This post was written by Nathan Tyler, a close brother, fellow-soldier, and co-laborer in the field. I have read it and found it to be such a clear exposition on this pertinent issue, that I requested and obtained permission to post it for more to read.
I must in all honesty declare that I would NEVER even try to defend the Bible’s account of creation using a compromised, corrupt, and critical perversion, such as is plentiful in these last days. I fear they are spots in our feasts, and cankers in our church bodies.
I can say that I am grateful to God the Author of the Scriptures and the Author and Finisher of my Faith, that He has preserved His words for me in English in the Authorized Version (the King James Bible). On it I can stand and smile at Satan’s rage and face a frowning world, “conquering now, and still to conquer” through His grace!
Kevan Myers Psalm 119:89
There is still time to win a battle before the sun goes down.
Now, please consider Nathan’s thoughts…
I. Introduction
The Bible version issue has been a serious controversy for many years now, during which time much has been written to expose the movement of the modern versions (post AD 1611) to dilute and weaken orthodox Bible doctrine. The list of doctrines that are tampered with in these versions is not short and by no means trivial. On this list is the Godhead of Jesus Christ, His blood atonement, resurrection, ascension and sinless perfection, for example. As much as Satan has used Evolution in the past century and a half it should also not come as a surprise that Creationism has also been weakened in these modern versions. While these problems are comparatively not as severe as ones that attack the Trinity, etc., at the same time a Bible believing Christian should take any assault on any doctrine of his Bible seriously. Remember the Lord’s warning at the end of the Bible found in Revelation 22:18-19.
The following is a list of the versions that are mentioned in this article:
New International Version (NIV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
New King James Version (NKJV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Century Version (NCV)
English Revised Version (ERV)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Holman Christian Standard Version (HCSB)
The Message (MSG)
These have been selected because of their popularity amongst professing Christians. There are more that could be added to this list.
II. The Influence of Three Men on Bible History
Origen and Textual Criticism
The differences in the modern versions stem largely from the modernistic bias of Textual Criticism and the minority of manuscripts they favor. Origen had a lot of influence in Textual Criticism as early as the second century. Much of the modern versions’ texts and philosophy comes from the area of his influence in Alexandria, Egypt. He made a Greek Text called the Hexapla which continues to be of major influence in the naturalistic groups who adhere to the theories of Textual Criticism, the more conservative faction of which teaches that the Bible was inspired in the original manuscripts, and since then the original form has been lost. They are currently working on restoring the Bible. It is taught in these circles that the ancient text of the Bible should be handled no differently than any other old book that is being recovered. Of course this theory is absolutely void of any practical belief in the Bible doctrine of preservation as declared in Psalm 12:6-7, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, etc.
Origen was one of the earliest and most influential Textual Critics. Among the many false doctrines he held, perhaps the worst was his allegorical interpretation of the Scripture. He mocked the notion of the Garden of Eden being literal history, and yet Textual Critics hold him up as a great man of the faith. It is a wonder that fundamentalists respect such an unorthodox teacher as Origen.
Westcott and Hort
In 1881 the Bible was re-translated in England. This version called the English Revised Version was the beginning of the popular modern versions we have today – the ERV and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version, has had great influence on them all. The two most influential men involved in that project were Cambridge professors Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort. These men also were opposed to orthodoxy on a number of counts. They dabbled in the occult through an organization called the Ghostly Guild, they were worshippers of Mary, and they were Darwinian sympathizers who accepted evolution to some degree at least.
Here is what Hort wrote to an acquaintance about Darwin’s book in 1860, the year after it came out. “Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book.”
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” – Life and Letters of Hort, Vol. I, pg. 416)
Like Origen, Westcott did not believe Genesis’ first three chapters were literal history either. On this matter he wrote, “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did”.
“I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed…” – “Life and Letters of Westcott, 1903,
Thankfully, even with men like this being so influential in the history of the Critical Text and modern versions, the Garden of Eden is still there. However, creationism is weakened or downplayed in them nonetheless.
Observe the following examples of what has been changed.
III. Examples of Weakened Doctrine
Days of Creation In Genesis 1:5b the KJB reads, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” This clearly places the creation at the beginning of time. After all, it is not possible to have a day before the first day. This one verse disproves the Gap Theory, which tries to put a long period of time before the first day spoken of in v. 5.
It is also important to note that the day here is defined as a period of time from evening to morning. This disproves the theory of Theistic Evolution, which asserts that the days of creation actually represent long periods of time, and not literal 24-hour days. This position builds their case on the point that the Hebrew word translated “day” in this passage does not have to mean a 24-hour day. Although the Hebrew word “yom” which is translated “day” here could also mean a period of time, context shows this is not the case here. Nowhere is this word used with qualifying words like “evening”, “morning”, “first”, “second”, etc., when referencing a longer time period.
The New American Standard Bible, which claims to be one of the most accurate of modern versions, and one of the most popular ones translates this as well as vs. 8, 13, 19, and 23 in a way that easily accommodates both of these false, compromising theories. NASB “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” By this translation the creation week could have taken place at any time. This same reading is also found in the RSV, which is even closer to Westcott and Hort’s first Bible, the ERV, and there is no mistaking what they thought of evolution.
Wild Beasts Before the Sin?
