A quest to interact with the best-selling English Translation: the NIV (New International Version) (Part One)

Introduction

One English translation which since its introduction to the English-speaking world in the 1980s (1984) has outsold every other English translation including the KJV, ESV, and NASB is the New International Version (NIV). Like it or not these are simply Publisher facts and reality. Unfortunately this English translation, whether popular or not, has been the whipping post for some in conservative evangelical circles and even in Fundamentalist churches since this time. It is the purpose of this thread to evaluate the theology, understandability, and other related issues of this top-selling English Bible translation. To do this, several issues must be addressed, including its adherents and attackers (to include what is their strongest arguments) against it.  But before we start I really want to challenge folks: what drives Bible translation? What is the motive for Bible translation? Consider some options concerning translations (1) is the purpose to rigidly adhere to and be scrutinized by how well you follow a particular translation philosophy (2) or better yet, is the purpose to put the Bible (God's word) into the language of the people so they can understand what God says and requires of them (Justification, Sanctification, etc...). And yes, this second point can run wild especially when translations are produces by individuals and not by committees providing accountability across denominational lines. 

My Argument

So here's the following plan of offense/defense (to use an Army understanding):

First, what is the purpose of a Bible translation. The question is not what you think the purpose is or is not.  Nor is the question what translation philosophy you think is best (which ultimately serves as a straw man) to attack other English translations not matching your selected choice (word for word, thought for thought, etc...). So here's my stab at a working definition for Bible translation, and hopefully not to commit a fallacy of definition hedging.  Definition: The PURPOSE (emphasis mine) of Bible translation is to put the original languages (by God's sovereign choice) (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic) into any and every spoken language possible (in the most understandable manner) that any and every language may know who God is and what he expects of them (in their own language). Consider the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition of translation, "the art and practice of rendering the Bible into languages other than those in which it was originally written." Note the similarity, we are taking the words in one language and "rendering" them in another different language. 

Second, and related to the first point above, the vast majority of attacks thrown at the NIV (outside the KJV-only) camp is to attack the translation philosophy employed by these men. Perhaps even a sidebar ad hominem attack at them or other issues. These we'll address with facts and their own words in defense. If the goal of translation, as stated above, is to understand the underlying Greek and Hebrew text, then what would you do? Consider your options: (1) keep a wooden word for word order (no one consistently does this); (2) keep a thought for thought; (3) or perhaps do your best to explain faithfully idioms, phrases, and the meaning the best you can? How about denominational or theological bias? To be clear and to be academically honest, all English translations employ these concepts. And yes it might even surprise you that your favorite English Bible translation even dips into the world of gender-neutral translation (regardless of whether its cool or not). Again, concerning translation philosophy, Jesus, the four gospels, and all the epistle writers (55 times total) quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), freely and without reservation. How good was that translation or the philosophy behind it? 

Third, the text and translation issue, as much as I appreciate the motive, intent, and product of pastors and laymen to free people from the grip of false teaching in this area, I am concerned that we are creating artificial standards to poke fun at or criticize English translations we personally don't want to use, or don't want others to use, either in translation philosophy (see above); associations (a major whipping post), or later on how they translate hotly charged gender issues (as if that is the new standard of conservative translations). And yes we will address these issues showing how they are used to misrepresent the theology of this particular English translation. I would challenge anyone to read the personal motivation behind the writing of the NIV. 

Conclusion

So again the plan of attack is to address these three issues. By way of reminder (with slightly different wording):

(1) Is there a potentially false understanding of what Bible translation actually is or what makes or is necessary to be a good translation (even by men who are well-intended) battling against the grip of false English only positions? Avoiding one extreme only to embrace another extreme is not helpful. Neither is it helpful to paint these issues as "either...or" arguments. 

(2) Is there a potentially false understanding of which Bible translation philosophy is best, more accurate, or more God-pleasing? Or are these standards artificially designed to limit or to self-profess which English translations are authoritative? Typically this takes the form of labeling certain translations and "conservative" and others not.  

(3) Is there a possibility for fundamentalists to use the same strategies used against music, denominations, or other issues to paint these same "guilt by association" tactics against the most well-read and most sold English translation? Is it possible even for conservative evangelicals could borrow a page from this play book to attack gender issues or a combination of the above points?

(4) I also wish to show from the text itself, that no orthodox theological doctrine is lost.  No cardinal fundamental of faith is skewed or hidden in the NIV. This includes every category of systematic theology found in any reputable theological textbook.

