Some might wonder in light of a review of this nature, “Is there nothing good to say about the Contemporary English Version (CEV)”? Okay. There is a good comment found in the introduction to the book of Revelation: “When the fall of Babylon is described (chapter 18), the early Christians knew that this pointed to the fall of the Roman Empire” (1294). Also, they did well in their rendering of Rev. 3:14, in which Jesus is described as “the source of God’s creation,” which is less ambiguous than “the beginning of God’s creation.”
But for the most part verses are more dumbed down than they are “contemporized.” Elegance is sacrificed for simplicity; forcefulness is toned down to passivity. Nuances and connotations disappear and are replaced by mediocre verbiage. Hosanna (“save, we pray”) becomes an expression of excitement, hooray, which has no association whatever with salvation (Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9; John 12:13).
The man possessed by many demons is called “Lots” in the CEV instead of “Legion” (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30). Although “lots” conveys the idea, would it be too difficult to retain “legion” and explain the significance of it and words like Hosanna in a footnote? “Deep ditch” in Luke 16:26 does not in any way convey the thought of a “great gulf” between the two sides of Hades. It makes travel between the two realms seem difficult rather than impossible. Are there so few pure young women today that “virgins” in Matthew 25:1-13 had to be replaced by “girls”? [Yes, the word virgin was used in Matthew 1:23.] Contemporary language necessitates none of these changes.
Calvinism in the CEV
One of the most obvious biases of this “version” of the Bible is its leanings toward the teachings of John Calvin, who taught that each individual was pre-selected by God to be saved or lost. Those whom God elects to be His are called by the Holy Spirit, apart from their own free will. In keeping with this false system of theology, the CEV renders several verses inaccurately. In the Scriptures cited below the false doctrine of the CEV will be in brackets followed by a dash (-) and the correct KJV rendering.
No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent them [makes them want to come-draw him]. But if they do come, I will raise them to life on the last day (John 6:44).
This promise is for you and your children. It is for everyone our Lord God will [choose-call], no matter where they live (Acts 2:39).
[When God makes you feel sorry enough-For godly sorrow]. . . (2 Cor. 7:10).
[Let the Spirit change your way of thinking-Be renewed in the spirit of your mind] (Eph. 4:23).
Don’t be like the people of this world, [but let God change the way you think-but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind] (Rom. 12:2).
[God washed us by the power of the Holy Spirit-by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost] (Titus 3:5).
Obviously, none of these are equivalents, except perhaps in the minds of the Calvinist creators of the CEV. Notice that the Father must make you want to come instead of just draw you to salvation (John 6:44). Again, God doesn’t just call; He chooses (Acts 2:39). People don’t experience godly sorrow; God must make them feel sorry (2 Cor. 7:10). We cannot allow the Word of God to renew our thinking; God or His Spirit must change our way of thinking. God actively washes us by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Notice that in most of these verses man is passive and God acts upon him. Remember the verse that begins: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13)? The CEV records: “But God’s Spirit baptized each of us and made us part of the body of Christ.” Are they trying to teach Holy Spirit baptism here? The former rendering (the accurate one) leaves room for the Spirit to use the agency of His word; the latter allows for no intermediate step.
In fact, according to the CEV, man has very little to do with making up his own mind or being in control of his own actions. In Romans 9:19, the text has man asking, “How can God blame us, if he makes us behave in the way he wants us to?” There is a vast difference in God knowing how someone will behave in response to certain stimuli and making him behave in a certain way. With this version homosexuals could confirm that God made them the way they are.
Judas certainly does not seem to have any control over himself. “Right then Satan took control of Judas” (John 13:27a). “Satan entered him” (KJV) leaves room for a more metaphorical interpretation such as Judas allowing Satan’s influence to prevail. The CEV phraseology pretty well eliminates that possibility. The verse continues with Jesus telling Judas to “go quickly and do what you have to do” (John 13:27b), which is a far cry from, “That thou doest, do quickly” (KJV). Judas can hardly be blamed for doing what he must do; he can, however, be held accountable for what he had determined to do.
Most people who profess to be Christians will recognize the following familiar verses.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24, KJV).
Notice how the CEV interprets the text.
But a time is coming, and it is already here! Even now the true worshipers are being led by the Spirit to worship the Father according to the truth. These are the ones the Father is seeking to worship him.
God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth.
Once again, man is taken out of the active role of worshiping in spirit and in truth and made passive; the Holy Spirit even leads us to worship correctly. In the final analysis, it appears that those who worked on the CEV believed that God causes men to be saved or to be lost, that our actions merely conform to His will for us, and that the Spirit even goes so far as to baptize us and lead us in worship!
Dumbed-Down Morality
Several modern translations have tried to update the word fornication. The New American Standard uses the rather ambiguous immorality in place of fornication; the New King James at least narrows it down to sexual immorality in passages such as Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:18. But the CEV went absolutely bonkers in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
But I tell you not to divorce your wife unless she has committed some terrible sexual sin. . .
