In this blog post, I will be looking at and analyzing Steve Anderson and the supposed contradictions between the KJV and the NIV that he brings up, and I will show that his objections has almost no basis in reality. I will also look at a "problem" verse that the KJV might be wrong on.
Before I proceed, I want to make it clear that I don't see KJV-only Christians as some sort of enemy. I consider them brethren because for the most part, they believe the same things about God, Jesus, and the Bible that I do; I just think they're incorrect in asserting that the KJV of the Bible is the only legitimate English translation.
Steve Anderson
Steve Anderson is the pastor of Faithful Word, which is an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church in Tempe, Arizona. While Anderson's church only has about 100-130 people in it every Sunday (almost 40 percent of which are children 8 years old and younger according to him), he and some of his colleagues have produced and distributed through YouTube a whole bunch of different documentaries on different topics.
Just doing a casual Google search on Anderson will give you seemingly countless articles about the hateful things he has said about certain people groups, and he has been compared to the folks at Westbro Baptist; I have not fully investigated all the claims against him, but I am inclined to believe the claims in light of what I do know from watching some of his videos:
In his documentary After The Tribulation-The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Fraud Exposed, Anderson and his associates are seen constantly ridiculing pre-trib rapture believers for taking Bible verses out of context in order to make their case. I don't have any problem with that because I am a strong advocate for reading everything in context to get the proper meaning, but in his documentary New World Order Bible Versions, Anderson and his associates constantly take verses from the NIV and other translations out of context in order to make it seem like they contradict the KJV of those verses, even though they really don't as I will show you in the next section.
How hypocritical can you get?! You criticize a group of people for taking verses out of context to make their case in one movie, and then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING yourself in another movie to try and defend the KJV-only position!!! I don't have any respect for intellectual hypocrisy, and I doubt other people do too.
After this hypocrisy became apparent to me, I watched a few of Steve Anderson's sermons on YouTube, and much like the documentaries, Anderson is a man that loves to yell and scream and pound on the pulpit with his fist to make his points. He also seems to take pleasure in telling people that they are following a false man-made religion if they disagree with him on anything, that they are heretics and false teachers if they don't believe exactly what he believes, and to "go to hell" when they point out the logical and scriptural problems with his unbiblical beliefs.
Anderson's Supposed Contradictions
In the New World Order Bible Versions documentary, the following supposed contradictions are brought up by Anderson and his associates to try and show that the NIV study Bible that I use is a corrupt tool that Satan uses to deceive people into walking away from God:
1 John 5:7: "For there are three that testify:..." (NIV)
1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (KJV)
In the documentary, Anderson states that the NIV translation of 1 John 5:7 is an attack on the doctrine of the Trinity. According to the NIV compiler's footnote, the words "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the" do not appear in any Greek manuscripts from before the 14th century.
Regardless of whether not that is true, the compilers of the NIV Bible are not attacking the doctrine of the Trinity because of a couple passages in the gospel of Matthew.
Matthew 3:16-17: "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'” (NIV)
What we have in this passage of Matthew is the Holy Spirit sitting on Jesus' shoulder, and the voice from heaven proclaims that Jesus is the Son, which implies that God the Father is the one speaking, and that Jesus is God the Son (the second member of the trinity). If this isn't proof of the Trinity, then I don't know what is.
Matthew 28:18-20: "Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'” (NIV)
Notice in verse 19 that Jesus used the word "name" instead of "names"; Since scripture says that Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God, which makes the Holy Spirit God, this "name" that Jesus is referring to is God, which makes Matthew 28:18-20 not only a strong piece of evidence supporting the trinity, but a piece of evidence that clearly shows that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit have the same divine nature.
If the compilers of the NIV were trying to attack the doctrine of the Trinity, they did a lousy job.
