in a later post the subject of “forgiveness” as presented in The Shack as opposed to how it is presented in the Bible.)

Why I Quit Using the NIV

by Ron Livesay

I am not one who clings onto any particular English version of the Bible as if the Scriptures had been originally written in English in my version of choice. Obviously, the Bible was originally penned primarily in Hebrew and Greek. I am particularly attached to the King James Version, because I grew up with it and memorized many passages from it. I still teach Sunday school from the KJV. I also use the New King James and the New American Standard, because they are literal (word for word) translations as opposed to dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) translations and paraphrases (translator interprets rather than translates). Both of these latter two are far more susceptible to error and bias in translation than any of the literal translations, including the three I have chosen to use.

I taught for a few years in a Christian school which used the New International Version as its approved translation. I knew very little about it other than it was a popular translation of the dynamic equivalence type. Wanting to be a team player, I purchased a NIV and used it in my high school Bible classes. I determined that, rather than reading evaluations of it, I would see what I found in it before deciding if it was a translation I could legitimately use. After a very short time, I began finding things that just did not seem right and which did not square with sound biblical doctrine. While I did not find a large number of these things, the ones I did find were certainly serious enough that I lost all confidence in the NIV and could no longer trust it. I know there are many people who use and love the NIV, and I am sure many people have come to the Lord through the preaching of the NIV, but I believe that when any translation undermines sound doctrine, it is time to back away from it.

Following are the key issues I found:

1. The NIV gives a beginning to Jesus’ position as God the Son. Look at Psalm 2:7 in four different versions:

I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." (NIV)

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (KJV)

I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." (NKJV)

I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." (NASB)

Question: On what day did God the Father "become the father" of God the Son? The NIV says that such a day actually happened. If that is the case, then the Second Person of the Godhead was not eternally the Son of God but at some point became so. Of further significance is the fact that the Book of Acts makes it clear that this passage actually has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. Rather, it refers to His resurrection. He is the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18). This makes the reference to God the Father "becoming the Father" of God the Son even more ludicrous. No matter what you do with it, the NIV is teaching that God the Father "became the father" of God the Son either at His birth or at His resurrection. Either position is absurd.

Following is Acts 13:33 in four translations. This should clarify the error in the NIV.

…he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "You are my Son; today I have become your Father." (NIV)

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." (KJV)

God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." (NKJV)

That God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, "You are My Son; today have begotten You." (NASB)

Dr. J. Vernon McGee addressed this issue in his Thru the Bible Commentary. He says the following:

"The reference in the second Psalm is not to the birth of Jesus. He never was begotten in the sense of having a beginning. Rather, this is in reference to His resurrection. Christ was begotten out of Joseph’s tomb. Jesus is the eternal Son of God, and God is the eternal Father. You cannot have an eternal Father without having an eternal Son. They were this throughout eternity. This is their position in the Trinity. It hasn’t anything to do with someone being born, but it does have something to do with someone being begotten from the dead. It has to do with resurrection…the New Testament makes it very clear Jesus Christ is not a creature. He is…the God-man. Psalm 2:7 sustains this doctrine."

This same error is evident in the NIV in several other places, including Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5, thus giving the impression that there was a specific time at which God the Father became the father of God the Son.

2. The NIV gives a beginning to the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby making Him a created being. This is the passage that more than any other caused me to turn away from the NIV. Note Micah 5:2 in the same four translations:

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (NIV)

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (KJV)

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting. (NKJV)

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity. (NASB)

The Son of God had no beginning. He came from eternity, not from ancient times. An origin means a beginning. That is the ancient heresy of Arianism, which is held today by a number of cults. It reduces the Lord Jesus Christ to a created being and demotes Him from His rightful position as the Creator God, the Sovereign Lord of the universe.

Dr. McGee commented on this passage as follows:

"Isaiah, a contemporary of Micah, verifies this: ‘…Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel’ (Isa. 7:14). And he has more to say of this coming one: ‘For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given…’ (Isa. 9:6). 'A child is born’ – that’s His humanity. ‘A son is given’ – not born, because this speaks of His divinity. The ‘child’ was born in Bethlehem, but the ‘Son’ was ‘from everlasting.’ The Psalmist mentions this: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world. even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Ps. 90:2). The Hebrew language expresses this very vividly: "from the vanishing point in the past to the vanishing point in the future, thou art God." Just as far back as you can go in your thinking, He is God. He came out of eternity. He is the eternal Son of God…Before there was any creation, He was God; yet into creation He came, at the appointed time, into a little out-of-the-way town, Bethlehem."

3. The NIV casts doubt on the Biblical doctrine of eternal security. Please note 2 Peter 3:17, again from the same four translations:

Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. (NIV)

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (KJV)

You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked. (NKJV)

You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness. (NASB)

Of all the precious doctrines of grace, none surpasses the truth that our salvation is eternal, and we are eternally secure in Him. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one" (John 10:27-30, KJV). The NIV teaches that we who know Him can fall from our "secure position." This is utterly different from falling from or "own steadfastness," which has to do with our walk with and service for Him rather than our positional standing in Him.

Some might say, "But you have only given three examples of problems with the NIV." To that I would respond that any one of the three would be sufficient reason for me to never again use the NIV, because they affect major doctrines. I have to conclude that if I found these problems while studying to teach high school Bible classes and not even looking for problems, there are likely many more. I simply do not trust the NIV. As a matter of fact, I took my NIV and burned it, not wanting give it away and have someone be affected negatively by it.

One of the arguments presented to me by those who wanted to adopt the NIV while I was in school administration was, "But it’s so readable." I have always taken the position that accuracy is far and away more important than readability. If I am assembling a lawnmower, I would much rather have accurate instructions that are a little bit difficult to understand than inaccurate instructions that are extremely easy to understand. In the same way, if I want to understand what God has said to me, I would much rather read what He actually said, even if I have to work at it a bit, than to read some human’s tweak on what God said in His Word.

I don’t know enough about those who translated the NIV and their motives to know if these inaccurate statements in the NIV are intentional distortion or simply sloppy translation. The reality is that it doesn’t really matter. A bad translation is a bad translation, and believers should chose one or more good, literal translations for their serious Bible study.