"IF THE FOUNDATIONS BE DESTROYED"

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Psalm 11: 3

Introduction
ne would expect better organization in the office of a translator who had helped to translate the New International Version of the Bible. But sitting there on the campus of Gordon College in Massachusetts, in the office of Dr. Marvin Wilson, professor of Old Testament, Biblical Studies and Theology, and member of the New International Version translation committee, I could not help but notice the clutter of papers strewn across the desk in the most chaotic manner. Like the Bible translation that he helped to produce, it had a striking resemblance to a train wreck.

When we confront the problems of modern translations of the Bible, we often address the problem of the underlying Greek text used in the translation process, and the corruption incorporated through the use of mutilated rogue manuscripts such as Codices Aleph, B, D, A and C. However, as I interviewed Dr. Wilson this past month, the subject of the underlying Greek text fell by the wayside. Dr. Wilson did not help translate the New Testament. He had little at all, if anything, to do with the selection of the Greek text from which to translate it. Dr. Wilson assisted in the translation of the Old Testament, which, as I understood from him, utilized the proper Hebrew text, the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text. As far as I could tell from our discussion, the underlying text of the New International Version's Old Testament, is the correct text.

I. The Interview
So my concern lay elsewhere. As Cornelius Van Til once observed, "It is true of course that in matters of historical communication we cannot attain unto impartial and impersonal knowledge of facts." In other words, any time a human being attempts to communicate, he or she communicates from and through the perspective or worldview that he or she has adopted. So my question for Dr. Wilson was: "What worldview did the NIV translators bring to the work of translating the Bible?"

In answer to my question, Dr. Wilson informed me that the only requirement for involvement on the translation of the NIV, was acceptance of the doctrines of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. In other words, whether you believed in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, the bodily

resurrection or the Second Coming of Christ or not, you could still assist in the translation of the NIV so long as you confessed faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture. You could deny these doctrines and others, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of a literal hell or the doctrine of separation and still serve as a translator, as long as you subscribed to the lowest common denominator of professed faith in Scripture's inspiration and authority.

But I wanted to know something more specific about the worldview of the NIV translators: "What did the NIV translators believe about the first two chapters of the book of Genesis?" To this, Dr. Wilson answered that probably no one on the translation committee believed in the literal interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis, as a narrative of actual historical events. According to Dr. Wilson, some viewed it as some sort of hymn or poem with repetitive stanzas, and perhaps others as an artificial literary structure. At best, some of the translators, it seems, may have believed in the "Day-Age theory," but "probably no one read it as an historical narrative."

So the translators of the NIV put but little, if any, faith in the first two chapters of the Bible, as a communication of actual truth and history. But what of the rest of the book? What of the Pentateuch that Scripture tells us came through the pen of Moses? In answer to this, Dr. Wilson informed me that "Moses is the most likely candidate for composing the greater part of the Pentateuch." In other words, no matter what Scripture says elsewhere, Moses only wrote part of the first five books of the Bible, in the view of the NIV translators. More specifically, he described Moses more as the editor, than the author of the Pentateuch. According to Dr Wilson, Moses basically compiled a collection of oral traditions and perhaps some written documents and records rather than receiving these books through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

II. The Interpretation

We see from this interview that the translators of the NIV rejected literalism in the translation of Scripture, and embraced allegorism, symbolism, neo-orthodoxy, or perhaps even Bultmannianism instead. They did not come to the work of translating Scripture with faith, or the natural products of faith, reverence and respect. Instead, rather than submit themselves to the authority of the clearly stated Word of God, they felt that they had the right to interpret Scripture according to their own particular perspectives and worldviews. In this case, rejecting the Genesis account of Creation, they subjected the plain, literal testimony of Scripture to the worldview of evolution. In other words, the NIV rests not upon the foundation of faith in Scripture's plain, literal narrative of a six-day Creation by Almighty God, but on the shifting sands of constantly changing evolutionary theory. They could only do this by rejecting literalism and embracing a deviant theory of interpretation.

III. The Inspiration

This brings us right back to the question of inspiration, as their view of inspiration did not include God communicating directly through Moses to write the book of Genesis. Clearly, the NIV translators held a low and heretical view of inspiration, regardless of whatever creed they may have subscribed to. The fact that the translators of the NIV signed some confession of faith in the inspiration and authority of Scripture does not guarantee that even a single member of the committee really believed that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," because inspiration itself has been so widely interpreted. Even neo-othodoxy accepts the inspiration of Scripture, so long as they can apply their own definitions to it. The most orthodox declarations of faith ever written do not validate the faith of the man who has redefined the terms of confession. Such creeds can only assure orthodoxy insofar as the signer actually accepts the doctrines in the literal, normally-understood usage of the language subject to the accepted modes of that language. But to claim belief in the inspiration of Scripture, as neo-othodoxy does, while making inspiration itself subjective to the experience of the reader, is to make inspiration no inspiration at all, and to mislead those who place confidence in your work. It is to undermine inspiration, while deceiving the naive. It is to make man the authority in determining inspiration, at the expense of wellmeaning people who do not know the difference.

Conclusion
Inspiration comes from God! "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God!" Scripture came through inspiration! Inspiration does not come from Scripture! We do not experience the divine operation of inspiration as the apostles and prophets did, when we read our Bibles! Scripture cannot be subjected to our relative experiences! "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," whether we recognize and accept it or not! We cannot make ourselves the authority that determines and defines inspiration! God is the Authority, and his Holy Word authoritatively defines the process of inspiration and applies it verbally to the entire Bible, regardless of our experience! To teach otherwise is to ask the question of the serpent in the garden of Eden: "Yea, hath God said?"

Enough of these Bibles that emerge from an evil heart of unbelief! Enough of these Bibles that question God's Word and make man the authority and judge, exalting apostate translators and unbelieving theologians to sit upon the throne of omniscient God himself! Give me the Bible that came through the work of men like John Reynolds and Lancelot Andrews who believed what that Bible said! Give me the old English King James Version of the Bible! Anything else is a train wreck.