Acts 8:36-38: "As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, 'Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?' And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." (NIV)
Acts 8:36-38: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (KJV)
The argument by Anderson and his associates is that by taking out verse 37, the compilers of the NIV Bible are somehow removing the gospel message of salvation, which is that you need to believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, from the text. The problem with that is that the gospel message of Salvation is found in Romans:
Romans 10:9-10: "If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." (NIV)
If the NIV compilers were trying to remove the Gospel message of salvation from the text, they once again did a lousy job. You'll also find that the KJV of Romans 10:9-10 says the same thing as the NIV version.
1 Timothy 3:16: "Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory." (NIV)
1 Timothy 3:16: "And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, received up into glory." (KJV)
The argument that Anderson's associates make about this (and I assume Anderson agrees with them) is that when the NIV says "he appeared in the flesh", it puts doubt in the reader's mind that the "he" is referring to God. The problem with this argument is that if you read the context of the NIV translation of the New Testament, you will figure out really quickly that the "he" is referring to God; there is no guesswork involved.
In John 1:1, we read that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In John 1:14, we read that "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." In John 1:17-18, we read that "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
So we know from the NIV translation of the gospel of John that the Word was God, the Word became flesh, the Word is full of grace and truth, and that grace and truth came through Jesus; since the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, we know that the "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 is referring to God.
Hebrews 1:8: "But about the Son he says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" (NIV)
Hebrews 1:8: "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." (KJV)
Anderson never explained in the documentary how the NIV translation of Hebrews 1:8 was wrong, and instead the documentary talked about the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of the Bible, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I found it interesting that Anderson chose to ignore Hebrews 1:9; when you read the NIV version of Hebrews 1:8-9, you will notice that God calls the Son "God", and that God is the God of the Son. There is absolutely zero contradiction between the KJV and the NIV on this one.
Luke 2:33: "The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him." (NIV)
Luke 2:33: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." (KJV)
One time I was talking with a friend of mine who is a KJV-only Christian, and he tried to convince me that by saying "the child's father" instead of "Joseph", the NIV compilers were trying to convince people that Joseph was not Jesus' earthly father. The problem with that is that Luke 2:4-5 says that Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, and that she was pregnant with child, who we know from Luke 2:21 is Jesus. Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was her husband, which showed that back in that time and culture, men and women who were betrothed to each other were called "husband" and "wife". If Joseph is the husband of Mary, and if Mary is Jesus' earthly mother, then that means that Joseph is Jesus' earthly father. Therefore, we know that in the NIV version of Luke 2:33, "The child's father" is referring to Joseph. No contradictions here.
In the documentary, Anderson claims that the NIV version of Luke 2:33 is somehow attacking the virgin birth, and he tried to use Luke 2:48-49 to claim that Jesus rebuked that idea. The NIV version of Luke 1:26-38 clearly shows that Mary was a virgin when the angel Gabriel visited her, and the NIV version of Matthew 1:25 says that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born, so there is no possible way that the NIV version of the Bible is denying Jesus' virgin birth. This is just a flat-out lie that Anderson is spewing.
Micah 5:2: "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)
Micah 5:2: "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)
In the documentary, Anderson claims that the word "origin" in the NIV version of Micah 5:2 implies that Jesus had a beginning, and that this is an attack on his deity. While I'm not particularly fond of the editors' footnotes in the NIV study Bible that I have, their footnote for Micah 5:2 points out that this verse is talking about Jesus, and they say in the footnote that Jesus' beginnings were from far before his human birth. They then tell you to look up John 8:58.
When you go to John 8:58, you notice that Jesus called himself I AM, which is the name that God called himself in Exodus 3:14. In other words, Jesus is claiming to be God, who has to be an eternal being in order to create space, matter, and time like Genesis 1:1 says. While the NIV version of Micah 5:2 is hard to understand, the editors' footnotes of the verse makes it clear that Jesus' deity is not under attack.
