This is one of those blogs that is going to make someone very angry with me. Many of you are going to think I am attacking your version of the Bible. I am not, but I hope to point out something that may surprise you.

          Some months back, Nancy Pelosi made a statement that blew me away. One of those things that made me start some research on where she was getting her information. She was defending government support of abortion through funding Planned Parenthood. Looking at the camera and speaking in a pious voice, she said, “We are doing the Lord’s work.” My thought was, how is abortion the Lord’s work?

          The only way to figure out what she was talking about was to contact her office. However, she is a lawmaker from California. That creates a problem. She has an office in California in her district and an office in Washington DC. To those people, I am a small time preacher in a small time church in a small time town in a state that she could not care less about. There is absolutely no reason to return my phone call. And I understand that and accept that. It left my question unanswered, but it is my experience that God provides.

          The first step in that provision was back when we first started putting the Scripture on the screen. Brian was preaching and he was using his New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. I loaded his passage on the Power Point, but when he began to read his Scripture, it did not match up with what I had on the screen. I really feel that when we read Scripture, there should be no flaw in what we are doing, so that really bothered me. I started researching the NIV to see the reason for the discrepancy. What I discovered was that the NIV was created to present the Bible in a more easily read and understood version of the English language. It was first published in 1978. The major translations that proceeded it were the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the American Standard Version (ASV). Vocabulary and language has changed since these works were first published and it was felt by many that a new, easier to read version needed to be put forth. In 1978, this was a huge deal. In 1984 there was a very minor update done to the NIV. Another update was done in 2011.

          The reason Brian’s version differed from what was on the screen is because Brian’s version is the 1984 version and what I had used was the 2011 version. I didn’t even know there had been an update. I had to hunt and hunt to find a 1984 version. I finally found it. Brian and Barry Swanquist both have the 1984 version, so when they are reading Scripture, I go to my 1984.

          I began to research the changes in the two NIVs. I know what you are wondering. Why would he bother? It is because I am curious. Anyway, I found that in the 2011 update, the publishers made changes that more effectively reflected current society. For instance, Romans 1:13 says in the 2011 edition, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sister, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.  The 1984 edition reads, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles. The verses seem identical, except the 2011 version uses ‘brothers and sisters’ and the 1984 just says ‘brothers.’ Most people would applaud this because they believe that Paul was a male chauvinist. This just acknowledges that there were women there, as well. Except, in the original language ‘sisters’ is not there. And there is a reason it is not there. Questions would come up among the churches of a particular city. A council would meet and put these questions on paper and send that paper, or letter, to Paul. He would respond to the council. And those councils, because of the culture prevalent in Roman society, were always made up of men. So Paul was not replying to brothers and sisters, he was replying to a council of men, or brothers. Well, Pastor, that is no big deal! But it is. For one thing we are not supposed to change a single word. There might be a difference in the translation, but ‘sisters’ is an added word. And for another thing, society and the beliefs of society should not be reflected in the Bible. The Bible, and the beliefs of the Bible, should be reflected in society. And lastly, by adding a word, we actually change the meaning. The original shows us the type of society Paul labored under. The 2011 edition makes every effort to take gender designations out of text and there are other changes throughout. The NIV is not alone in this, either.

          That was the first step in discovering what Mrs. Pelosi meant by “We are doing the Lord’s work.” The second step was an article that Nan Roe gave me on Sunday, which connects the dots and explains a great deal.