In Genesis 1:25 the Bible tells of God creating the animals. What the KJB translates as “living creature”, or “beast of the earth”, the NIV translates “wild animals.” This reading is more compatible with evolution. There were no wild animals until at least after sin and death came into the world, and possibly not until after the Flood. Hugh Ross, John Ankerburg, and other Old-earth Creationists certainly prefer this reading. The Message, NLT, HCSB, NCV, CEV (v. 24), etc. are similar.
Dragons in the Bible
There are a number of verses in the KJB that mention a creature called a dragon. Although this word is associated with mythology today, it has not always been. Webster’s dictionary of 1828 defines a dragon as “A genus of animals, the Draco. They have four legs, a cylindrical tail, and membranaceous wings, radiated like the fins of a flying-fish.” He also notes that in Scripture it seems to mean a large marine fish or serpent. Three hundred years ago “dragon” would have been a name for dinosaur-like creatures, since the word “dinosaur” was not invented yet.
The word “dragon(s)” is used in the KJB 22 times in reference to a creature that man was clearly familiar with. Since this would have been what dinosaurs were called when the KJB was translated, the Bible clearly teaches that dinosaurs and man lived together. This is not well received by a lot of people, Christians included, because they have been conditioned to accept the teachings of evolution in various degrees. Evolution and the above-mentioned compromises teach that dinosaurs died off thousands or millions of years before man came to be. In most of these passages the word “dragon” has been replaced with “jackal.” The pattern varies slightly from one to another, but by and large you will find this to be so in every major new version. There is no good reason for this – the Hebrew word tanniym (Strongs #8577) means land or sea monster. The word “shual” (Strongs #7776) is the word that is always used for foxes, which is much more similar to jackals than monsters.
Behold Now Behemoth
Many Bibles, KJBs included, will have a footnote at Job 40:15 that tries to say the creature called behemoth is an elephant or hippopotamus, and not a dinosaur. The Contemporary English Version (CEV) goes even further and inserts their commentary straight into the Bible text itself, assuming this passage is about a hippopotamus! The text itself however makes it clear that this animal is not a mere elephant or hippopotamus, but something much greater. Verse 17 is one of the clearest examples of this, which says, “He moveth his tail like a cedar, the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.” This passage shows that the idea that this is talking about an elephant or hippo is wrong. Neither of those creatures has a tail like a tree. The way many modern versions render this passage is much weaker than the KJB. Here are some examples from the most popular ones. NIV: Although the NIV does still compare his tail to a cedar, the footnote for this verse reads, “Possibly trunk.” These footnotes work even harder to suggest that this creature is not a dinosaur-like creature. What this note is based on is uncertain. There is no indication in the Hebrew word “zanab” (Strongs #2180) that it ever means “trunk.” The same word is used in Ex. 4:4, Jud. 15:4, and a number of other places that would make no sense whatsoever if you replaced the translation of “tail” with “trunk.”
NASB: This version translates v. 15 in such a way that it does not say for sure that Job lived together with behemoth. It reads, “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.”
This is quite different from “which I made with you”, as the AV and others say. A Theistic Evolutionist like Hugh Ross who thinks that the days of creation were long periods of time, and that the dinosaurs died long before God made Adam has no problem saying that behemoth was made as well as man, he just does not believe that he lived with man. The ESV basically says the same thing. The ESV even goes so far as to interpret v. 17 as saying behemoth makes his tail stiff like a cedar, which is the opposite of what the Bible says. It is interesting that this verse is being re-worded, since this clause is one of the ones that shows that behemoth is not what the footnotes suggest. Conveniently the re-wording happens to make it so that the comparison of the tail of this creature to a cedar tree does not have to be in reference to size, but just stiffness. Again, the Hebrew does not help us at all to figure out why they would render it as they do – the word translated “moveth” in the KJB (Strongs #2654) means “to incline to,” and implies bending. This is the complete opposite of how the ESV, supposedly one of the most literal and accurate versions on the market, reads. If that phrase sounds familiar, it is because the NASB, NKJV, and others make the same claim, so there is a little competition going on for that title, since it really helps sales.
Jesus Knows His Cetology
In Matthew 12:40 when Jesus refers to Jonah He says he was in a whale. (Jonah 1:17 calls it a big fish.) Modern-day scoffers are quick to point out that whales are mammals, not fish. A lot of Christians also believe that the KJB translation is inaccurate as well, not so much for that reason, but because of more naturalistic reasoning, such as whales are supposedly unable to swallow a man, whales are not from the Mediterranean Sea, etc. The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, ESV, HCSB, MSG, CEV, NCV, etc., all change their translations to read “huge fish,” “sea monster,” or something similar. Apparently they agree with the idea that “whale” is a mistranslation.
However there is no need from a scientific standpoint, much less a faith-based one, to alter this reading. The word translated “whale” is “ketos,” (Strongs # 2785) which is one of the words that the modern biological term “cetology” is derived from. This word basically means the study of whales. So the KJB is the most scientific of all these versions, being the only one that reveals the Maker of whales to be centuries ahead of modern science!
Conclusion
These are a number of things that show the modern versions to be wanting in comparison to the KJB concerning the doctrine of Creation. This certainly is not the only problem either. The purpose of this article, however, was to point out those places which have weakened what the Bible teaches about Creationism specifically. The reader is strongly encouraged to look up the Bible version issue if not already acquainted with it to be informed of the many other severe problems besides this important matter here addressed. Concerning creationism or any other great doctrine of the faith, the KJB truly has no equal in any translation.
