What is the cost of the NIV2011 placating the Jews...

Speaking of the New International Version 2011, here's another change indicative of the version's corruption of God's Word:

John 1:19


This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 

NIV (1984)

Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.


Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[a]  in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 

[a] 19 The Greek term traditionally translated the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) refers here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel to those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus; also in 5:10, 15, 16; 7:1, 11, 13; 9:22; 18:14, 28, 36; 19:7, 12, 31, 38; 20:19.

The Greek word 'Ioudaioi' is the English word 'Jews.' Since Hitler's holocaust, though, Jews have been bringing pressure to bear on Bible publishers and the translators they employ to take this word 'Jews' out of the Gospel of John...

They tell the Bible publishers that they don't want their grandchildren being called "Christ-killers," and that it would be a great help to them if the Apostle John's historical account of the Jews' hatred for Christ and pursuit of Him to the Cross and the grave were removed from the Bible.

So the New Living Translation and the NIV2011 have obliged by altering the text of Scripture. Where the Apostle John reports that the "Jews" opposed Jesus, they change it to "Jewish leaders." Or sometimes they simply take the word 'Jews' out and replace it with the word 'they' or 'those.'

Thus on Good Friday when pastors ask our congregations "who killed Jesus," the congregation no longer says "the Jews," but rather "the Jewish leaders." Or simply "they did."

Which is to say that on Good Friday when the pastor asks the people "who killed Jesus," the congregation no longer says "we did," but rather "you and the elders did." Which fits in perfectly with the democratic hatred of authority which permeates our world.

Let's come back to the beginning, though, before we end.

What's wrong with translating 'Ioudaioi' "they" or "Jewish leaders?"

What's wrong is that it doesn't mean "they" or "Jewish leaders."

It means "Jews."

There are ways of saying "they" and "Jewish leaders" in Greek. And when the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture's authors to write "they" or "Jewish leaders," we know it because that's what they wrote. Just so when He inspired the authors of Scripture to write "Jews." We know it because that's what they wrote.

Did you all read my earlier post about how "translators are instinctively averse to the risk of being taken for less than fully cultivated writers?" There are few things like the threat of being accused of anti-Semitism to make a scholar tremble.


While looking for some information regarding the removal of the familial terms (i.e. Son and Father) in the bible translations done among Muslims by groups like Wycliffe and Frontiers, I came across "The Bible Translators Creed". It, unfortunately, exemplifies much of what you have presented on this topic in the past few days.

Article I. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that we can take GOD’s word and put OUR copyright on it, since we own the Bible.

Article II. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that we will deny the virgin birth by saying “a young woman shall conceive” in Isaiah 7:14 [citing the Hebrew word means "young woman"], and yet we will state “a VIRGIN shall conceive” in Matthew 1:23 and thus contradict ourselves, for we found the Hebrew to say “young woman” but we somehow got “virgin” when it translated from Hebrew to Greek to English.

Article III. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that we will dumb-down the Bible to a three-year-old’s reading level, since no one any longer uses [or understands] the archaic terms “damned”, “fornication”, “wrath”, “evil”, or “pestilence”.

Article IV. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that Jesus must talk like an unconvincing wimp.

Article V. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that the Word is incomplete without our two-cents’ commentary on the words “the” and “if” in every verse, at the bottom with footnotes.

Article VI. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that translational efforts are not to be evaluated [or weighed] by accuracy, but rather by how much of the alphabet appears behind our names, and by celebrity endorsements.

Article VII. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that we will put out 50 different translations [which all say the same thing], so we can make 50 times the money.

Article VIII. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that we will take those same 50 Bible translations, which by copyrights we OWN since we authored them, and make 5 different study Bibles out of each [Chicken Soup For The 2nd Year Female Freshman Who Drives A Purple Dodge Neon And Wears Abercrombie And Fitch Soul - NIV Translation Study Bible], so we can make 250 times the money.

Article IX. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that your Bible is worth nothing unless you first had it autographed by Benny Hinn, PERSONALLY, in gold-embossed rubber-stamped lettering, for a small one-time love gift of $125.00.

Article X. We, the Bible Translators, affirm that “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” is subject to revision when the conference meets bi-annually.

Luther's 65,000 word antisemitic treatise, The Jews and Their Lies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies, apparently was used to support Hitler's extermination of the Jews.

Since then, a number of Jews have been shouting down Christianity whenever even the hint of negative light is cast upon them. Perhaps this truly is why the NIV2011 deviates from the Greek and now merely blames the "Jewish leaders" of Jesus' day.

Finally, the Holocaust's fallout is so widespread, that the "New Perspective on Paul" has emerged which now reads the NT through 1st Century Jewish eyes (instead of a 16th Century Reformation context). This growing movement believes that Paul wasn't questioning good works, only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws.

It's a wonder that one treatise -- Luther's swan song -- could so tragically impact the Jews, significantly alter Scripture, and even upend Reformation scholarship in the 21 Century.


How much of the Talmud have you read?

•The parts where it says a man having sex with a 3 year old is nothing?

•The section that encourages Jews to go to another town in disguise so their evil deeds won't be known?

•The sections where beastiality are given the okay?

•The sections where stealing from goyim is nothing?

•The warning to not let the goyim read the Talmud lest they desire to wipe out the Jews because what is written there is so detestable?

I've read enough of the Talmud to banish the term "Judeo-Christian" from my vocabulary.

How much of Luther's treatise have you read? I've read more of the Talmud than Luther's treatise, but I'm several pages in and all I can say is "Amen!"

I haven't seen anything antisemitic yet.

From Luther's Treatise:

For this year, which we Christians write as the year 1542 since the birth of Christ, is exactly 1,468 years, going on fifteen hundred years, since Vespasian and Titus destroyed

Jerusalem and expelled the Jews from the city. Let the Jews bite on this nut and dispute this question as long as they wish.

For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he

would punish his own people so long, so terribly, so unmercifully, and in addition keep silent, comforting them neither with words nor with deeds, and fixing no time limit and no end to it. Who would have faith, hope, or love toward such a God? Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God. This is in accord with Hosea 1:9, "Call his name Not my people, for you are not my people

and I am not your God." Yes, unfortunately, this is their lot, truly a terrible one. They may interpret this as they will; we see the facts before our eyes, and these do not deceive us.

If there were but a spark of reason or understanding in them, they would surely say to themselves: "O Lord God, something has gone wrong with us. Our misery is too great, too long,

too severe; God has forgotten us!" etc. To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do not like to contemplate God's awful wrath toward this people. It sends a shudder of fear through body and

soul, for I ask, What will the eternal wrath of God in hell be like toward false Christians and all unbelievers?

Dear Craig and Allan,

This sort of discussion is quite difficult to be reasonable in because of the expectation we have that everyone think as we do. So you start with Luther recommending the Jews' synagogues and houses be destroyed and most people reading it today have no idea what it means to believe and act on the basis of the immortality of the soul and the coming Judgment--certainties that permeated the Middle Ages and are the context for Roman Catholic/Protestant not to mention Christian/Jewish conflict in that time.

Today, we are crass materialists who believe neither in souls nor the Judgment, so we find all previous generations incomprehensible.

Then, of course, we take drugs to kill our unborn chiildren and those little ones die in the scores of millions each year with the toll at over a billion these past few decades.

And we go to peaceful sleep at night clucking our tongues over the deaths and punishments of the Middle Ages done as they say it "in the name of religion" which tolls are infinitesimal by comparison to ours done in the name of ideology (and most wickedly feminism).


Ok, late to the discussion as usual; but having read Romans 10 and 11 recently, I've always understood that despite their rebellion, God still has a concern for national Israel, and national Israel will eventually be restored to Him, meaning that Luther's views were hardly the last word on the matter. Views?

When I think of the crimes committed against Jews in the name of Christianity. .. .

>When I think of the crimes committed against Jews in the name of Christianity. .. .

Minescule when set against the cost of altering God's word, isn't it?

Not at all. Christ was about love, and would not consider any such crimes "miniscule."

Christians need to address the ugliness within themselves, instead of worrying about the semantics within a new version of a Bible. Anti-semititism is only one form of this ugliness

>>Not at all. Christ was about love,

Yes, and true love is passing on God's revelation unaltered by the agenda of fallen man.

>>and would not consider any such crimes "miniscule."

Relative to altering God's Word he would. You have a warped measure with which you judge.

>>>...instead of worrying about the semantics within a new version of a Bible

I tremble for those who do not tremble at the Word of God. There is no fear of God before their eyes...

Am I jumping to conclusions about "Chris"? Can he write so pointedly against the Word of God yet need a softer treatment?

Add new comment