[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles

Title: Is the NIV the Word of God?
Source: Grace Bible Church Publication
URL Source: http://www.scionofzion.com/niv2.htm
Published: Mar 1, 1998
Author: James M. Frye
Post Date: 2012-03-10 16:31:04 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 5001
Comments: 12

or other free materials on: the Rapture/End Times, Trinity, What's Wrong with the NIV, Are There Apostles Today? What is God Like: Parts 1 and 2; Is Jesus Christ God? What the Bible Really says about Speaking in Tongues, etc., write us at: "Grace Bible Church, PO Box 40, Mt. Liberty, OH 43048. Email: GBC@ecr.net.

Please let us know if this information helps you in any way.

COPYRIGHT ©1998 - James M. Frye

PUBLISHER’S NOTE: All scripture quotations are taken from the Authorized King James Bible. Any deviations are not intentional. All underlines, bold and items within parentheses are the author’s.

_______

Getting Started

I would like to begin by saying that I believe that the Bible is the word of God. The question is, however, which Bible? To many of you who are reading this booklet, the answer to the question "Is the New International Version (NIV) the Word of God?" may appear to be simple. "Of course the NIV is the word of God", you might say. "And so are the New American Standard Version (NASV), the New King James Version (NKJV) and the Living Bible (LB)", along with a host of other new Bible versions that you might name. But is the answer to this question as simple as it might first appear? It is the purpose of this booklet to answer this question.

It is beyond the scope of this booklet to examine all of the various new Bible versions available today. For the sake of space, I will limit myself to the NIV. As for the rest, we will reserve them for future booklets.

A Look at the Issue

I used to go to a church where it was common practice to quote from a variety of Bible translations. The pastor would often say, "The NIV says ..., the NASV says ... - Who has the King James?", etc. During Sunday School one morning, the teacher was reading John 5:4. The King James Bible (KJB) says:

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

And then the teacher made a statement that caused me to freeze in my tracks (pew). I think my chin must have hit the floor. He said, "For some reason, the NIV has left this verse out". I was shocked. I went and checked a copy of the NIV that I had at home, and sure enough, the verse was missing. This and other similar events caused me to realize that all Bible versions are not the same.

Up until this time, I had believed that the only differences between the NIV and the King James was that the NIV was supposed to be easier to read and to understand. Boy, was I wrong. I knew that I needed to look into the matter further. By the grace of God, I was able to do just that. The information contained in this booklet represents some of the information that resulted from that study.

They Can’t Both Be Right

It is the purpose of this section to show that the difference between the Authorized King James Bible (KJB) and the NIV are irreconcilable. That is, they both can’t be right. For example, In Isaiah 9:3, the KJB says:

Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy ...

The NIV says:

You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy

You will notice that the main difference, apart from the rewording of the text, is that the KJB has the word not and the NIV doesn’t. So, the KJB says that God has not increased their joy. The NIV says that God has increased their joy.

You might find yourself saying, "Is it really that big of a difference? After all, we are only talking about one word here." I chose this verse to establish a point: They (the KJB and NIV) say the exact opposite. If one is right, then the other one is wrong. We can’t possibly say that they are both correct. Did God increase their joy or not? Which words did God give to the prophet Isaiah? (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21)

As I stated in the beginning of this booklet, many people operate under the false assumption that all Bible versions are the Word of God - despite the fact that they disagree with each other. Are we to suppose that God has written more than one Bible and that he makes statements in one and then disagrees with them in another? Of course not. God only wrote one Bible.

I’ve actually shown the difference in Isaiah 9:3 to people and had them refuse to admit that they both can’t be right. Please understand that we need to have an open mind, absolute humility, and a sincere desire for the truth. People may think, "Well, my church uses the NIV, and if I believe this ...", or "I just don’t want to make waves." But, understand, to avoid conflict at all cost is not to be the attitude of a Christian. We should rather stand for the truth regardless of the conflict that arises from it. (Jude 3; John 15:20; Luke 12:51; 2 Tim. 3:12)

Our attitude toward this matter should be the same as God’s. Revelation 22:18-19 says:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God is angry with those who change his words. He promises plagues to those who add to them, and loss from one’s part in the Book of Life for those who subtract from them. In case you think it is just the book of Revelation that God is concerned about, God places similar rebukes against changing his words in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6. One rebuke is in the beginning of the Bible, one in the middle, and one at the end. It is his words that God is concerned about - not just where they are located. So then, we should have the same attitude about this issue as God has.