(5) Finally, the vast majority of churches, denominations, and even well-known pastors (which you listen to already) use the New International Version occasionally and you probably didn't even know it when you listen to their sermons. Sadly, personalities tend to be more important than actual facts.

Read. Enjoy. Comment. Be informed.

Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels (A 2000 Year old Translation Speaks Volumes Toward Orthodoxy)

Revisiting the Septuagint: Evidence from the Gospels

A 2000 year old Translation can teach more than many churches may be willing to acknowledge

Introduction

The English language has historically had an influence on the globe unlike any other. Mandarin (Chinese) through underground churches may replace it but only time will tell. Specifically the Bible translated into English has influenced the world like no other. These statements include the underlying presupposition and historical reality that the Bible has been translated into the English language and is now available in multiple versions. However, what is not stated but implied is that the scriptures were not originally given to us in English but in Greek, Hebrew (and a few sections in Aramaic). Historically speaking, these copies of Greek and Hebrew documents exist in thousands of historically verifiable copies, which you can personally see throughout the world in museums. To confuse the matter, some Christians (primarily in fundamentalism) believe and teach God has chosen to only preserve one specific NT Greek text (the Textus Receptus) and one specific OT Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text). These Greek and Hebrew texts interestingly are taught to underlie the English King James Version. Multiple King James Only writers can easily be listed by name supporting this position on preservation. My purpose here is simple: Jesus and all New Testament writers (Paul, Peter, James, and John) openly quoted from a Translation of the Hebrew text, The Septuagint. Thus, they did not believe God chose to preserve his word in the Masoretic text only (as many claim today). This position is simply false. 

My Concern

My concern (as mentioned in previous articles) is that Jesus and the apostles did not teach or practice this KJV only based idea. One such historical source for this claim refuting this KJV only thinking is the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX). So what’s that have to do with anything? I thought the OT was written in Hebrew. Here’s the point: did Jesus and all the apostles believe God only preserved his word in the Masoretic text? If they did believe this, does it not stand to reason they would only quote from this God preserved Masoretic text? The Bible evidence itself shows otherwise. For this article I am sampling all fourteen Gospel references from the Septuagint to make this point. There is no evidence for God having chosen the Masoretic text. This Masoretic text position is simply an application of misused proof texts such as Mt 5:17-18 to teach God’s miraculous or even “perfect” preservation of the scriptures to include even “jots” and “tittle.” (See previous article here)

If this King James Only claim were so, then you actually have “functioning” Trinitarian problems (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Consider KJV only claims in application to the Trinity. First, God (the Father) has promised to perfectly or miraculously preserve the text of scripture. Second, God the Son (Jesus) openly quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Third, God (the Holy Spirit) by inspiration breathed out the text of scripture in both languages and holy men wrote it down. We'll have to expand on the orthodox unity within the Trinity in another article. This paper seeks to show both Jesus and all four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as all subsequent NT writers (Peter, James, and Paul), under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, openly quote from both the Septuagint (Greek translation) and the Masoretic text. The claim to know God’s word is found only in the Masoretic text is simply a believe not based on historical manuscript evidence and contrary to all biblical evidence.

The Gospel Evidence

As mentioned earlier the four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) all quote from both the Masoretic text (Hebrew) and the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew text). The breakdown is as follows: Matthew (6x), Mark (3x), Luke (2x), and John (3x). All 14 references come from the OT prophet Isaiah. We will examine each one as evidence that Jesus and the gospel writers did not hold to a preserved Masoretic text position. If as KJV only advocates surmise, that God has chosen to preserve only the Masoretic text, then here you have 14 references (in addition to 55 in the remaining NT books) where a LXX is used instead of the supposed preserved Masoretic text.

The Gospel of Matthew  

                                                                                          

As mentioned previously, all of Matthew’s Septuagint references come from the prophet Isaiah. Several of these quotations overlap the other three gospel writers. For sake of space I will not repeat the same proof text overview each time (but I will at least mention them to be consistent and thorough).

NT Reference	OT Reference	Explanation
Mt 1:23a	Isa 7:14	Quotation of clear term for “virgin” in Septuagint and not a more ambiguous “virgin” in Masoretic text (הָעַלְמָ֗ה)
Mt 1:23b	Isa 8:8, 10	Quotation of the specific transliterated proper noun from OT Greek text
Mt 3:3	Isa 40:3	Word for word verbatim; Masoretic text includes text not appearing in Greek text “in the desert” absent in Septuagint quotation
Mt 12:21	Isa 42:4	Word for word verbatim entirely absent in the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint “in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”
Mt 13:14-15	Isa 6:9-10	Near verbatim quotation of 47 Greek words including nouns, verbs, and articles; Masoretic text involves multiple verb tense changes, replacing of verbs for participles, and verbs for nouns.
Mt 15:8-9	Isa 29:13	There are several structural differences, the primary difference is the missing pronoun “to me” from the Masoretic text but present in the Septuagint.

