RSS Feed

  1. Sexual Equality and Modern Bibles.

    Illustrated in First Corinthians.




    Colin C. Tyler.












    Unless otherwise indicated,

    Scripture quotations taken from

    The Holy Bible, New International Version, Copyright © 1978 by New York International Bible Society.


    Unless otherwise indicated,

    Scripture quotations taken from

    The Holy Bible, New International Version,(Anglicised edition)

    Copyright © 1979, 1984, 2011 by Biblica (formerly International Bible Society).

    Used by permission of Hodder and Stoughton Publishers, an Hachette UK company

    All rights reserved.

    ‘NIV’ is a registered trademark of Biblica (formerly International Bible Society).

    UK trademark number 1448790.


    Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, published by HarperCollins Publishers © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good news Publishers.

    Used by permission. All rights reserved.


    Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

    Used by permission. All rights reserved.


    Unless otherwise indicated,

    “Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®,

    Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995

    By the Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.




    Sexual Equality and Modern Bibles.

    Illustrated in First Corinthians.


    New Testament Practice.

    “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.” Matt. 10:2.

    Not a woman to be seen! How outrageous! Where is the national leader or company director or head of any significant organisation in the West today, who would so blatantly choose twelve men as his representatives and not a single woman? How he would be howled out of office as a male chauvinist. Do I need to remind my reader that this was the choice of the Son of God?

    But this is just one of many such examples in the Holy Scriptures. What do we find when the apostles find it necessary to appoint helpers?

    “…and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch…” Acts 6: 5.

    The New Testament exclusion of women from positions of authority is also fully in keeping with Old Testament practice.

    Old Testament Practice.

    In Genesis chapters four and five, the sons of Cain and Seth are listed but not the daughters. Noah and his sons’ names are all given, but not his wife or daughters in law. When God calls out the children of Israel from Egypt, he appoints a man, Moses, and his brother Aaron as the high priest. Miriam is not appointed to any position of leadership. The priesthood is all males. All the prophetic books are males with hardly a female prophet to be found in the Old Testament.

    We have details of all the kings of Israel and Judah with the names of their queens frequently omitted. The history of Israel in Old Testament days is almost exclusively told in connection with the reigns of kings.

    When Matthew opens the New Testament, the names of the kings are listed with a few references to their mothers. In that long list of kings, three women are mentioned, not as queens but as mothers.

    Further to all this history there are also some very clear statements excluding women from office. For example,

    As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” Isaiah 3:13.

     “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” 1 Cor. 14: 34,35.

    Thus far, I am not aware that I have given merely a personal opinion. I have only cited the word of God. We are all responsible to be subject to the word of God. Men as well as women. I am well aware of how much this truth jars with popular opinion in these days and those of us who take such a view may well be little thought of, but we must accept the plain interpretation of the scriptures.

    The overturning in society, the church and the home, of this order between men and women comes from sinful women who refuse to be subject and sinful men who are too cowardly to maintain biblical standards.

    Women are every bit as valuable in the sight of God as men, I only argue here for responsibilities and God’s clear order in home and church.

    The subject is important because when the order is overturned, and I am sure that it is Satan’s work, the authority of God in the Church is hindered.

    I believe that the feminist movement in general is a satanic device for the destruction of social and church order. It would require a far bigger and more detailed book to demonstrate the sad effects of feminism.

    The enemies of the church know that they must change the Bible to support feminism. That this is in full swing will be demonstrated below.





    New Testament Teaching.

    In the pastoral epistles, the role of women in church and home is described. In Paul’s first epistle to Timothy we read,  

    “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 1 Tim. 2:11,12.

    The office of a bishop must be held by a male.

    “This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” 1 Tim. 3:1-2.

    This must also be the case with the deacons.

    “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” 1 Tim. 3:13.

    There is, however, also in Paul’s first letter to Timothy, some positive direction for the conduct of the women in the church.