When you go to John 8:58, you notice that Jesus called himself I AM, which is the name that God called himself in Exodus 3:14. In other words, Jesus is claiming to be God, who has to be an eternal being in order to create space, matter, and time like Genesis 1:1 says. While the NIV version of Micah 5:2 is hard to understand, the editors' footnotes of the verse makes it clear that Jesus' deity is not under attack.
Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" (NIV)
Isaiah 14:12: "How art thou fallen from
heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the
ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (KJV)
In the documentary, Anderson asserts that since the term "morning star" is used in both Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16, the compilers of the NIV are calling Jesus and Satan the same person, and that the NIV is supposedly accusing Jesus of wanting to be like God. This one made me mad because while it is true that the term "morning star" is used in the NIV version of Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16, it's pretty clear that the compilers of the NIV are making a distinction between Satan and Jesus.
When you look at the NIV version of Revelation 22:16, the words "morning" and "star" are both capitalized, and the word "bright" precedes it. In the NIV version of Isaiah 14:12, the words "morning" and "star" are lower cased, and there are no other words attached to it. This and the surrounding contexts of each verse shows clearly that two different people are being talked about.
When you look at the NIV version of Revelation 22:16, the words "morning" and "star" are both capitalized, and the word "bright" precedes it. In the NIV version of Isaiah 14:12, the words "morning" and "star" are lower cased, and there are no other words attached to it. This and the surrounding contexts of each verse shows clearly that two different people are being talked about.
Hebrews 9:10: "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order." (NIV)
Hebrews 9:10: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." (KJV)
Anderson and his associates claim that the phrase "new order" in the NIV translation of Hebrews 9:10 is a reference to Jesus' second coming, and then Anderson tells a HUUGGEEE lie and says that when you read the NIV version of Hebrews 9:11, it says that it talks about Christ's coming as a high priest as a future event. They also claim that the NIV version of Hebrews 9:10 is a verse that will prepare Christians to accept the rule of the Anti-Christ when the New World Order has been established.
If you actually read all of the NIV translation of Hebrews 9, you will see that the "new order" is referred to as a past event, and that the "new order" is the new covenant that was enacted when Jesus died on the cross to free people from the sins committed under the old covenant, which is described in the Old Testament. There is not a single verse in the NIV translation of Hebrews 9 that refers to the "new order" as a future event that hasn't happened yet, so there's no way that it can be used to prepare people for the Anti-Christ's coming reign.
Romans 13:1: "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (NIV)
Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." (KJV)
Anderson claims that the NIV translation is in error when it says "governing authorities" instead of "higher powers". The problem with this is that when you read the KJV of Romans 13:1-5, the context of the passage indicates that the "higher powers" are the governing authorities, which means that there is no contradiction between the NIV and KJV of Romans 13:1.
Galatians 5:12: "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (NIV)
Galatians 5:12: "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (KJV)
In the documentary, Anderson and his associates assert that Paul would never say something like what the NIV translation of Galatians 5:12 says. The problem with that is that Paul calls the Judaizers some strong terms in Philippians 3:2.
Philippians 3:2: "Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh." (NIV)
Philippians 3:2: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (KJV)
I can already hear Anderson and people like him getting ready to claim that the NIV is wrong when it uses the phrase "mutilators of the flesh", so here is what the Easton's Bible Dictionary has to say about the word "concision":
"(Gr. katatome; i.e., "mutilation"), a term used by Paul contemptuously of those who were zealots for circumcision ( Philippians 3:2 ). Instead of the warning, 'Beware of the circumcision' (peritome) i.e., of the party who pressed on Gentile converts the necessity of still observing that ordinance, he says, 'Beware of the concision;' as much as to say, 'This circumcision which they vaunt of is in Christ only as the gashings and mutilations of idolatrous heathen.'"
Since "mutilators of the flesh" is a reasonable translation of "katatome", this means that there is nothing wrong with the NIV translation of Philippians 3:2. In turn, this means that it's reasonable to believe that Paul would make such a comment, especially since he's already calling them "dogs" in both the NIV and KJV of Philippians 3:2.
