Narrator: The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in the upcoming program
are those of the participants and program owners,
and not necessarily those of Las Vegas Broadcasters Incorporated,
or its employees, management or owners.
Good afternoon!
I'm Tim Berends.
Welcome to Jesus and Tim in Las Vegas.
Well, I want to talk about my former boss, Billy Graham,
here in a little bit.
But first we've got my dear friend, David Daniels, who,
when Jack Chick of Chick Publications died-- they're the ones who put out
these wonderful tracts in all these languages--
when he [Jack] passed away, about a year and a half ago,
David took over.
David had been working with him for a number of years.
We have him on today.
We're gonna talk about how the New International Version--
or the Nearly Inspired Version-- robs Christ of His deity.
So many churches use the NIV.
And we're gonna let David, we're gonna just kind of
turn the program over to David here for a few minutes, and
David, thank you for joining us today.
David: I'm happy to be here, Tim!
Tim: The microphone is yours, my friend.
David: All right.
Well,
A sister in the Lord the other day had a question about the Incarnation
(Christ becoming a human being).
In Greek it's also called "theophany," God manifesting as a man.
It ultimately boiled down to how and when the Lord Jesus Christ
was both God and man.
It's an excellent question.
So I asked her (I knew what she had) I asked her to grab
her King James and her NIV.
Modern Bibles, you see, remove 4 important words
that clarify an entire doctrine about Jesus being God and man,
John 3:12-13.
Listen:
12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not,
how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
which is in heaven."
Jesus was at that very moment talking with Nicodemus,
who came to Him by night, for fear of the Jews.
He was also in heaven at that very moment.
It's not just the NIV. 27 modern Bibles
completely removed those 4 words, "which is in heaven."
And 4 modern Bibles rewrite them so Jesus was God in heaven, but isn't now.
Interesting, huh?
Tim: Yeah. Wow.
David: That was the first verse that I had in mind to show her.
So, like I said, if you look in 31 modern Bibles,
including ALL NIV-types:
the NIrV, TNIV, the NIV '84 and NIV 2011, in all, the doctrine is GONE.
But there is a second verse I wanted to use with her.
So I said, Okay.
I wanted to show her how Jesus Christ is God,
who added on the form of a human body.
So I went to Philippians 2:5.
I know you've used it many times, Tim.
Tim: Right.
David: 5 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name:"
This is really important, So let me break it down, really simply.
6 "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"
Jesus' position in the Godhead is not something He stole.
It's not robbery.
He took nothing from the Father He took nothing from the Holy Ghost.
The Son has His own position, His own part in the Godhead.
The Son is the One who added something to Himself.
He added the form of a human being.
7 "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:"
The Lord didn't come with fanfare.
He didn't come with trumpets sounding.
He didn't invite the major media, CNN.
In fact, He told people who had no major reputation
the most important news of all: that GOD has come to the earth to be born!
He made Himself of no reputation.
You get that?
Tim: Yeah, yeah.
David: Let me stop there and compare it to the NIV.
The NIV, 1984 and 2011, the NIrV (the Reader's Version)
and the TNIV all say the same thing.
Get ready: "he made himself nothing"
Tim: Wow.
So in being sent to earth, in email terms "He was God
in the meta-data."
And that was it.
Tim: Mm Hmm...
David: Okay, "He wasn't in the form or the body of the letter.
He was only in the meta-data."
Only in the NIV can you find this.
But in the King James, only His reputation is removed.
And just so you know, the Tyndale, the Geneva the Bishops Bible,
they all say "He made Himself of no reputation."
This wasn't a new idea.
This is the correct meaning.
Making himself nothing, however, was a very new idea, thanks to the NIV.
In the King James, Jesus adds on to Himself, not takes away.
That's why it says,
Verse 7, "... and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:"
So Jesus took on a distinct human form, and took on flesh, as well,
which perfectly matches, as you have done so many times before,
John 1:14
14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth."
So Christ adding to Himself is why it says in verse 8
of Philippians 2,
8 "And being found in fashion as a man..."
But I want to finish this off, because it will be important in a bit.
So I'll go back to verse 8 again.
8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he 'humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
So Jesus not only humbled Himself to add on a human body,
with all its physical limitations,
He also humbled Himself and obeyed His Father,
to the point of paying for all of our sins by dying on the cross.
Then it says "wherefore."
And you know, like with "therefore," you "look back to see
what it's there for."
Tim: Right, right. David: Exactly.
Well, "wherefore" means, "This is the reason for
what comes after the wherefore."
