A Pastoral Message of Admonition and Appeal

Beloved followers of the Way,

Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I write to you with both concern and love, mindful of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 4:5: “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.”

The apostle is clear—our calling is not to promote ourselves, nor to build followers around our own ideas, but to exalt Christ alone as Lord. The church is not sustained by human arguments, intellectual pride, or claims to special knowledge. It is upheld by the gospel of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, proclaimed in humility and in truth.

Yet it grieves me to see how secondary debates over Bible translations and human theories are being elevated above Christ Himself. When positions such as “Verbal Plenary Preservation,” the “Perfect TR,” or exclusive allegiance to one English translation are presented as tests of true faith, they risk becoming burdens that divide the body rather than doctrines that unite it. These positions may be borne out of zeal, but zeal without humility and gospel-centeredness can unwittingly mirror the very gnostic spirit that Paul and John warned against—a spirit that exalts secret knowledge, human certainty, and rigid sectarianism over the simplicity of Christ.

Brother, hear the Lord’s call: return to the pure gospel. The church does not exist to defend human systems or to magnify a particular translation. The church exists to proclaim Christ crucified, to preach the Word faithfully in the languages of God’s people, and to serve one another in love.

Paul himself, once a Pharisee of Pharisees, could have boasted in many things. But in Philippians 3:8, he says: “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” This is our posture too: to lay down pride, to count as loss our intellectual trophies, and to lift high Christ alone.

Please consider: are your words pointing others to Christ, or are they drawing attention to your own certainty, your own positions, your own cause? If the latter, then repent and return to the humility of Christ, who came not to be served but to serve. Let us be servants of one another for Jesus’ sake, not masters over one another in debates that fracture His body.

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:6, “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” That is the true treasure—the glory of God revealed in the face of Christ, not in the promotion of ourselves or our own theological constructs.

I plead with you, in the love of Christ: return to the Lord’s simple call. Set aside divisive speculation. Fix your eyes again on Jesus, and let your teaching, your life, and your ministry exalt Him alone.

With sorrow and hope,

A Pastoral Appeal for Grace and Unity

Leaders in Christ,

I write to you with deep respect for your devotion to God’s Word and your love for the Lord Jesus Christ. The care you show in guarding the Scriptures and your commitment to the truth is evident, and for that I give thanks. At the same time, I come with a heartfelt plea for grace, rooted in the gospel we all cherish.

Our Lord Jesus prayed that His people would be one, even as He and the Father are one (John 17:21). The apostle Paul reminds us that in Christ there is “one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4–6). While differences in translation preference are real and sometimes deeply felt, I urge you in the Spirit of Christ to extend forgiveness, acceptance, and love toward brothers and sisters who read from the NIV or other faithful translations of God’s Word.

The gospel itself teaches us: “Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Col. 3:13). We know that none of us comes to God by the purity of our works or the perfection of our knowledge, but only through the mercy of Christ. In the same way, may we not withhold fellowship or acceptance from those whom Christ has already welcomed. If God has poured His Spirit upon men and women reading the NIV, drawing them to repentance, faith, and holiness, can we not also embrace them as fellow heirs of grace?

Leaders, I am not asking you to abandon your convictions, but to adorn them with charity. Hold fast to your love for the King James Bible, but let that love be accompanied by patience and gentleness toward others who also seek to know God through His Word. In doing so, your testimony will shine even brighter—not only for your faithfulness to Scripture but also for your reflection of the love of Christ.

May the Lord strengthen you, fill you with His peace, and grant you joy as you shepherd His people in the spirit of unity.

With respect and love in Christ,

Lawrence Wong

Wrong Tradition

The KJV-only position—that the King James Version is the only true or valid Bible translation—is a tradition that arose in the last century, mainly in reaction to modern Bible translations. While the KJV is a beautiful and historically important translation, the idea that it is the only inspired or preserved Word of God is problematic for several reasons:

Why KJV-onlyism is a wrong tradition

It elevates a translation above the original texts

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The KJV is a translation, not the original. To claim that one English translation is more inspired than the God-breathed originals is backwards—it makes the translation the standard rather than the Scriptures themselves.