    “I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.” 1 Tim. 5: 14.

    While such a direction is anathema to an unbelieving woman, it ought to be embraced by a Christian woman. The fact that it often is not simply illustrates the disobedient and rebellious nature of the professing church and or the cowardliness of the male preachers.

    We find also in Titus more positive instruction for women.

    “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

    “That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

    “To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2: 3-5.

    Note that the aged women are to teach the young women, not the church, and they are to teach them, among other things, to be keepers at home.

    These admonitions surely are plain enough. I do not need to find every verse possible in support of the above.

    We will now see how the modern translators have tried to hide these things. In so doing, they are serving the Devil, whether they are saved or not.


    The Corruption of the Bible.

    In Greek, Latin and English, male nouns, such as ‘man’, and male pronouns, such as ‘he’, may be used in one of two ways. They may be used generically to mean both men and women or they may be used specifically to mean only men.

    For example, Latin scholar Neville Gwynne writes,

    “Up till these last few decades, the pronoun ‘he’, when referring to an unnamed person, was uncontentiously used to include both sexes. It was therefore used for two separate purposes: to refer to members of the male sex in particular, and to refer to a member of the human race of either sex.

    “…the words ‘they’, ’them’ and ‘their’ are now often used in place of ‘he or she’ and the rest, even when referring to only one person, as in: ‘Anyone who considers this modern practice acceptable has lost their mind.”[1]

    What Mr. Gwynne is describing is now exactly the practice of modern translators. It has proved a very useful way of making the Bible acceptable to feminists and emasculating the text of the Holy Scriptures. Among other things, it opens the door for women to hold leadership office and to preach in church, to join the military, and so on.

    Those believers who hold fast to the text of the KJV are considered by many these days to be too patriarchal or maybe even misogynists. We will perhaps be told that the KJV translators were just victims of the patriarchalism of those days, but now that we have progressed, we know better.

    The first answer to this is that the KJV translators gave us a formal translation. If the Greek text was male, whether generic or specific, they gave us the English male equivalent. Which takes the patriarchalism back to the first century AD for the New Testament.

    The modern way of translating is not formal equivalence but dynamic equivalence. The translators do not give us what Paul wrote, for example, but what they suppose he meant. They would have us believe that the apostle Paul was as gung-ho for ‘women’s rights’ as they are.

    There is an element of dynamic equivalence here and there, even in the KJV, but the modern translators do it constantly as will be shown below.

    The great problem with the modern approach is that the translators’ choices between generic and specific genders are made to overrule the Greek text almost completely in favour of a generic understanding even in the face of a male context.

    I will frequently use the word ‘emasculate’ in this study, so perhaps a definition may be useful for some of my readers. I have taken three definitions from the online Cambridge English Dictionary, they are:

    1. To reduce the effectiveness of something.
    2. To make a man feel less male by taking away his power and confidence.
    3. To remove the male parts of something.

    In my view, all three definitions apply to the changes made by modern bibles, but most certainly the two latter.

    This study will be chiefly concerning 1 Corinthians, but the same concerns apply throughout modern bibles.

    Citing many verses, I will prove a deliberate emasculation of the Bible. I will also illustrate what is known as incrementalism. That is, ongoing adjustment of the texts, from one edition to the next, to increase the level of emasculation. In this particular study, the NIV (2011) takes the prize for   emasculating the text of the word of God. That said, there is a great deal of it in other modern versions. I cannot deal with all 150 of them so I will add, where significant, changes made by the ESV, the NKJV and the NASB, three of the most popular with the NIV.

    I have been much assisted in this research by the web site, Mr. Slowley’s charts exhibit a massive amount of work. It is very useful for my purposes but useless for anyone who wants to learn from the word of God as all comparisons are from corrupted sources.

    In order to have some idea of when a noun or pronoun is generic or specific in First Corinthians, we must begin with the context.

    As we proceed through First Corinthians, it will become clear that modern bibles have put women in charge of the churches, in preaching roles, in homes, in the use of spiritual gifts and even on the battlefield.

    We will consider the inclusion of women in preaching roles to begin with.

    In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul is addressing the divisions caused in the Corinthian church by preferring one preacher over another.

    “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” 1 Cor. 1:12.

    In challenging this man-following, he distinguishes between Holy Ghost preaching of the cross of Christ and preaching which is merely intellectual. This intellectual preaching, he describes as the wisdom of men.

    “For Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” 1 Cor 1:17.

    This underlying aim of the apostle’s teaching must be borne in mind when translating the gender of nouns and pronouns. For example, if Paul is writing about preaching, in the light of the rest of the New Testament, he is referring to men.

    I am not going to address every use of contested nouns and pronouns in the first part of this study, only those which are more probably male, which the moderns have emasculated.

    Not only so, but the changes are often made incrementally between one edition and the next. The incrementalism might be for one of two reasons. The earlier translation may have accidently overlooked the opportunity to emasculate a verse more fully or, alternatively, further changes were made later to avoid too much of a shock to the minds of readers in the earlier translation.

    In the following examples the words in the KJV which are changed or removed have been underlined.


    Examples and Comments.

    We begin in chapter 1.

    “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Cor 1: 25, KJV.

    “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” NIV. (1978)

    “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”         NIV. (2011)

    The context is preaching! Such a change blurs the Biblical charge from the apostle Paul,

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” 1 Cor. 14; 34.


    “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?”     1 Cor. 3: 5, KJV.

    “What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe - as the Lord has assigned to each his task.” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    ‘Man’ becomes ‘each.’ They added the male pronoun ‘his’ in the verse. Paul and Apollos were made to swap seats in the Greek text of Westcott and Hort.

    “What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.” ESV.

    “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom ye believed, as the Lord gave to each one? NKJV (1982)

    “What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.” NASB.

    The ESV, NKJV and NASB do a full disposal – the pronoun ‘his’ is out also.


    “So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”                       1 Cor. 3: 7, KJV.

    “So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything…” NIV (1978)

    Maleness intact. But what happens in 2011? 

    “So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything…” NIV (2011).

    Both pronouns are now removed. Paul is clearly, contextually, referring to himself and Apollos and if that were not so, the context is still preaching.

    “So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything…” NASB.


    “Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” 1 Cor. 3: 8, KJV.

    “The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will each be rewarded according to his own labour.” NIV. (1978).

    In, 1978, the NIV changes ‘every man’ of the KJV to ‘each.’ Other references to maleness in the verse are more or less unmolested. Until 2011, when the full hatchet job is carried out.

    “The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labour.” NIV. (2011).

    Four male pronouns and the word ‘man’ are all removed in 2011. Of the four versions under consideration in this study, the NIV (2011) is the most offensive here.


    “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 3: 11, KJV.

    “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    Paul is referring to his own laying of the foundation as a preacher. Preaching is still in view but the NIV emasculates the verse again.

    “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” ESV.

    “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” NKJV. (1982)

    The NKJV follows the NIV and the ESV.


    “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool that he may be wise.” 1 Cor. 3:18, KJV.

    Contextually, the apostle is referring to preachers,

    “Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise.” NIV. (1978)

    “Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become ‘fools’ so that you may become wise.” NIV. (2011)

    Incrementalism in action! In the 1978 edition, ‘man’ is removed twice but the two pronouns are still present. In 2011, the two pronouns are also removed.

    The Greek singular pronoun and verb in the opening sentence are also made plural to facilitate the change.


    “Therefore let no man glory in men…” 1 Cor. 3: 21, KJV.

    “So then, no more boasting about men…” NIV (1978, 1984)

    “So then, no more boasting about human leaders!” NIV. (2011)

    The NIV here agrees that Paul is speaking of leadership, (verse 22 makes this clear), yet still, men are changed to humans, no doubt to please the restless women.

    Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4: 1 & 2, KJV,

    “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”

    The NKJV, NASB and ESV retain the word ‘steward’ in verses one and two. The NIV does not, confusing matters even further.

    Reading through the Old and New Testaments, we find that stewards, on every occasion where the gender is stated, are males.

    For example,

    Gen.15:2. “…the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?”

    Gen.43:19 & 20, “And they came near to the steward of Joseph’s house, and they communed with him at the door of the house. And said, O sir…”

    Luke 8:3, “And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward..”

    Husbands and wives in the KJV are males and females respectively.

    Luke 16:1 & 2, “And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him…”

    Evidently here again, a man! The pronoun does not need a dual meaning where only one person is intended.

    Titus 1:7, “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God…”

    In the previous verse 6, this bishop should be, ‘…the husband of one wife…”

    “Moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful.” 1 Cor. 4: 2, KJV.

    “Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    No longer called a steward, destroying all the cross-references to males listed above, and the third person singular pluralised to dispose of maleness. The Greek verb ‘found’ is third person singular. This is the fruit of dynamic equivalence, so called, where the translators tell us what Paul was thinking instead of what he wrote. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they think Paul concurs with their feminism. Alternatively, they simply don’t care; both genders must be equalised.

    “Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.” ESV.

    “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” NKJV.

    The NKJV agrees with the KJV in referring specifically to stewards, but still removes ‘man’ and replaces it with ‘one.’

    “In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.” NASB.


    “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.” 1 Cor. 4: 6, KJV.

    The KJV translators correctly supply ‘of men’ in accordance with Paul’s entire subject in these four chapters.

    “Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.” NIV. (1978)

    Being in italics in the KJV, ‘of men’ was a soft target.


    I have passed over many references to ‘men’ in chapter three, giving modern translators the benefit of the doubt. This in no way is my approval, however, of those changes.

    Male leadership in the church is questioned in the next verse.

    “…Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” 1 Cor. 6: 5. KJV.

    “…Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?” NIV (1978 & 2011).

    “…Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers…” ESV.

    Noun and pronoun missing. Such judgements surely are the responsibility of the leaders. Male leadership in the church is removed. ‘Brethren’ changed to ‘believers’ also in the NIV without any such word in the Greek text.


    In chapters twelve through fourteen, concerning the use of spiritual gifts in the assembly, many verses are emasculated in spite of the statement by the apostle in 14: 34.

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” 1 Cor. 14; 34.


    “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” 1 Cor. 12: 7. KJV.

    “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” ESV.

    “But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:” NKJV.

    “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” NASB.

    ‘Man’ in the KJV becomes ‘each one’ or ‘each’ in the moderns.


    “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” 1 Cor. 12: 11. KJV.

    “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.” ESV.

    “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.” NKJV.

    “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” NASB.

    Across the board, the text is emasculated. ‘Man’ again becomes ‘each one.’


    “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” 1 Cor. 14: 2. KJV.

    “For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.” NIV. (1978 & 2011).

    The NIV is often the worst offender. Two nouns and three pronouns all removed.


    “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” 1 Cor. 14: 8. KJV.

    “Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?” NIV. (1978 & 2011)

    “And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?” ESV.

    “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” NKJV.

    Here is supposed biblical support for women in the military. And not just in admin!


    “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.” 1 Cor. 14:11. KJV.

     If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.” NIV. (1978)

    “If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me.” NIV. (2011)

    Note the incrementalism. Is it error or wilfulness?

    “…but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” ESV.

    “If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.” NASB.


    Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.” 1 Cor. 14; 13. KJV.

    “For this reason the man who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.” NIV. (1978)

    “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.” NIV (1984)

    “For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.” NIV. (2011)

    Two step incrementalism. ‘The man’ in 1978 becomes ‘anyone’ in 1984, and ‘he’ in 1978 and 1984 becomes ‘they’ in 2011.


