The Flesh Was Made Word?
By Travis K. McSherley

It is quite the radical claim to suggest that a set of documents -- a book -- is the Word of God.  For example, if I suggested that the words I've placed before you are the Word of God, you would probably race your mouse as quickly as possible to close the window.  Rest assured, while these words hopefully contain God's truth, they are certainly not His direct Word.

Muslims and Mormons believe that they have the Word of God in the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, respectively.  Other supposedly divine works have, no doubt, also been presented throughout the centuries as well; but saying that a writing is the Word of God is a bold and potentially incriminating statement.  Yet as Christians, we believe that we hold 66 books that truly are God's Declaration to man.

Personally, I am convinced that, in their original manuscripts, the words of the Scripture contain communication directly from the Father to His children.  The Bible itself claims to hold that authority.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16).

Not only that, but John says that when Jesus Christ came, "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).  Since the Lord Jesus Christ, in the "flesh," was impeccable and unimpeachable, I find it a simple conclusion to reach that the Word would be equally perfect.

Holding the Bible to this standard, it only makes sense to seek the most accurate and correct translation possible.  The evidence I have seen leads me to conclude that the King James Version is still the best version to use for serious Bible study.  The Old English (ie "thees" and "thous") make the KJV a bit tough to read, but it does seem to offer the commitment to the original languages required for those who see every word, every "jot" and "tittle" in the Bible to be important.

While newer versions, such as the New International Version (NIV) and Revised Standard Version (RSV), appear to be more interested in contemporary language than in complete textual accuracy, it's hard to argue that God has been able to use these other translations to lead people to a relationship with Christ.  However, when dealing with Scripture, we do not have the luxury of creative license.  God's message has not changed.  His truth is not "out of date."  And translators must realize the responsibility they have to transmit God's Word as faithfully and accurately as they are able.  The Bible is meant to be used by God to change people, not for people to change it.

In recent news has been Today's New International Version, an updated NIV that seeks to be more gender neutral.  Though not the first "politically correct Bible," the TNIV would seem destined to become the most mainstream one.  The new version tampers with passages of Scripture that are too masculine for today's ever-sensitive culture.  For example, words like "sons" and "men" might be changed to "children" and "people."  Generic masculine words like "he" are switched to an even more generic "they." Fortunately, this translation does not commit the blasphemy of attacking the paternal nature of God.  He is still the Father, and Jesus is still the Son (as opposed to the "Child").  And in many cases, these changes are likely still faithful to the intent of the text; clearly, at times, words like "sons" in the Bible include daughters as well.  But most of the time, the distinction is clear from the context of the passage anyway.  Nevertheless, some of the modifications in the TNIV are not true to the original Hebrew and Greek words, effectively changing the meaning of a passage to create a more politically correct tone.

Even if the TNIV succeeded for the most part in creating a textually-accurate translation of God's Word, it attempts to solve a problem that doesn't really exist of an "offensive" Bible.  This is simply an excessive and ridiculous attempt to conform the Bible to the world.  And it inches us closer to standardizing versions such as the "PC Bible" mentioned in the article The Sword is Mightier than the Pen.  Joseph Farah, editor of WorldNetDaily, said, "To say the beauty and majesty of the Bible is lost in this deliberate mistranslation is an understatement.  This is the ultimate in dumbing-down for a purpose -- it is an attack on the paternalism of the Bible." (1)

Rev. Jerry Falwell added:

The problem with this new Bible is not the translation, but with the trendy notion that people today cannot relate to the Bible unless we balance the language. This new publication is nothing more than acquiescence to feminists who are more concerned with the so-called language of "equality" than they are with the message of the Gospel of Christ. God certainly does not need the help of fallen man to help Him explain his own Word.

I agree with Janet Folger, national director for the Center for Reclaiming America, who said, "Women today don't need a politically-correct crutch" to understand the Bible. Appearing on Fox News, she chided that if we're going to change the word of God to make people feel better, "why not also change those pesky Ten Commandments?" (2)

(1) Farah, Joseph.  "Today's New International Perversion."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26277

(2) Falwell, Jerry.  "Dangers of Gender-Neutral Bible." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26297