          In Numbers 5, the Scripture gives a curious little test to see if a woman has been unfaithful to her husband. If I were a betting man, I would bet you have never heard a sermon on this passage, nor a Bible study. If a man believes his wife has been unfaithful, but has no proof, he could take her before the priest. The priest would then grind up some grain and burn it on the alter. Then he would mix the charred remains in water and the wife would drink it. If it affected her, she was guilty of adultery. If it did not affect her, she was clean. There was nothing in the burnt grain that should affect her, but it was a judgment from God. It is the nature of the affliction that raises eyebrows. Numbers 5:27 (NIV, 1984 version)--- If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. Now immediately, we recoil at this. Other versions say that her thigh rots away. To us, in our society, this is a horrible thing! Why would God do such a thing? But remember, adultery was punishable by stoning someone to death. Or, a husband could just divorce the woman. In all likelihood, a woman faced with such extreme swelling and her leg rotting, would confess her sin and accept whatever punishment is laid on her. Either stoning or divorce. Again, we cringe at the violence of this, but adultery is very, very evil in the sight of the Lord. Just because our society deems it unimportant, doesn’t mean God bows to our society. This part of the punishment was so terrible that, as far as I can recall, it was never carried out. I may be wrong on that, but I can think of no incident recorded in the Scripture where this happened.

          The King James Version, the Revised Standard and the American Standard, the English Standard and actually all other English translation except for one translates this in the same manner as the NIV, 1984. In fact, a direct Hebrew to English translation reads like this; And when he has made her drink the water then it shall be if she has defiled herself and behaved toward her husband unfaithfully that will enter the water her that thing that brings a curse and becomes bitter and will swell her belly and will rot her thigh and will become a woman an insult among her people.   

          However, the NIV, 2011, reads as follows---If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 

          This does not seem so bad to us. A miscarriage happens all the time. The only problem is that the original language does not say womb and miscarriage, it says thigh and rot. But it has been changed so as to not affect us so negatively. In fact, throughout Numbers 5, the NIV, 2011, uses the word miscarry or miscarriage three times, but it is never actually in the original language. And, it never says that the woman is pregnant. Just that she is thought to be unfaithful.

          Now that I have set you off, let’s go back to Mrs. Pelosi.

          It seems (and I did not know this until I read the article that Nan gave me) that Christians who support abortion have been using this passage in the NIV, 2011, to support their position. They say that God was doing an abortion here, so if we do abortions, it is God’s work. Forget that ‘miscarry’ is not in the original and that pregnancy is not even implied and no other reputable English translation translates it as such, it is right there in their NIV, 2011. This is now being used more and more by all abortion advocates, mostly to say that Christians who oppose abortion are hypocrites. Mrs. Pelosi saying what she said may have been her real belief because someone showed her that passage.

          “Do you mean to say that you don’t like my NIV, 2011?” Truth be told, the NIV of any year has never been dear to me. The NIV is not a true translation. It is mostly a version. A translation seeks to use the oldest and most authoritative manuscripts that are direct copies of the originals. Then they translate every word and then arrange it in a sentence we can understand. (go back to the Hebrew to English translation above and you will see why the translated words have to be arranged). A version is the rewrite of an existing translation with modifications. There is some translating involved, but not a great deal. The King James, the Revised Standard, the American Standard, the English Standard are all referred to as versions, but they are actually translations. Dozens and dozens of language and Scripture scholars worked on the translations over a period of decades. Versions, not so much. The original NIV, which is the best of the versions, had fifteen scholars who worked on it and there is now a council that stands by to make adjustments. The fewer number of people who work on one of these projects, the greater the probability of the views of society getting through.

I know people use the NIV because it is so much easier to read than the KJV, but I am not saying to use the KJV. The New King James is easy to read and the English Standard Version is comparable to the NIV as far as ease of reading.  

And please, do not think I am saying the NIV, 2011 advocates abortion. It does not. But by changing the wording so that it is not so harsh to our ears, the NIV, 2011 is left open to misinterpretation.

The Bible has some pretty harsh things in it. It also has some wonderfully beautiful things in it. But for some reason, man seems to think he knows better than God and he seeks to ‘fix’ it.

I am not trying to get you to switch Bibles. I am telling you all of this because one day someone is liable to use this argument on you to support their notion of abortion. You will not be able to change their mind, but you mustn’t allow them to change yours, either.