It confuses preservation with one version

God promised to preserve His Word (Isaiah 40:8), but preservation does not mean through a single 17th-century English edition. The Word has been preserved through thousands of manuscripts and translations in many languages, allowing God’s truth to reach all peoples.

It ignores the need for clarity in language

English has changed dramatically since 1611. Words like “let,” “prevent,” “conversation,” or “quick” don’t mean the same today. If people misunderstand God’s Word because of outdated language, the translation becomes a barrier rather than a blessing.

It repeats the mistake of clinging to tradition over truth

Before the Reformation, the Latin Vulgate held the same place of untouchable authority in the Western church. Many leaders said, “The Vulgate is the Bible.” Reformers like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, and others challenged this by returning to the Hebrew and Greek, translating into common languages so that people could understand God’s Word.

In the same way, KJV-onlyism repeats the same error—it insists on one traditional version rather than encouraging ongoing faithful translations from the original languages.

Why I do not follow KJV-onlyism

I don’t reject the KJV itself—it is still a faithful and beautiful translation—but I reject the tradition that says it alone is the Bible. My reason is simple: I want to follow the example of the Reformers, who left the exclusive reliance on the Latin Vulgate. They understood that the authority lies in God’s Word as given in the original languages, and translations must serve people by making that Word clear and accurate in their own tongue.

Just as they did not stay bound to Jerome’s Vulgate, I do not want to be bound to the King James Version alone. I honor it, but I also embrace other faithful translations that help God’s Word shine with clarity for today.

KJV-onlyism is like clinging to the Latin Vulgate in the Middle Ages—it confuses tradition with truth. I don’t follow it because I believe God’s Word is greater than any single translation, and like the Reformers, I want Scripture to be understood clearly in the language of the people.

Since All Bible Translations Are Imperfect, How Can We Speak of an Inerrant Bible?

Answering Bible Difficulties – Question 31

Original: 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/bible-difficulties/question31-how-can-we-speak-of-an-inerrant-bible.cfm

It is objected that the Scripture today cannot be called inerrant because each translation made from the original is imperfect. Indeed, no matter what language the Bible is translated into, there will always be imperfections. How, therefore, can the Bible today be spoken of as the inerrant Word of God when most people read it in an imperfect translation?

Response

We respond to this accusation with the following points:

The Message Comes Through in Translations

Admittedly, there is no translation of Scripture that is perfect. Each has its deficiencies. Those who translate the Scripture recognize this. Yet the meaning of the passages can be adequately communicated from one language to the next. For example, a simple comparison of good English translations of Scripture will demonstrate that the meanings of each passage will be shown to be the same, even if the wording is different. The message of Scripture comes out crystal clear.

Translations Have More Things Right than Wrong

With respect to the major Bible translations that have been produced, there is much more right with them than things that are wrong. The things that are wrong are usually insignificant and they do not affect the central message. Consequently, people can read these translations with the confidence that they are reading the Word of God.

A Lesson from the New Testament and the Septuagint

An example of how an imperfect translation can still be the inerrant Word of God is found in the usage that the New Testament writers make of the of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint about one hundred and sixty specific times. Thirteen of those times, when quoting the Old Testament, the New Testament writers call the Septuagint, “Scripture.” This shows that the Septuagint, an imperfect Greek translation of the Hebrew original, is still considered to be Holy Scripture.

These quotations are as follows:

Matthew 21:42

Jesus cites the Septuagint when speaking of His predicted rejection by His own people—the Jews. We read in Matthew:

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes?’” (Matthew 21:42 NKJV)

This cites Psalm 117:22-23 in the Septuagint. It is Psalm 118:22-23 in English translations. Jesus believed the Septuagint could be equated with Scripture.

Luke 4:18-19, 21

The Septuagint was cited by Jesus when He read from the scroll of Isaiah in a synagogue in Nazareth. It reads as follows:

Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.” (Luke 4:16-21 NET)

Jesus is citing Isaiah 61:1-2, He called the passage from which He read “Scripture.” Again, the Septuagint is considered to be Scripture.

John 13:18

When Jesus said the Scriptures predicted His betrayal by one who was close to Him He cited the Septuagint. We read the following in the Gospel of John:

I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.’ (John 13:18 NKJV)

This cites Psalm 40:9 in the Septuagint (Psalm 41:9 in English translations). The Greek text of the Old Testament is cited here, and declared to be Scripture.