Now we will move to several textual examples of what the chart above shows. To be technical the references are in Greek but all you need to do is compare the shapes (letters) showing you the Greek NT text quotes the Greek translation of the Hebrew text (not the Hebrew text) which would produce a different translation. The examples come in three types: one, word for word (verbatim) proof texting, two, a specific word focus, and three, an addition or subtraction of words or phrases (in both Greek and Hebrew). These 14 references clearly point to the fact that NT writers included Septuagint word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text in their quotations. 

  

Example One Mt 3:3 and Isa 40:3,

(OT and NT) εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους

(KJV) OT “make straight (in the desert) a highway….” (KJV) NT “make his paths straight”

***Note even the English King James Version leaves out the Masoretic phrase “in the desert.”

Example two Mt 12:21 and Isa 42:4,

(OT) καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(NT) καὶ   τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν

(KJV) “and in his name shall the Gentiles trust.”

***Note this entire clause is absent in the King James version Masoretic text.

Example three Mt 1:23a and Isa 7:14, (OT) παρθένος “virgin” and (NT) παρθένος “virgin”

The Gospel of Mark

As with Matthew’s quotations, all Mark’s quotes come from the prophet Isaiah. All three of Mark’s references overlap Matthew and have been discussed previously. But for sake of thoroughness, Mark 1:3 quotes Isa 40:3; Mk 4:12 quotes Isa 6:9-10, and Mk 7:6-7 quotes Isa 29:13. Again all three of these have already been addressed and Mark provides us no new pertinent information. Again, another NT writer under inspiration of the Holy Spirit does not exclusively quote from the Masoretic text but from the Septuagint.  

The Gospel of Luke

Just as Matthew and Mark used the prophet Isaiah, Luke as well used only LXX quotes from Isaiah. Of Luke’s two quotations, only Lk 4:18-19 quoted from Isa 61:1-2 (26 total words), provides an additional unaddressed concern. Luke’s quotation of Isa 40:3-5 in Lk 3:4-6 was previously addressed in Matthew’s quotation. The Masoretic text includes one specific proper name (יְהוָ֨ה) “Yahweh” not included in the Septuagint which is noticeably absent in the King James Version NT quotation. For sake of ease, an English translations is provided.

Isa 61:1-2 “The LORD anointed me…” and Lk 4:18-19 “He anointed me…”

The Gospel of John

In similar fashion to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John also exclusively uses LXX quotations from Isaiah. Again, we have already discussed the issues with Jn 1:23 quoted from Isa 40:3 and Jn 12:40 quoted from Isa 6:10. The one example not previous addressed by any of the three synoptic gospels is Jn 12:38 quoting from Isa 53:1. The proper name “LORD” (Κύριε) and preposition τίνι (bold) are not present in the Masoretic text however it is present in the King James Version quoted portion of the Septuagint listed below.

(OT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων Κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(NT) Κύριε, τίς ἐπίστευσεν τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν; καὶ ὁ βραχίων κυρίου τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη

(KJV)  --- , Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

Conclusion

It serves as a good reminder when studying the scriptures, that our study is not mere academic exercise. We our studying God revealed word. His truth in the scriptures is what aids in our progressive sanctification. This growth includes the exposure of both truth and error. The error under discussion is the claim the God has promised to preserve his world miraculously or even perfectly only in the Masoretic Old Testament text.  

By way of review, all four gospel writers, when using the Septuagint, quote exclusively from the prophet Isaiah. All 14 Septuagint quotations provide a textual clue clearly different from the Masoretic text. These differences help to identify that NT writers freely and openly used both the Masoretic text and the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). This liberty of translation included word changes, additions, and subtractions from the Masoretic text reflected in the Septuagint. This is clear evidence that God did not exclusively chose to preserve the text of scripture in only the Masoretic text. In addition, this claim of either perfect or miraculous preservation also places the members of the Trinity in disagreement and is obviously false as well.

Is Holding to A Cessationist Position on Spiritual Gifts Committing an Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Spirit?

Is Holding to A Cessationist Position on Spiritual Gifts Committing an Unpardonable Sin Against the Holy Spirit?