    “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” 1 Cor. 14: 26. KJV.

    “What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” NIV (2011).

    An open invitation by the NIV for women to speak in the assembly. The addition of ‘and sisters’ is without any Greek support. The translators are quite simply making the Bible say what they think it ought to say.


    “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” 1 Cor. 14: 30. KJV.

    “And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.” NIV. (1978 & 2011).

    “If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.” ESV.

    “But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.” NKJV.

    “But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.” NASB.

    “Neat, but not gaudy”, said the Devil, as he painted his tail pea-green.


    “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.” 1 Cor. 14: 37-39. KJV.

    “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” NIV (1984)

    “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored. Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” NIV. (2011)

    ‘…and sisters’ appears again out of thin air. There is no Greek for ‘sisters’ in the verse. Neither the ESV, NKJV or NASB are as offensive as the NIV in these three verses.


    The following verse touches the husband’s headship in the home.

    “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Cor. 16: 2. KJV.

    “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” NIV. (1978, 1984.)

    On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.  NIV. (2011)

    Note that ‘his income’ in the earlier NIVs becomes, ‘your’ income in 2011. If the husband is the head of the house, he should be principally responsible for its finances. He may delegate to his wife, but he is chiefly responsible. Again, the NIV 2011 is ahead of the field in the sexual equality game.


    “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” 1 Cor. 16: 13. KJV

    “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.” NIV. (1978,1984)

    “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong”. NIV (2011).

    The Greek word for men means men, not women. It is specific not generic, which the NIV translators know full well.

    Hello Hollywood!

    “Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong.” NKJV.



    Texts which touch preaching, exercising spiritual gifts in the assembly, headship in the home, exercising judgement in the church and fighting on the battlefield, are all emasculated in the verses above.

    The NIV appears to be the most offensive and the NKJV the most hypocritical. The NKJV makes much of its use of the same Greek texts as the KJV but makes changes in the translation in favour of sexual equality.

    Finally, take note that this is only a sample from one epistle. The same phenomenon will certainly be found in other books of the Bible.

    [1] N. M. Gwynne, Gwynne’s Latin (Ebury Press, 2014), p. x.

  2. What follows is chiefly for brethren who share my conviction that the KJV is perfect. I fear that some of these brethren are inclined to speak ill of all preachers who use an English bible other than the KJV.

    I feel I must address such an attitude.

    A brother who speaks ill of all preachers who use modern bibles, commits the greater sin of spiritual pride. He is absolutely right to speak with praise of the KJV and with scorn and contempt for the modern version but he needs to be careful about letting such scorn attach to every preacher who uses it.

    If such an one is reading this, let me ask you brother, have you never heard one of them who you believe is a better Christian than you are? What did you do with Paul's admonition to esteem others more highly than ourselves?

    I could name a number of preachers who could preach me off the platform every day of the week, and disgrace me by their comparative love for the LORD and tireless service, who nevertheless use/d a corrupt bible.

    Look at it this way. Is it better to believe a corrupt bible and obey it, than to use the KJV and disobey it? If you preach or read the KJV and do not obey it, what makes you think you are better than a man who reads the wretched Good News bible, for example, but at least obeys it wherever it happens to stumble upon the truth?

    The disgraceful Stephen Anderson, for example, is strictly KJV. Head knowledge is worthless without love and obedience. I would profit far more from a half decent preaher who at least obeys his yampy bible than a man like Anderson:

    Now do not misunderstand me. I am not approving any modern English bible. The perfect position is read the KJV and believe and obey it. But will you not admit to some short-comings in your life and will you not admit that a man using a modern bible may be more godly than you in that area? If you will not, it may be time to get on your knees and confess your pride to the Lord and repent of it.

    God forgive me if I do not do so. Let us not bring discredit upon our KJV stand by such a proud attitude.