Acts 8:32-33

When leaving Jerusalem, the Ethiopian eunuch was reading the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament about the prediction of God’s suffering servant. The Bible records it as follows:

Now the passage of the scripture that he was reading was this: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and like a lamb silent before its shearer, so he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.” (Acts 8:32-33 NRSV)

This is citing Isaiah 53:7-8, in the Septuagint.

Romans 4:3

Paul quotes the Septuagint when referring to the faith of Abraham. He said to the Romans:

For the Scriptures tell us, “Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous.” (Romans 4:3 NLT)

The passage cited is Genesis 15:6 and it is called Scripture.

Romans 9:17

Paul cites the Septuagint when speaking of God’s reason for the raising up of the Pharaoh of Egypt. He wrote to the church at Rome:

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” (Romans 9:17 ESV)

The New Living Translation says:

For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you, and so that my fame might spread throughout the earth.” (Romans 9:17 NLT)

Paul is citing Exodus 9:16 in the Septuagint and calls it Scripture.

Romans 11:3-4

The Septuagint is cited when referring to Elijah’s complaint that all the prophets had been slain. We read the following in the Book of Romans:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God’s reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” (Romans 11:2-4 ESV)

Here, Paul is citing 1 Kings 19:10,14, and 18 in the Septuagint translation.

Galatians 3:8

Paul quotes the Septuagint in the passage that says Gentiles would be blessed through Abraham. He wrote the following:

And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.” (Galatians 3:8 NRSV)

The passage cited is Genesis 12:3. Paul cites the Greek text rather than the Hebrew text.

Galatians 4:30

The illustration that the promise of the inheritance will come through Sarah, rather than Hagar, is quoted in the Septuagint. Paul wrote:

But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.” (Galatians 4:30 TNIV)

Here Paul is citing Genesis 21:12 in the Greek text.

1 Timothy 5:18

Paul quotes the Law of Moses in the Septuagint version. He wrote the following to Timothy:

For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves to be paid.” (1 Timothy 5:18 NRSV)

Deuteronomy 25:4 is cited here in the Greek text.

James 2:8

James cites the Septuagint with respect to loving one’s neighbor. He wrote:

Yes indeed, it is good when you truly obey our Lord’s royal command found in the Scriptures: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (James 2:8 NLT)

James is citing Leviticus 19:18 in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

James 4:6

James quotes the Septuagint concerning God blessing the humble. He said:

He gives us more and more strength to stand against such evil desires. As the Scriptures say, “God sets himself against the proud, but he shows favor to the humble.” (James 4:6 NLT)

The passage cited here is Proverbs 3:34 in the Septuagint.

Each of These References Calls What They Are Citing “Scripture”

We find the evidence convincing. On a number of occasions, the New Testament writers, in citing the Old Testament, cite the Greek text, the Septuagint, instead of citing the Hebrew text. The Septuagint is called “Scripture” in thirteen passages where it is cited.

Conclusion: the New Testament Writers Believed They Were Citing Scripture When Quoting the Greek Old Testament

Therefore, the New Testament teaches that the Septuagint, a translation, is Scripture. Since all Scripture is divinely inspired, then the Septuagint, along with other Bible translations, are divinely inspired in the sense that they convey God’s truth.

Summary – Question 31
Since All Bible Translations Are Imperfect, How Can We Speak of an Inerrant Bible?

The imperfections of Bible translations are used as an argument against an inerrant Bible. Since all translations are different, how can anyone speak of an inerrant Bible?

However the problems with translations have nothing to do with the original. It is admitted that all translations have their problems. Yet the message still comes through loud and clear. The real issue is the text behind the translations. Is it error free? The evidence says that it is.

In addition, the New Testament cites the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, and calls it Scripture. Therefore, it is a biblical idea to call a translation of the Bible “Scripture.”

The Bible Movement Story (1837-2017)

 

Pastors, Choose Gratitude Over Grumbling

November 9, 2020  |  Dustin Crowe

Original posting: 

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/pastors-gratitude-grumbling/

Having a tough year?

