Question:

I submited Mr. Hamilton's paper to my seminary professor, Dr. David Johnson, who teaches The History of The New Testament. He said:

"The problem with the article is that (his claim is not accurate). The gnostic texts that were discovered were not biblical texts. The biblical texts that have been discovered since 1930 are by and large orthodox and correspond quite closely to the texts that were used to translate the Old and New Testament.

The article is obviously based on second hand sources that the author has mixed up somehow.

Mr. Hamilton gives no footnoted references of authority to verify his claim that the NIV was translated from flawed Gnostic documents. Therefore, the claim is mere heresay and not worthy to be printed in any credible medium or forum.

Mr. Hamilton's comparison of Bible verses though are very interesting and informative. I personally do not like or use the NIV but prefer the NASB which generally theologians agree is the most accurate and most faithful to the original text.

The KJV /AV also has too many errors. Lucifer is not a name but the Latin translation of the Hebrew word for the shimihg one.

In Romans 4:19 the original text says that Abraham considered his body yet dead but did not lose faith. The KJV says that he did not consider his body.

The KJV plagarized John Calvin's Geneva Bible in Acts 15:18 and says, "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world."

The verse really says, "Says the Lord who makes these things known."

These are only 3 of many errors in the KJV.

God bless you


Answer:

Footnotes to evidence were added to the document "The New International Version." It isn't that I don't have the evidence, it is that I'm not writing for a scholarly audience and so I rarely think about a world where nothing is real unless another man said it. The third footnote contains several quotes from early Christian writers showing that your professor is mistaken. Charges were leveled at the Gnostics for altering the biblical text.

Your professor incorrectly identified me as a King James Only person. I agree with him that in the current field of translations the NASB is one of the better ones. I preach out of the NASB95 currently. Regarding errors in the King James Version and other translations see: