As if the KJV/ Newer Versions debate did not lack for enough fuel already to distract a new generation of Christians, Gail Riplinger added more wood, hay and stubble to the subject with her fairly recent book, "New Age Versions".

This book has led many zealous but naive believers to conclude that all versions that differ from the "Authorized" version are in fact perversions. Often the point is made that the newer versions downplay, or take away even, the deity of Christ because they refuse to translate some references to Christ which are not in the older manuscripts, but were found in the newer ones in which the KJV was based. More discussion about the related topic of newer and older manuscripts can be found here.

Why is the KJV, out of all the versions and languages of the Bible, made the yardstick for accuracy and orthodoxy of all other versions? Why is this relatively modern translation (considering the time span that we have had the complete Bible) the one to judge all other ones?

The NIV is not my first choice of translations in my private reading because I feel they are sometimes not as literal as I would like in certain renditions of verses from the original Greek. But it is an excellent translation, nonetheless, and many KJV Only crusaders are being unfair in their charges leveled at this translation.

An interesting verse to use as a yardstick for translators of the Bible is John 1:18.

How many times does the Word of God have to say something for it to be true? John 1:18, in the Greek, and according to most modern versions, clearly teaches the deity of Christ. Yet if I were to use the standards of those who denigrate modern versions against their own KJV, I would say that that version (KJV) downplays/ denies Christ because they "watered" down a verse that clearly in the original teaches the deity of Christ. Here is the verse in three versions:

"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."
(Updated NASB)

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. "
(NIV)

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begottenSon, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

The first two versions come much closer to the original than the KJV, which doesn't ascribe deity to Christ in this particular verse, merely calling Him "Son".

Do you see the point? You can't just say because "Christ" or "God" is not in a verse that the whole version is guilty. Sometimes "Christ" and "God" were put into verses by overzealous or inattentive monks. But once they got in woe to any brave soul who tries to get them out.

As I said before, I have some reservations about the accuracy of the NIV (all versions fall short in different points). But I will not slur the dedication of the overwhelming majority of translators of the NIV who were motivated by a pure desire to show that the God of all ages speaks to all ages. People like Riplinger will have to answer to God for the libelous things she said in her misguided zeal against the NIV. If the translators of this version were/are Christians- and I believe that is the case for the majority of them - then I will be accountable for how I characterize them. The same goes for those of the KJV, who worked hard and diligently with the tools they had at hand and produced the wonderful, much used and much loved King James Version.