As church members choose conflict over peacemaking, appear more excited about politics than discipleship, give more weight to a pundit’s off-the-cuff opinion than your studied convictions, fall for sin rather than follow Scripture, reject the counsel of friends to pursue idols you know will hurt them, make time for school programs and sporting events but skip church, and criticize your leadership for recent decisions, groaning over such grievances and burdens feels natural.

You’re not alone. The invitation to murmur against your church tests all pastors and staff. But don’t get stuck there. Be careful not to grow accustomed to an irritable posture toward God’s people.

Moses’s Example

Moses never served as a pastor, but he did lead God’s people. Like you, he knew what it was like to lead sheep who bite, kick, and stray. So you probably get why he sometimes threw up his hands in dismay or smashed stone tablets. You might never say or do what Moses did, but you understand how he got there.

In Numbers 11, there’s already a beef between Moses and Israel. Israel regularly aired their criticisms against Moses’s provision, direction, and competence. And he fell prey to outbursts of anger for their stubbornness.

During one trial in the wilderness, an unhappy group appropriately called “the rabble” (Num. 11:4) spread complaints and stirred division that spread like a cancer. They moaned about how much better things were under different leadership. Despite God’s clear favor upon Moses, they wanted him out. They’d rather serve Pharaoh as slaves than follow Moses as free men and women. (Fortunately for Moses, email, online petitions, and social media didn’t exist.)

The continual complaints eventually crushed Moses. He responded by grumbling against the ones God put under his care (11:11–14). He asked God why he got stuck with them. He was annoyed and exasperated. The root of bitterness deepened. The divide between leader and followers widened. And the burden of leadership in ministry felt like too much to carry.

Every pastor knows the temptation to focus on troubles in his church. We can gravitate toward grumbling about the difficult people and the discouraging problems. When we do so, or at least when we stay there, our trust in God begins to weaken, and our love for the people wanes. Before long, we burn out––or we burn bridges––as we minister from a posture of irritability rather than grace.

Paul’s Example

Paul wasn’t sheltered from tough situations or trying people. He went toe-to-toe with false teachers, experienced apostasy and betrayal, knew slander and gossip, and worked through conflict and division. People questioned his apostleship, favored other leaders, and badmouthed his authority and gifting.

But what stands out from Paul’s letters is the way he consistently chose gratitude over grumbling. He oversaw sinful congregations and imperfect parishioners, but this didn’t overshadow the good work of God. And by keeping his eyes on the good gifts and growth, he found reasons for thanksgiving.

One example comes from Colossians. Paul says when he thinks of the church there, he gives thanks for them (Col. 1:3). Don’t you want that to be true of your mindset toward your church?

At the forefront of Paul’s mind isn’t the false teaching, a divisive faction in the church, or unhealthy practices of asceticism. Paul eventually addresses these issues, so he isn’t ignoring them. But his first thought is thankfulness. His knee-jerk response to the church is celebration rather than complaint.

He thanks God for the Spirit-produced work of faith, love, and hope (1:4–5). He gives thanks for how the gospel of Jesus turns strangers into family (1:2), grants them an eternal inheritance (1:5), and ripens into fruit spreading out to the world (1:6). None of this is their work or Paul’s work; it is God’s. Paul knows this, and is grateful for the small and big things God is accomplishing in their midst.

Paul can take on a posture of thankfulness to God for an imperfect church because he trusts it is God who’s ultimately responsible for the church’s well-being. Yes, Paul has a role to play. Yes, he will encourage and admonish, teach and warn (1:28). But the church is Christ’s bride alone. The good work started in them is the work God will be faithful to finish (Phil. 1:6). Paul doesn’t put all the pressure of their growth, health, or perseverance on his own shoulders. He feels a healthy weight of responsibility and does what he can to shepherd them, but he entrusts them to God and lets him carry this weight.

Thanksgiving gives us a zoomed-out perspective. While it’s easy to focus on faults, failures, and frustrations, which leads to discouragement, by choosing to give thanks we open our eyes to how God is at work in and among his church. Prioritize gratitude for what God is doing rather than grumbling about what he isn’t doing. This isn’t simply being optimistic or tapping into positive thinking. It’s resting and rejoicing in the blessings of God we might be overlooking.

Practical Ways to Give Thanks

I’ll conclude with eight practical ideas to spur your gratitude for the church where God placed you.