Say what??? Well, we all want to avoid those terrible sexual sins; many people will undoubtedly be relieved to find that this version of the Bible allows them to engage in some sexual sins which are not so terrible. The “translators” even further insinuate (in their footnote) that “mild” sexual sins are permitted, as they further muddy the waters.
This probably refers to the laws about the wrong kinds of marriages that are forbidden in Leviticus 18:6-18 or to some serious sexual sin.
Apparently incest qualifies as a serious sexual sin (Lev. 18:6-18). What about rape and child molestation? Those must certainly be deemed serious. But what about two young people living together outside of marriage? That’s not a serious sexual sin because they love each other and no one is getting hurt, right? Those who compiled the CEV might take issue with this interpretation of their work, but they have certainly invited it. Is culture now influencing the way the Bible is translated?
Perhaps not surprisingly, adultery has managed to slip out of “contemporary” usage. Sandwiched in between “Do not murder” (Ex. 20:13) and “Do not steal” (Ex. 20:15) is not what we would expect: “Do not commit adultery.” It has been replaced with: “Be faithful in marriage” (Ex. 20:14). This wording allows for such thinking as, “I’m as faithful as I can be (under the circumstances),” “We have an agreement,” and “Due to my mate’s incapacitation, I’m not really being unfaithful.” The need for a contemporary version should not be an excuse to change the Word.
Leaders
Culture also influenced the designations of God’s leaders. In reliable translations those who oversee the church are called elders, bishops, pastors. Paul ordained “elders in every church” (Acts 14:23) and gave the qualifications for bishops in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Deacons who serve under the elders are mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:8-10 and 12-13. The reader will not find them in the CEV.
The word Elders is replaced with the more nondescript leaders in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5. Peter is reduced to addressing “church leaders” in 1 Peter 5:1; he further identifies himself as a “leader” in the CEV instead of the usual “elder.” Even the poor apostle John, in the two introductory verses of 2 and 3 John, doesn’t get to be “the elder”; he has been demoted to “church leader.”
But there is some variety. In 1 Timothy 3:1, 2, and 4 the word bishops has become church officials (Titus 1:7 also). Deacons has been downgraded to church officers (1 Tim. 3:8). These dumbed down designations for elders and deacons make them sound like figureheads rather than workers with a task to perform, but (at least) we are to obey these “leaders” (Heb. 13:7, 17).
Is this a deliberate attempt to fit God’s terms into modern society, which tends to view both men and women equally eligible for leadership roles? Two additional verses reveal a cultural bias. “I want everyone everywhere to lift up innocent hands. . .” says the CEV. All major translations use men because the Greek word means “men, as opposed to women” rather than “men,” as in the sense of “mankind.” Such an alteration can be nothing but deliberate (or else the translators have no credentials whatever).
The second indication of cultural bias is that Phoebe is called “a leader in the church at Cenchrea” (Rom. 16:1 & 3). How about that? She and the men appointed to oversee the church are both termed “leaders.” Thus, men and women are equal in the church even though the ladies are not allowed “to teach or to tell men what to do” (1 Tim. 2:12, CEV).
Miscellaneous Objections
In no particular order are a few more verses which have certainly added to or taken away from the meaning God intended for serious Bible students.
Although the contents of the cup are not mentioned, the CEV calls it “wine” (1 Cor. 11:25). “Hypocrites” has become “show-offs” (Matt. 23:15). Jesus says, “I was, and I am” instead of just “I am,” which clouds and obscures the point He is making (John 8:58). “You can’t argue with the Scriptures” bears no resemblance to “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Jesus said the way to life is narrow, not: “The road that leads there is so hard to follow. . . ” (Matt. 7:14).
A few liberties were taken with the book of 2 Peter. The “translators” made a mess out of what occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration.
When we told you about the power and the return [emphasis mine-gws, “coming”-KJV] of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not telling clever stories that someone had made up (1:16, but read 16-18).
Peter is talking about the power and glory they observed in His first coming on the mount (Matt. 17:1-5). To state that the “coming” is referring to Jesus’ second one (His return) is not only an interpretation, but a faulty one at that.
Instead of Christians becoming “partakers of the Divine nature,” God’s nature “would become part of us” (1:4). Isn’t that just a little backwards? A premillennial flavor is added in 2 Peter 3:10 with: “The earth and everything on it will be seen for what they are.” Most Bible students are accustomed to reading in that verse: “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” The CEV does include a note that some “manuscripts have ‘will go up in flames.'” One would never know that the manuscript they used is the variant instead of the majority.
Well, the “translators” apparently wanted something to appeal to Roman Catholics; so they reworded Matthew 16:18 to say: “So I will call you Peter, which means ‘a rock.’ On this rock I will build my church. . . ” No, there is no footnote to explain the play on words.
Space fails to adequately discuss why God “never makes dark shadows by changing” (James 1:17). If “all that we know will be forgotten” (1 Cor. 13:8), one wonders why we should discuss or study anything at all. The CEV is not a “paraphrase” worth studying; it fails to be an adequate commentary, let alone the Word of God. Let us remain with valid translations such as the King James, the American Standard, or the best of the modern versions-the New King James.