When King James ascended the English throne in 1603, he sought to quell religious strife by convening an assembly of churchmen. What was needed, the King was told, was a new translation of the Bible, at once simple and elegant, a translation upon which the warring denominations might agree.

For a decade, more than 40 scholars and divines laboured to produce a text "so that the Scripture may speak like itselfe . . . and that it may be understood."

The King James (sometimes called the "Authorized") Bible was quickly acclaimed for the fidelity of its translation and the surpassing beauty of its language.

No other book has had such a profound influence on the literary heritage of the English-speaking peoples.

Over the succeeding centuries, other translations appeared, but not until the mid-20th century was the King James dislodged from its central place in Christian worship. Since the 1970s, there have been scores of new Bible translations, many designed to cater to ideological fads and fashions.

The latest entrant in this rather sorry declension is Today's New International Version (TNIV), from the U.S. publisher Zondervan. TNIV is designed to replace the already banal and dumbed-down New International Version (NIV) and, believe it or not, TNIV is even worse.

Consider these texts:

"What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man that thou visitest him?" -- King James version.

"What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?" -- TNIV.

In stamping out the scourge of sexism, have the TNIV translators altered the meaning?

Yes, they have.

While it is true that God cares about humanity, the message of the King James was that God cares about individuals, about you and me. The King James also said: God visited us. This is missing from TNIV. And the phrase "son of man" refers to a title that Jesus chose for himself. Since the central tenet of Christianity is the divine presence dwelling among us, this is a significant omission.

Then there is this:

"If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him" -- King James.

"If any brother or sister sin against you, rebuke the offender; and if they repent forgive them" -- TNIV.

TNIV's take is at once grammatically incorrect and less clear. Exactly how do collectivities ("they") repent; and exactly how are they forgiven?

Worse, this verse is a direct quotation of the words of Jesus. Words that Jesus did not say are put into his mouth, two millenniums later, by those for whom inclusivity trumps fidelity.

Consider these verses:

"My brethren, be not many masters . . ." -- King James.

"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters . . ." -- TNIV.

Here, the unwarranted insertion of "sisters" implies that James, the brother of Jesus, thought that some, but not all, women were fit to be teachers in the early church. Thus is James retroactively recruited to the cause of female ordination, a concept as foreign to him as to all of Jesus's disciples, and to the church fathers.

On and on it goes. TNIV says that to become "a merciful and faithful high priest," Jesus had to become "like his brothers and sisters in every way." Think of that: Only by androgyny, can priests be faithful!

No price too high, no infelicity too grating, no whopper too great, if only the reader can be persuaded that Jesus was a paid-up member of the Jerusalem Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Of course, translation is an inexact art. Every translation has specific strengths and weaknesses. It is impossible to duplicate one language in another.

The primary objective of TNIV, however, is the triumph of ideology over fidelity to scripture. But the passing breeze of ideology is not a sound basis for communicating enduring truths about a God who "changeth not."

As S. M. Hutchens, a senior editor of Touchstone magazine put it: "It is the word of God that is to rule the word of man, not the other way round."
Ian Hunter is professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario law school.