What is that?  An unpardonable sin?  Where?  First lets show the biblical text under question and then lets deal the context of when it occurred and what if any relevance there is for believers today.  Obviously, if there is a possibility to commit sin (without forgiveness) after the cross then it is truly a predicament.  Could this apply to believers as well as unbelievers?    

So whats the text under discussion, 

"20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. 22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 
24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 
25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 
26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. 
27 No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. 
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (Mark 3:20-30; Context is also repeated in Mt 12 and Lk 11)

The last verse is the text under discussion.  The entire paragraph is listed to show the local context in which it appears.  Having the context for proof texts goes a long way for weeding out verses which are commonly quoted out of their context to prove some theological or practical position.  So my concern is what it means to "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost."  What did it mean when Jesus said it in the first century?  What application and authority does it carry for us today?  More importantly, would it be correct for a Charismatic to use this text to defend their views or to say speaking against their views is not allowed (or worse making it a sin)?  Here's another ongoing thought: what accusation do some people repeatedly make concerning modern English Bible translations--as to their source)?  A little double-edged sword here?

First, Jesus has just healed individuals (Mk 3:10), more importantly the chapter began with Jesus healing on the sabbath day (vv. 2, 4).  After this the context shifts to Jesus ordaining twelve (vv. 14-21).  From here religious leaders begin to make accusations against Jesus  (v. 22).  Verses 23-29 record Jesus' response to their accusation (this is conveniently marked by some publishers with a red font lettering).  Again, by way of reminder, the red font is no more inspired, preserved, nor authoritative than the black font. 

Second, Jesus' (vv. 23-29) begins with a question and a series of conditional statements related to division (see my formatting above "and if").  Jesus shows how ridiculous their views are.  He was defeating Satan, not serving him.  He was directly attacked for performing a miracle (healing people that were sick, vv. 3, 10).  To put it simply, these unbelieving Jewish leaders were saying Jesus was performing legitimate sign-miracles in the power of Satan ("by" marks the means of this miracle, v. 22).    

Lets follow this up with the notes found in major study Bibles for comparison.  I've tried to highlight some of the repeating themes the study Bible notes are catching on (or at least repeating).

"Whenever someone deliberately and disrespectfully slanders the person and ministry of the Holy Spirit in pointing to the Lordship and redemption of Jesus Christ, he completely negates and forfeits any possibility of present or future forgiveness of sins, because he has wholly rejected the only basis of God’s salvation." (The MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1465).

"The unforgiveable sin is knowingly and boldly attributing the Spirit's works to demonic forces (v. 22); people who do this reject the Spirit's testimony to Christ and thus will never seek the Savior for forgiveness." (The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible, p. 1419).

"However, if a person persistently attributes to Satan what is accomplished by the power of God—that is, if one makes a flagrant, willful, decisive judgment that the Spirit’s testimony about Jesus is satanic—then such a person never has forgiveness." (The ESV Study Bible, p. 1899).

"The unforgivable blasphemy specified here is the act of deliberately associating the power and the work of Jesus, who is full of the Holy Spirit, with the work of Satan. This is to equate supreme spiritual good with supreme spiritual evil, hardening one’s heart in a way that makes repentance, and therefore forgiveness, impossible." (The Reformation Study Bible, p. 1420).

"Jesus here teaches that it also may be the reviling of God by attributing the Spirit’s work to Satan. The special circumstances involved in this blasphemy cannot be duplicated today; therefore, this sin cannot now be committed. Jesus exhorted the Pharisees to turn and be justified (vv. 33, 37)." (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1534).

Notice how each of the study Bible notes are repeating the theme of attributing the power of the third member of the Godhead (the Holy Spirit) to Satan.  The interesting point to note is that only one of the note sets actually includes a reference to the actual context in which this miracle occurred (Ryrie).  The sign-miracle was the healing of sick people.  Not speaking in tongues, interpreting, or prophecy.  I am rather perplexed why they left the scenario open and not specific to the situation.  Perhaps because of the broader theme of the forgiveness of sins which Jesus does address on multiple other occasions.  