On top of that, in both the KJV and the NIV version of Matthew 23:29-32, Jesus told the religious leaders of his day that they were the ancestors of those who murdered the prophets, and he told them to finish what their ancestors started. It's possible that Paul is making a similar type of statement in Galatians 5:12. In short, Anderson's claim about Galatians 5:12 falls on its face.
As we can see, all of the supposed contradictions between the NIV and KJV of the Bible that Steve Anderson brought up are false claims. Like I said in my section about Steve Anderson, Anderson consistently rips verses from the NIV out of context in order to make it seem like there's some major contradictions between it and the KJV that affect important doctrines. As I have shown, this is a whole bunch of nonsense that has no basis in reality.
Having said that, let's look at a "problem" verse where the KJV might actually be the one in error.
The Acts 12:4 Problem
One of the most used verses by KJV-only people comes from the following passage from the book of Acts:
Acts 12:1-4: "It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." (NIV)
Acts 12:1-4: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." (KJV)
Because the KJV is the only one to use the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and all the other versions say "Passover", the KJV-only Christians assert that all the other versions are the ones in error. They try to justify this assertion by saying that only the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover. Because of this error, they then assert that the Passover had already passed when Peter was arrested, which means that Easter has to be the correct interpretation. This would make the KJV right, and all the other versions wrong on Acts 12:4.
The problem with this is that the terms "Festival of Unleavened Bread" and "Passover" are interchangeable, according to the gospel of Luke:
Luke 22:1: "Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching..." (NIV)
Luke 22:1: "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover..." (KJV)
As we can see, the term "Passover" is referring to the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread according to Luke. It also turns out that according to the Old Testament, the term "passover" and "Festival of Unleavened Bread" are interchangeable:
Exodus 12:14-20: "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat; that is all you may do.
Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” (NIV)
Exodus 12:14-20: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread." (KJV)
Ezekiel 45:21: "In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a festival lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast." (NIV)
Ezekiel 45:21: "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." (KJV)
So, we now know that both the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and we know that both the KJV and the NIV of Luke 22:1, Exodus 12:14-20, and Ezekiel 45:21 are in complete agreement on that. The question then become this: In light of the fact that both the KJV and the NIV of the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, why is the KJV the only one that says "Easter"?
My current theory on this problem is that the KJV of Acts 12:4 is in error when it says that Herod intended to bring Peter to trial after Easter, and the reason I say this is because there's a big difference in timing. If the NIV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the festival to bring Peter to trial, which would only be 2-4 days; if the KJV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the month to bring Peter to trial, which would be roughly a week and a half.
In John 15:20, Jesus tells his disciples that because the world persecuted him, they will also persecute his disciples in the same way. When you consider how little time passed between Jesus' arrest and his execution, I'm inclined to believe that King Herod would prefer to bring Peter to trial sooner rather than later.
If there is another explanation of why "Easter" is the correct term, I am willing to hear it and examine it to see if it is true. If not, then I'm inclined at this point to say that the KJV of Acts 12:4 has a translation error when it uses the term "Easter".
Conclusion
I can already imagine KJV-only Christians who may read this post getting upset at the idea that the KJV of the Bible might have an error in it because the KJV-only worldview tells them that the KJV of the Bible is perfectly translated, but you have to consider things from my perspective.
I have in my possession both an NIV and a KJV of the Bible. Why on earth would I do that? For starters, while the NIV translation is the most readable due to it being in modern English, I find that parts of the KJV actually read better than the NIV, meaning that it sounds better. Also, there are math errors in certain verses in the NIV version of the Old Testament that the KJV doesn't have in it, so I got a KJV of the bible in case a scoffer wants to try to use the math errors in my NIV Bible against me. In other words, while both translations have errors in them, they are in agreement on just about everything when you actually study them in context, and each one's errors are corrected in the other translation.