So because God's Son took on a body
and humbled Himself to the point of death of the cross, verse 9:
9 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:"
So God couldn't make His son "more God," obviously.
But his "Name," His "reputation" (see, here we are again),
couldn't be higher.
And not because of who Jesus is, but because of what He had done.
Because God the Father's Son bore that shame and humiliation
of death on a cross, God gave Him a Name
which is above every name.
So the human name of Jesus is THE Name, Philippians 2:10-11.
You can say it with me, if you want to.
10 "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
This is so awesome!
It makes perfect sense that Jesus said,
when he paid for our sins on the cross, John 19:30,
30 "... It is finished: and he bowed his head,
and gave up the ghost."
Jesus was DONE.
I could go into a thousand things, but we've got to move on.
1) So while Jesus was on earth, He was also in heaven, John 3:13.
But of course, as you already know, an Alexandrian Gnostic,
who does not believe that God would become a man,
would certainly remove those words, just like the NIV and
26 other Bibles did, depending on the two Bibles,
called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and other Alexandrian texts
that are influenced by Gnosticism.
Does that make sense?
Tim: Yeah.
David: 2) While Jesus was on earth, He made Himself of no reputation
and took on the form of a man, God and man,
Philippians 2:5-10.
Of course again, the NIV alone
has changed those words to say that the Son of God
"made himself nothing," instead.
So if God the Son "made Himself nothing,"
then the only nature He'd have would be human, right?
Tim: Mm hmm.
David: So let me ask you, would this kind of
a de-God-ized Son of God then have to live on earth
as a mere man?
To pay for sins, would He have to go
to suffer in hell?
Tim: No.
David: When Jesus was on the cross, He said "It is finished,"
Was that a lie?
Tim: Right. No.
David: Was there more that Jesus had to pay?
Before I answer that question, let me show you another verse
that the NIV has gutted of its meaning, because it trusted
in that fake 1840 Sinaiticus, which I wrote a book about,
and that 1475-suddenly appearing in the Vatican,
Vaticanus.
That's 1 Timothy 3:16.
If you have an NIV and King James, put them side by side.
1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
It doesn't get clearer than that, does it?
Tim: No.
David: But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus lie and only say, "Who
was manifest in the flesh."
And the NIV, oh so gutsy, says, "He appeared in a body."
I appeared in a body, too.
Tim, you appeared in a body.
That is a non-statement.
There's no new information for that verse.
I've written about this in other places.
You know that.
But get this:
Each time I tried to show my friend how Jesus was the God-man,
God become flesh, at each point
the NIV tried to stop me.
Had I only looked in those verses in the NIV,
I would have found NOTHING there about Christ's being GOD on earth.
It doesn't matter if I could cobble together
some other verses, to make the case
that Jesus was God.
But here, how about this one?
The one that helped that Muslim to become a Christian,
John 9:35:
35 "... Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"
Not in the NIV.
NIV and all these other versions copy Sinaiticus and Vaticanus,
and say, instead, "Do you believe in
the son of MAN?"
Tim: Wow.
David: Son of Man and Son of God are completely different.
You worship the Son of God.
You don't worship the son of man.
Ezekiel was called "the son of man."
You don't worship Ezekiel.
Tim: Yeah, yeah.
David: At least the Sinaiticus was consistent, though.
People don't know this, but it's in my book.
They also took out "Lord, I believe, and he worshiped Him."
Because you don't worship man, you worship God.
So if you changed "Son of God" to "Son of man,"
then you'd have to take out the part that says he worshiped Him.
But the NIV doesn't do that.
It's inconsistent.
And so, you're not supposed to believe in man.
You're supposed to believe in God.
No ifs, ands or buts: the NIV DOES, HAS, and
DID destroy the doctrine of Jesus as God and Man
at the same time, in those verses.
And those are the verses, the very verses
I was using to show my friend, to help her with the doctrine
of the Incarnation!
Do you see the problem?
Tim: Yeah.
David: Could Christians actually have that doctrine,
of a Son of God with the God-part taken out?
YES.
By the way, look at the George Barna surveys.
look at the Lifeway surveys.
Look at how people believe that Jesus was a sinner,
that Jesus was a liar.
They believe that Jesus, He would have to get born again.
That whole thing.
Well, guess what?
I have a 1975 book called Destined for the Throne,
by Paul E. Billheimer.
Let me read to you from a few tiny snippets,
starting about page 83.
Ready? Tim: Mm hmm.
David: "The Father turned Him over [Jesus], not only to the agony
and death of Calvary, but to the satanic torturers
of His pure spirit as part of the just desert
of the sin of all the race."
