Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 9
Bercot gives examples where translators add words that steer doctrine—NIV adding “only/merely” in Romans 2:28–29, ESV inserting “free” in Romans 6:23, NKJV adding “merely” in 1 Peter 3:3, and KJV inserting “but” in John 1:16–17; which of these examples most unsettles you, and what does it expose about how much trust you place in your translation’s built-in theology?
Another way to ask: Which example of translators adding words bothers you most, and what does that show about how much you trust your Bible translation to shape your theology?

Direct Answer The transcript doesn’t tell which example “should” unsettle you most, but Bercot’s point is that any of them should humble our confidence: translations can insert theology by added words, so we must trust Scripture’s message while viewing our translations “in a realistic light.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He says copies/translations are “not inerrant” and have been modified “in subtle and not so subtle ways.”
  • He distinguishes neutral additions (needed for English) from additions driven by “preconceived views…biases,” which he calls “very, very wrong.”
  • Romans 2:28–29: NIV adds “only” and “merely,” which he says “totally changes the meaning” and reverses Paul’s point.
  • Romans 6:23: ESV adds “free,” but Greek says simply “the gift of God” (*charisma*); he calls it “tampered with Scripture.”
  • 1 Peter 3:3: NKJV adds “merely” (and “fine” apparel), which he says “totally changed the meaning.”
  • John 1:16–17: KJV inserts “but,” creating a law/grace contrast early Christians didn’t see; “the word ‘but’ isn’t there.”
Discussion Follow-ups What do these examples suggest about relying on “famous verses” to settle doctrine? Would you be willing to compare translations or consult tools (reverse interlinear/Strong’s) when a rendering strongly supports your tradition?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10
Back Questions Next