For those KJV-only Christians who are more reasonable than the others in their camp, I want to put some questions to you:
Why is the KJV of the Bible the only legitimate English translation? Why is God able to perfectly preserve his word in old English, but unable to do so in modern English? If God is powerful enough to create this reality out of nothing in an instant with nothing but his Word, and if he is powerful enough to hold this reality together by his Word, then how is he not powerful enough to do something as easy as preserving his Word in modern English?
Where in the Old and/or New Testament does it say that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible? Where in scripture do you get the specific belief about the KJV of the Bible?
If God wants as many people as possible to repent of their sins against him and submit to him as a response to hearing his Word, then why would he force modern English-speaking people to spend countless hours studying a form of English that almost nobody speaks today in order to get to a point where they can know what the words in God's Word mean? Wouldn't it be far easier if he perfectly preserved his Word in modern English so that people can spend their time trying to understand the message instead of the language that the message is written in?
If the KJV of the Bible is God's perfect preservation of his word in English, then how come the earliest versions contained the Apocrypha before they eventually took it out?
For the record, I don't believe that any English translation of the Bible is 100 percent inerrant in its translation; I'm just trying to show how absurd it is to believe that God can only do it once a few hundred years ago when he's the most powerful being there is, and he knew that the English language would change over time.
I don't have any problems with someone preferring a KJV of the Bible over the modern English translations; I only have a problem when they start talking about how the KJV is the only legitimate English translation and that all other translations are tools of the devil because I am worried that KJV-only Christians are committing idolatry. The reason that I am worried that they are committing idolatry is that according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, idolatry is "immoderate attachment or devotion to something", and KJV-only Christians definitely fall under this category with relations to the KJV Bible. At times, it seems like they put that particular translation on par with God himself.
I also have a problem with the division that the KJV-only position causes in the body of Christ. As I stated in the beginning, I and the average KJV-only Christian come to virtually all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview using our respective Bibles, and yet according to his position, my version of the Bible is somehow leading me away from God even though he and I are coming to the same conclusions. Don't they realize how lacking in normal intelligence it is to believe that my Bible is leading me away from God when in reality it's actually leading me to all the same conclusions that their Bible does? If the NIV Bible leads me to all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview that the KJV leads them to, then how is my Bible leading me away from God?
With that in mind, I beg KJV-only Christians to stop rejecting other believers for using a different Bible translation from you, and to start accepting or rejecting people who call themselves believers based on whether or not their beliefs line up with the message and teachings of the Bible.
I don't hate KJV-only Christians; my favorite apologist is Dr. Kent Hovind, who is a KJV-only Christian. He may be wrong in his belief that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, but he and I agree on just about everything else as far as I can tell. On top of that, he doesn't treat believers like me like we're somehow intellectually and spiritually deficient for using a different translation, like Steve Anderson does in his videos.
I am not an NIV-only person, I am not implying that the NIV Bible is the best English translation of the Bible, and I am not saying that the KJV is not a legitimate translation; I just want KJV-only believers to be less dogmatic about what translation of the Bible a person uses, and focus more on their doctrinal beliefs and actions.
Galatians 5:12: "As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (NIV)
Galatians 5:12: "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (KJV)
In the documentary, Anderson and his associates assert that Paul would never say something like what the NIV translation of Galatians 5:12 says. The problem with that is that Paul calls the Judaizers some strong terms in Philippians 3:2.
Philippians 3:2: "Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh." (NIV)
Philippians 3:2: "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (KJV)
I can already hear Anderson and people like him getting ready to claim that the NIV is wrong when it uses the phrase "mutilators of the flesh", so here is what the Easton's Bible Dictionary has to say about the word "concision":
"(Gr. katatome; i.e., "mutilation"), a term used by Paul contemptuously of those who were zealots for circumcision ( Philippians 3:2 ). Instead of the warning, 'Beware of the circumcision' (peritome) i.e., of the party who pressed on Gentile converts the necessity of still observing that ordinance, he says, 'Beware of the concision;' as much as to say, 'This circumcision which they vaunt of is in Christ only as the gashings and mutilations of idolatrous heathen.'"