"As long as Christ was ' 'the essence of sin''
he was at Satan's mercy in that place of torment
where all finally impenitent sinners are imprisoned upon leaving this life..."
Then it says, "While Christ was identified with sin,
Satan and the hosts of hell ruled over Him
as over any lost sinner.
During that seemingly endless age in the nether abyss of death,
Satan did with Him as he would, and all hell was ''in carnival.'
This is part of what Jesus bore for us."
Now according to this and many other passages in this section,
starting on page 83 in this book, it says over and over,
things like this one right here:
"As long as He was identified with sin, He was in the clutches of Satan
and the hosts of hell, just like any lost sinner."
And then finally this:
"Thus, in order to be made alive unto God
and restored to fellowship with His Father,
He [Jesus] had to be reborn." Tim: Hmm.
David: So there is a doctrine that Jesus died as a human.
That when Jesus said "It is finished," it was a lie.
Not only was it not finished, it had just begun.
According to this doctrine...
And by the way, you can look up Hagin, Copeland,
and some other people I could list who push this book,
and push the doctrine in it.
According to this doctrine, the Father not only let
devils torture the Lord Jesus for three days and three nights,
The Father Himself poured His divine wrath on His Son.
It's in this section.
And Jesus had to take it, until He was "reborn" --
BORN AGAIN.
But Philippians 2, which the book never mentions,
says that because Jesus paid the price for us
ON THE CROSS, "Wherefore" God highly exalted His name.
But Billheimer's book says Jesus couldn't have
paid for sins that way, and instead
he had to be tortured by devils and have all the wrath
of God the Father poured out on Him.
If you have a Bible like the NIV,
changing verses about how Christ was both God and man,
I can see how it happened.
I read the endorsement for this book.
There's a really big one by Paul Crouch, formerly of TBN, he's passed away,
saying how it was the 2nd most important book to the Bible
for him and Jan.
And then there's a Foreword.
I've got it right here.
I thought you'd find this interesting.
It doesn't mention the stuff about Jesus,
but it's still a ringing endorsement.
"I... have been inspired and challenged by the insights
and fresh interpretations of the Scriptures ..."
(Oh, they're fresh, alright.)
"Every Christian who feels impelled
to find a deeper dimension of Christian witness
should not only read this book, but study it prayerfully,
and apply its principles to his life."
And you know who signed it?
"BILLY GRAHAM"
Tim: Wow.
David: When I read and trust my King James,
I get a clear idea of what God said about His Son,
and how He was God and man at the same time.
But from modern Bibles like the NIV,
I find emptiness.
That's probably why there's such a crisis of faith
even in believing in the simple doctrines of Jesus.
So I'm sticking to my clear, understandable King James Bible,
and I think you understand why.
Tim: Absolutely.
Well, what do people do?
A lot of churches use the NIV.
What should they say to their pastors?
Are there any books that you recommend?
David: Absolutely.
The one I wrote called "Look What's Missing" would help a lot,
because they'll be able to see how those missing words modify doctrines.
What's missing, and why, and what it does to faith,
and what it does to doctrine.
And, of course, the newest one I have,
"Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"
destroys the very foundation that created the modern Bibles
in the first place.
When they had the Vaticanus, they'd known about it for centuries.
In fact, the King James translators used a text very much like the Vaticanus
to translate the Apocrypha, which they didn't believe was inspired, anyway.
They had no problem with that.
But when it came time to treat other parts of the book
as being anything to be used, the KJV translators wouldn't even touch it..
But nobody, of even the text critics would do that,
until 1810, a guy named Leonhard Hug, wrote a book, saying,
"Oh, Vaticanus is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
This Bible will probably really goes back, this Greek Bible actually goes back
to the 300s AD, and Constantine."
So he pushed that idea.
And a guy named Tischendorf started following up on it.
And then, one day in 1844, he found something.
And in 1859 he grabbed it from a monastery, and it's the Codex Sinaiticus.
And I have an entire book, called, "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"
showing that this Sinaiticus was never intended to be actually
God's words.
Tim: Wow.
David: It actually had a totally different agenda attached to it.
But the main thing is, the whole story about how it is
'the oldest Bible' is a lie.
Tim: Alright, the two books that you've written, that deal with
this again, are what?
David: "Look What's Missing" and "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"
Tim: And those are both available through chick.com?
David: www.chick.com, yep.
Tim: Very good.
David Daniels, from chick.com, thank you so much
for taking the time to be with us.
David: You're welcome. God bless you! Tim: God bless you.
Tim: Bye bye, Brother. David: Bye bye.
[Ending music]