Recall God’s faithfulness and power throughout this church’s history.

Thank God for saving his people through the redemptive work of Christ. Even if you struggle to see much fruit, the gospel always gives us cause to exult in the mercy, grace, and love of God.

Observe how God is at work. Don’t minimize small blessings, steps in maturity, or minor growth. See and celebrate these things.

Build thanksgiving for your church into prayer times, testimonies, and conversations among elders and staff. Just like grumbling spreads, so does gratitude.

Cultivate an environment where people share how God is at work in their lives or what he’s teaching them. Sometimes we don’t know what God is doing because there aren’t opportunities for people to share these things.

Live by faith as you pray with thanksgiving. Serve, preach, pray, teach, visit, shepherd, disciple, and fulfill your ministry by thanking God for what he will do before you even see the fruit of it.

Talk with those new to your church. These people often are there because they see signs of health. They can be some of the most refreshing voices, because they’re quick to share how they see God at work or why they’re thankful for your church’s ministry.

As you feel irritation and discouragement when you think about the church, redirect your heart away from grumbling and toward gratitude. Number your blessings. And thank God that you can entrust this church to his loving, wise care.

How Martin Luther Refutes KJV-Onlyism

1. Luther went back to the originals, not just a translation

KJV-Onlyists often argue that one translation (the 1611 KJV) is perfect and final.

Luther refused to rest on the Latin Vulgate, the “authorized version” of his day.

Instead, he studied the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament (especially Erasmus’s Greek edition).

This shows that translations are secondary — the source texts are primary.

If Luther were alive in 1611, he would not have accepted the KJV as “the only Bible,” but would have tested it against the original Hebrew and Greek.

2. Luther himself made multiple revisions

Luther revised his German Bible repeatedly (1522 NT → full 1534 Bible → later editions up to his death).

Why? Because he knew no translation is perfect and improvements are always possible.

If there could be only one “perfect” Bible in one language, Luther’s constant revisions would make no sense.

This undermines the KJV-Only idea that a single 17th-century English translation was finalized by God and is beyond correction.

3. Luther believed Scripture is infallible — but only in the originals

Luther: “The Scriptures cannot err. It is certain that the Scriptures cannot disagree with itself.” (WA 7, 97)

He made clear that God’s Word is without error, but when faced with difficulties, he confessed his own ignorance rather than blaming the Bible.

Importantly, this inerrancy applied to the Hebrew and Greek texts, not to any one translation (not even his own).

KJV-Onlyism wrongly transfers inspiration and inerrancy from the originals to a single English version.

4. Augustine + Luther together

Augustine: “I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”

Luther agreed with Augustine’s principle — the canonical writings themselves are without error, not later translations.

This is exactly opposite to the KJV-Only claim that God preserved His perfect Word only in the 1611 English version.

5. The spirit of the Reformation

The Reformation principle was: “Back to the sources” (Latin: ad fontes).

Luther insisted on Scripture in the language of the people, but always grounded in the Hebrew and Greek.

If KJV-Onlyism were true, the Reformers would have declared the Latin Vulgate (or their own translations) as the only perfect Bible — but they did not.

KJV-Onlyism actually resembles the medieval Catholic insistence on the Latin Vulgate as “the Bible,” which Luther rejected.

Conclusion:

Martin Luther proves that the Bible itself (Hebrew + Greek originals), not any single translation, is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. He valued translations — and made one himself — but he never claimed perfection for them. His approach completely dismantles KJV-Onlyism, which wrongly elevates one translation above the inspired originals.

Is KJV "inerrant and infallible"?

1. The historic Christian position

"Inerrant" and "infallible" apply properly to the original writings of Scripture (what Moses, David, Paul, etc., actually wrote under inspiration).

Translations, including the KJV, are trustworthy to the degree they faithfully represent those originals.

2. The KJV specifically

The KJV is not inerrant in itself, because it is a translation. Translators had to make choices, and like all human works, those choices sometimes reflect the limits of the manuscripts and scholarship of their time.

However, the KJV is a faithful, reliable, and accurate translation overall, and for centuries God has used it powerfully to bring people to salvation and to build up the church.

3. KJV-only view

Some Christians (the “KJV-only” position) claim the KJV itself is uniquely inerrant and infallible, even more than the Hebrew and Greek texts.