Since "mutilators of the flesh" is a reasonable translation of "katatome", this means that there is nothing wrong with the NIV translation of Philippians 3:2. In turn, this means that it's reasonable to believe that Paul would make such a comment, especially since he's already calling them "dogs" in both the NIV and KJV of Philippians 3:2.
On top of that, in both the KJV and the NIV version of Matthew 23:29-32, Jesus told the religious leaders of his day that they were the ancestors of those who murdered the prophets, and he told them to finish what their ancestors started. It's possible that Paul is making a similar type of statement in Galatians 5:12. In short, Anderson's claim about Galatians 5:12 falls on its face.
As we can see, all of the supposed contradictions between the NIV and KJV of the Bible that Steve Anderson brought up are false claims. Like I said in my section about Steve Anderson, Anderson consistently rips verses from the NIV out of context in order to make it seem like there's some major contradictions between it and the KJV that affect important doctrines. As I have shown, this is a whole bunch of nonsense that has no basis in reality.
Having said that, let's look at a "problem" verse where the KJV might actually be the one in error.
The Acts 12:4 Problem
One of the most used verses by KJV-only people comes from the following passage from the book of Acts:
Acts 12:1-4: "It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." (NIV)
Acts 12:1-4: "Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." (KJV)
Because the KJV is the only one to use the term "Easter" in Acts 12:4, and all the other versions say "Passover", the KJV-only Christians assert that all the other versions are the ones in error. They try to justify this assertion by saying that only the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread was called the Passover. Because of this error, they then assert that the Passover had already passed when Peter was arrested, which means that Easter has to be the correct interpretation. This would make the KJV right, and all the other versions wrong on Acts 12:4.
The problem with this is that the terms "Festival of Unleavened Bread" and "Passover" are interchangeable, according to the gospel of Luke:
Luke 22:1: "Now the Festival of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching..." (NIV)
Luke 22:1: "Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover..." (KJV)
As we can see, the term "Passover" is referring to the entire Festival of Unleavened Bread according to Luke. It also turns out that according to the Old Testament, the term "passover" and "Festival of Unleavened Bread" are interchangeable:
Exodus 12:14-20: "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat; that is all you may do.
Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And anyone, whether foreigner or native-born, who eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” (NIV)
Exodus 12:14-20: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread." (KJV)
Ezekiel 45:21: "In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a festival lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast." (NIV)
Ezekiel 45:21: "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." (KJV)
So, we now know that both the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and we know that both the KJV and the NIV of Luke 22:1, Exodus 12:14-20, and Ezekiel 45:21 are in complete agreement on that. The question then become this: In light of the fact that both the KJV and the NIV of the Old and New Testaments agree that "Passover" is another term for the Festival of Unleavened Bread, why is the KJV the only one that says "Easter"?
My current theory on this problem is that the KJV of Acts 12:4 is in error when it says that Herod intended to bring Peter to trial after Easter, and the reason I say this is because there's a big difference in timing. If the NIV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the festival to bring Peter to trial, which would only be 2-4 days; if the KJV is correct, then Herod was waiting until the end of the month to bring Peter to trial, which would be roughly a week and a half.
In John 15:20, Jesus tells his disciples that because the world persecuted him, they will also persecute his disciples in the same way. When you consider how little time passed between Jesus' arrest and his execution, I'm inclined to believe that King Herod would prefer to bring Peter to trial sooner rather than later.
If there is another explanation of why "Easter" is the correct term, I am willing to hear it and examine it to see if it is true. If not, then I'm inclined at this point to say that the KJV of Acts 12:4 has a translation error when it uses the term "Easter".