In conclusion, I would suggest that genuine believers cannot commit this sin today.  Simply line this up with a thorough understanding of perseverance and assurance in relation to salvation.  Second, this was a sign gift, as a Cessationist, I do not believe the scriptures teach sign gifts such as: prophecy, tongues, revelation are in practice today as they are practiced in the Gospels and book of Acts. Third, these Jews were not born-again believers, so this sin was obviously not committed by a genuine believer.  Lastly, based on the context, I would suggest that any parallel made with the charismatic movement is illegitimate.  I am more concerned with the ad hominem claims in the translation realm in relation to translations (conveniently after 1611) have Satanic sources.  This is a troubling accusation. I close with a quote from a journal article on this specific issue, 

"It is clear from the accounts in Matthew 12 and Mark 3 that Jesus’ charge of blasphemy was directed toward the unbelieving Pharisees. If the sin could be committed by believers, it would be an exception to the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer (John 5:24; 6:37; 10:27–30; etc.). Truly, only the unregenerate can commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." (DBTS Journal 2009, :B. Combs, "The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit.")

Enjoy.  Comments as always encouraged.
I would especially encourage you to read the above article online.  Especially if this text troubles you.  It is free at www.dbts.edu. 

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to the One English Translation? (My Thoughts)

Is it Possible to Free a Believer's Conscience from Bondage to a One English Translation Position? (My Thoughts Only)

What actual ingredients would be necessary to free a person's conscience from believing only one English translation is appropriate?  Or to believe God has only preserved his word (providentially) in one English translation (or for that matter in only one Greek text)?  What steps are needed to help members of a local church to reach this ability?  This assumes that this position is even necessary or desirable.  Please remember this implies two things: one, they are not currently violating their conscience in using a different English translation; and two, the conscience can be taught, shaped, and re-calibrated via the scriptures.  

First, it begins with local church leadership.  The one pastor or lay-elders (whatever the polity), need to be involved proactively.  If your preaching displays that the text doesn't matter then don't expect the congregation to think otherwise.  If you actually preach and teach as though the text or underlying Hebrew and/or Greek matter, then perhaps your congregation will be more on board (but this is no guarantee).  Does the leadership actually teach the people?  Do they just throw a book at them to read?  Worst case scenario, the pastor wants to push ahead faster than the congregation.  Don't fall backwards if there is a church split (pushing too fast).  If people don't want to follow where you (alone) want to go, maybe you should slow down or rethink that particular route.  It would be much better to take things slower than to speed up and hit a wall.

Second, it begins with believers who desire to know the historic truth on the Bible translation position.  If they are content not knowing and remaining in that condition, it makes things very hard.  However, if the congregation is actually taught (through painstaking time and effort) to read and study the scriptures for themselves, this does present a better working environment.  It must be said that church attendance is not always a guarantee of Christian maturity (but you just got to wonder when some people never show up Sunday evening or Wednesday night).

Third, our standard for determining truth is not subjective experience.  It is the scriptures alone.  In God's providence certain English translations have been especially used of God in Christian circles.  From a sales perspective, certain translations have far outsold the others?  Some have even taken on their own distinct theological flavor (especially depending on who endorses them).    Remember not to confuse the theology or life-styles choices (evangelism, convictions, etc...) of the individual with the actual objective teachings of scripture.

Again these are just thoughts I have collected and experienced having lived in six different states within a multitude of different churches.  This also comes with graduate level seminary degrees from two different seminaries within fundamental Christian circles.  And yes there will always be overlapping agreements and alternative disagreements between schools.  Again I say this only because I've seen it really work well and I also have seen it turn our very ugly.  I've seen where people will not study, learn and grow.  I've also seen the reverse where people do grow and mature in their understanding of the historical position on the translation issue.  Just to be fair, even mature Christians will disagree on this issue.

As always, comments encouraged.

Voices from history on the Translation issue, 

(1910) "Inspiration is affirmed, of course, only of the original documents, now no longer extant.  Many mistakes may have been made by copyists, and some interpolations by officious scribes and translators are fallible.  It is the part of reverent criticism to seek, by careful examination and comparison of all existing documents, to detect errors and restore as far as possible the Scriptures in their original purity" (A. T. Pierson, Knowing the Scriptures, p. 21; Taken from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Greenville, SC).

(1910) "One evening he remarked that no one claimed verbal inspiration for the English Bible-although that was remarkably accurate-but only for the text of the original writings.  "Then," exclaimed a gentleman rising in the front seat, "if we cannot read the original we might as well have no inspired Bible at all."  "Well," replied the lecturer quickly, "my daughter, who is a missionary in Japan, recently sent me a photography of her child whom I have never seen.  No doubt it is not a perfect likeness.  Do you suppose that I said, as I looked upon it, that is not the original and therefore I might as well have no grandchildren at all?" (Arthur T. Pierson: A Biography; By Delaven Leonard Pierson, p. 284; borrowed from Trusted Voices on Translations, Mount Calvary Baptist, Greenville, SC). 

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.