This position is not historically or theologically mainstream. It arose mostly in the last 150 years.

So, the mainstream answer is:

The KJV is God’s Word in English, but it is not inerrant and infallible in the same way the original manuscripts are.

A Critique of "Beyond Versions"

Critique of "Beyond Versions"

S.H. Tow's Beyond Versions is not an academic or neutral examination of Bible translations but a highly polemical and theological manifesto for the King-James-Only (KJVO) movement. Its primary purpose is to defend the Authorized Version (KJV) as the only legitimate English Bible and to vilify all modern translations, particularly those based on modern textual criticism, as corrupt, satanic perversions.

The book's methodology is fundamentally flawed. It operates from a predetermined conclusion (the KJV is perfect; all others are corrupt) and selectively uses evidence, often out of context or based on misrepresentation, to support this claim. It relies heavily on emotional language, conspiracy theories, and ad hominem attacks against scholars like Westcott and Hort rather than engaging in sober textual analysis.

Its value lies not as a scholarly resource on textual criticism but as a case study in a specific, highly conservative theological perspective that exists within certain segments of Christianity.

Defining the Author's Bias Against the NIV

Tow's bias against the New International Version (NIV) is extreme and multifaceted. He does not see it as a different translation with strengths and weaknesses but as an intentionally "corrupt," "demonic," and "ecumenical" tool designed to undermine core Christian doctrines. His bias is characterized by:

Theological Suspicion: Tow believes the NIV is part of a deliberate, Satan-led conspiracy to create a one-world, ecumenical church (OIKOUMENE) that waters down the gospel. He attributes malicious intent to the translators.

Textual Rejection: He rejects the Nestle-Åland/UBS Greek New Testament critical text (the basis for the NIV) outright, considering it the corrupt "fruit" of the allegedly heretical Westcott and Hort.

Methodological Hatred: He condemns the NIV's use of "Dynamic Equivalence" (a translation philosophy aiming for thought-for-thought clarity) as "demonic deception," insisting only a strict "Formal Equivalence" (word-for-word) method like the KJV's is valid.

Doctrinal Gatekeeping: He judges the NIV solely through the lens of whether it perfectly preserves the specific doctrinal formulations of 17th-century Reformed Protestantism as found in the KJV. Any deviation, however minor, is labeled an "attack."

Refuting the Author's Claims with Actual Facts

Here are factual rebuttals to several key accusations Tow makes against the NIV:

1. Claim: The NIV removes "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14, attacking the doctrine of atonement.

Fact: Colossians 1:14 in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) does not contain the phrase "through his blood." This phrase was added in later manuscripts. The NIV, along with almost all modern translations (NASB, ESV, CSB, NRSV), correctly translates the older, more authentic text which reads: "...in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The doctrine of redemption through Christ's blood is abundantly clear throughout the rest of the NIV (e.g., Ephesians 1:7, Romans 3:25, Revelation 5:9).

2. Claim: The NIV changes "only begotten Son" (Greek: monogenes) to "one and only Son" in John 3:16 to deny Christ's eternal generation.

Fact: While "only begotten" is a traditional translation, modern scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that monogenes primarily means "one of a kind," "unique," or "only." The term emphasizes Christ's uniqueness and special relationship to the Father, not a physical "begetting." Translations like "one and only Son" (NIV) or "only Son" (ESV) are widely considered more accurate to the Greek meaning. The doctrine of Christ's divinity is in no way diminished.

3. Claim: The NIV has a "pro-gay bias" because it translates Hebrew words (qadesh) as "shrine prostitute" instead of "sodomite."

Fact: This is a gross misrepresentation. The Hebrew term qadesh (male) and qedeshah (female) refer specifically to cultic prostitutes involved in pagan Canaanite religious rites, not to homosexuality in general. The translation "shrine prostitute" is a more precise and scholarly accurate term. The NIV is unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality in passages like Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, where it uses clear, modern language.