Conclusion
I can already imagine KJV-only Christians who may read this post getting upset at the idea that the KJV of the Bible might have an error in it because the KJV-only worldview tells them that the KJV of the Bible is perfectly translated, but you have to consider things from my perspective.
I have in my possession both an NIV and a KJV of the Bible. Why on earth would I do that? For starters, while the NIV translation is the most readable due to it being in modern English, I find that parts of the KJV actually read better than the NIV, meaning that it sounds better. Also, there are math errors in certain verses in the NIV version of the Old Testament that the KJV doesn't have in it, so I got a KJV of the bible in case a scoffer wants to try to use the math errors in my NIV Bible against me. In other words, while both translations have errors in them, they are in agreement on just about everything when you actually study them in context, and each one's errors are corrected in the other translation.
For those KJV-only Christians who are more reasonable than the others in their camp, I want to put some questions to you:
Why is the KJV of the Bible the only legitimate English translation? Why is God able to perfectly preserve his word in old English, but unable to do so in modern English? If God is powerful enough to create this reality out of nothing in an instant with nothing but his Word, and if he is powerful enough to hold this reality together by his Word, then how is he not powerful enough to do something as easy as preserving his Word in modern English?
Where in the Old and/or New Testament does it say that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible? Where in scripture do you get the specific belief about the KJV of the Bible?
If God wants as many people as possible to repent of their sins against him and submit to him as a response to hearing his Word, then why would he force modern English-speaking people to spend countless hours studying a form of English that almost nobody speaks today in order to get to a point where they can know what the words in God's Word mean? Wouldn't it be far easier if he perfectly preserved his Word in modern English so that people can spend their time trying to understand the message instead of the language that the message is written in?
If the KJV of the Bible is God's perfect preservation of his word in English, then how come the earliest versions contained the Apocrypha before they eventually took it out?
For the record, I don't believe that any English translation of the Bible is 100 percent inerrant in its translation; I'm just trying to show how absurd it is to believe that God can only do it once a few hundred years ago when he's the most powerful being there is, and he knew that the English language would change over time.
I don't have any problems with someone preferring a KJV of the Bible over the modern English translations; I only have a problem when they start talking about how the KJV is the only legitimate English translation and that all other translations are tools of the devil because I am worried that KJV-only Christians are committing idolatry. The reason that I am worried that they are committing idolatry is that according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, idolatry is "immoderate attachment or devotion to something", and KJV-only Christians definitely fall under this category with relations to the KJV Bible. At times, it seems like they put that particular translation on par with God himself.
I also have a problem with the division that the KJV-only position causes in the body of Christ. As I stated in the beginning, I and the average KJV-only Christian come to virtually all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview using our respective Bibles, and yet according to his position, my version of the Bible is somehow leading me away from God even though he and I are coming to the same conclusions. Don't they realize how lacking in normal intelligence it is to believe that my Bible is leading me away from God when in reality it's actually leading me to all the same conclusions that their Bible does? If the NIV Bible leads me to all the same conclusions about the Biblical worldview that the KJV leads them to, then how is my Bible leading me away from God?
With that in mind, I beg KJV-only Christians to stop rejecting other believers for using a different Bible translation from you, and to start accepting or rejecting people who call themselves believers based on whether or not their beliefs line up with the message and teachings of the Bible.
I don't hate KJV-only Christians; my favorite apologist is Dr. Kent Hovind, who is a KJV-only Christian. He may be wrong in his belief that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, but he and I agree on just about everything else as far as I can tell. On top of that, he doesn't treat believers like me like we're somehow intellectually and spiritually deficient for using a different translation, like Steve Anderson does in his videos.
I am not an NIV-only person, I am not implying that the NIV Bible is the best English translation of the Bible, and I am not saying that the KJV is not a legitimate translation; I just want KJV-only believers to be less dogmatic about what translation of the Bible a person uses, and focus more on their doctrinal beliefs and actions.