4. Claim: The NIV denies the Virgin Birth by translating "Joseph his father" in Luke 2:33.

Fact: This is a deliberately misleading reading. Luke 2:33 (KJV) says: "And Joseph and his mother marvelled..." The NIV says: "The child’s father and mother marveled..." The context is clear: Joseph is referred to as Jesus's legal father in the eyes of the community. This in no way contradicts the Virgin Birth narrative presented just two chapters earlier in Luke 1:34-35, which the NIV translates clearly and faithfully.

5. Claim: The NIV translators were unregenerate heretics, including a "self-confessed lesbian."

Fact: This is an ad hominem attack with no verifiable evidence provided. The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) for the NIV comprised over a dozen evangelical scholars from a wide range of denominations and countries, all committed to the authority of Scripture. Attacking their character is a rhetorical tactic to avoid engaging with their actual scholarly work.

Weaknesses of the Book

Lack of Scholarly Rigor: The book completely ignores the science of textual criticism. It dismisses the entire field of study that has uncovered older, more reliable manuscripts since the 17th century.

Conspiracy Theory Framework: It frames the history of Bible translation as a grand Satanic conspiracy led by Westcott and Hort, whose characters are assassinated with unsubstantiated claims about their personal beliefs and affiliations.

Straw Man Arguments: It consistently misrepresents the translation choices of modern versions, attributing malicious doctrinal intent where the goal is actually textual accuracy or modern clarity.

Inadequate Definition of "Preservation": It equates "divine preservation" of Scripture with one specific set of manuscripts (the Textus Receptus) and one specific translation (the KJV), rather than acknowledging God's providence in preserving His Word through a multitude of manuscripts and faithful translations throughout history.

Hyper-Polemic and Uncharitable Tone: The language is inflammatory and fear-based ("Servants of Satan," "Doctors of Deceit," "perversions"), designed to alarm rather than educate. This tone prevents any meaningful dialogue.

Dated Scholarship: Its arguments are rooted in a late-19th and early-20th century polemic against the Revised Version and are not responsive to the last century of archaeological discoveries and advances in linguistic and textual scholarship.

Conclusion

The author's bias is evident throughout the retrieved book. He describes the King James Version as "the greatest translation of all time", while at the same time using emotionally charged language to label modern translations as "a corrupt Bible," "counterfeit," and "a perverted text". This language reveals a clear and unscholarly preference for the KJV and a corresponding prejudice against modern translations. The author seems to be operating from a "King James Only" perspective, which posits that the KJV is the only true and accurate English translation of the Bible.

Beyond Versions is a work of theological polemic, not a reliable guide to Bible translation. Its critique of the NIV is based on a presupposed KJV-only ideology, misrepresentation of facts, and a rejection of modern biblical scholarship. A robust defense of modern translations like the NIV can be mounted on the grounds of textual accuracy (using older, better manuscripts), translation philosophy (balancing accuracy with clarity), and scholarly integrity (the work of hundreds of devout Christian scholars across denominations).

Paused for a glass of wine

Calvin on wine/drinking

Calvin wrote: "Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” 

— Institutes, Book III, Chapter 19 (on Christian liberty / the Christian life).

This sentence from John Calvin's Institutes can be understood as a statement about Christian liberty and the goodness of God's creation.

In simple terms, Calvin is saying that God created good things for people to use and enjoy. He is pushing back against the idea that Christians must live a life of extreme self-denial. Instead, he argues that things like:

• Riches (ivory, gold, etc.): These are not inherently evil. They are created by God and are meant to be used by humanity.

• Laughter and enjoyment: It's okay to have fun and be content.

• Having enough to eat: It is not a sin to be "full" and satisfied.

• Acquiring possessions: It's fine to inherit or gain wealth.

• Music: Enjoying music is perfectly acceptable.

• Drinking wine: This is also allowed.

The core message is that God has given people these blessings to use and appreciate. The key is to do so without excess, recognizing them as gifts from a generous Creator. Calvin is making the point that the Bible never prohibits these things, so we should not create new rules that God himself did not establish. He argues that the focus should be on the proper use of these gifts, not on abstaining from them entirely.

Calvin said, “We are nowhere forbidden to laugh, or to be satisfied with food, or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” Why not?

You'd better take a break to drink a glass of wine, which you love very much, and then you will resume writing. As a Presbyterian pastor, you follow John Calvin. Do not fight and quarrel, yet you always fight and quarrel. Fighting and quarreling are bad for your health.