1 Peter 1:16 says:

... BE YE HOLY; FOR I AM HOLY.

Surely this applies, not only to our actions, but also to our attitudes. If God takes the changing of his words seriously, so then should we. If it angers God, it should anger us. There is a righteous and an unrighteous anger. (See Mark 3:5 and Eph. 4:26) Sometimes it is wrong (a sin) not to be angry.

Seeing It For Yourself

So far, we have looked at just a few problems with the NIV - a missing word here and a missing verse there. But the problem is much greater than just a word or a verse.

For starters, try finding the following verses in the NIV:

Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.

Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.

Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4.

Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.

Romans 16:24 and 1 John 5:7.

They are not there. They have been removed entirely. Now I ask you, what kind of Bible is it that leaves out entire verses? What did these verses say? Among other things, they say that: Jesus came to save the lost, that hell is a place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, and that a person must be a believer in order to be baptized.

In the last verse (1 John 5:7), the NIV is very deceptive, for it does have a verse 7, but it is really part of verse 8. Verse 8 has been split into two verses in the NIV (verses 7 and 8) so that you won’t know that verse 7 is missing. 1 John 5:8 (KJB) says:

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The NIV splits this verse into two verses: In verse 7, it says:

For there are three that testify (bear witness)

In verse 8, it says:

the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The true verse 7 has been removed. In the KJB, verse 7 says:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This is no insignificant verse. This is the clearest statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible. Is this verse unimportant? Would God want it removed?

But the problems with the NIV do not stop there. In addition to the verses that have been omitted entirely, thousands of verses have partial omissions. Many who have studied this issue in much greater detail than I, have stated that the missing words are in excess of 64,000 - not counting the additions. Remember what God said about those who take away from or add to his words. (Rev. 22:18-19)

Let me give you a few examples of verses that contain these kinds of omissions. In the KJB, the Lord’s Prayer reads in Luke 11:2-4 as follows:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

The underlined portions are missing in the NIV. In Matthew 27:35, the KJB says:

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, THEY PARTED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND UPON MY VESTURE DID THEY CAST LOTS.

Again, the underlined portions are missing in the NIV, hiding the fact that this verse is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:18. A full 26 words have been omitted this time.

Substantial portions have been removed from hundreds of verses in addition to these. Many key words have also been removed. For example, the word "Christ" has been removed dozens of times. (Rom. 1:16; Acts 16:31; etc.) The word "Jesus" has been removed dozens of times. (Matt. 8:29; 2 Cor. 5:18; etc.) The word "Lord" has also been removed in a number of places.

Are There Errors

in God’s Word?

John 17:17 says:

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

In addition to the omissions in the NIV, one of its most disturbing problems is the fact that it contains many outright errors. For example, who killed Goliath? I know that the answer to this question seems obvious. David, right? Well, it’s not so obvious in the NIV. In 2 Samuel 21:19 the NIV says:

In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

The KJB has the correct reading, for it says that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. This is confirmed in 1 Chronicles 20:5. The KJB says:

And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.

Once again, the NIV is in error. It is also seen to conflict with itself, for it says David killed Goliath in 1 Sam. 21:8-9.

One of the most disturbing changes occurs in Isaiah 14:12. The KJB says:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O

Lucifer ...

This passage records Satan’s (Lucifer’s) rebellion against God, and how he was cast out of Heaven.

The NIV says:

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star ...

In this passage, "Lucifer" has been changed to "Morning Star". This is frightening because the Bible defines the Morning Star as Jesus Christ. Revelation 22:16 says:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

In the NIV, it is Jesus Christ (the Morning Star) and not Satan that rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven. That is outright blasphemy. Satan has pulled off quite a disappearing act. Not only has he been removed from the text, Jesus Christ has been inserted in his place.

I think, by this point, many of you are beginning to see that there are some very serious problems with the NIV. Let’s look at a few more errors. Matthew 5:22 in the KJB says:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment ..

The phrase, without a cause, has been removed in the NIV. This would make Jesus Christ a sinner in Mark 3:5, where the Bible says that he was angry. The NIV implies that Jesus is a sinner, despite the fact that the Bible says that he never sinned and is without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).

We find another error in Mark 1:2. The NIV says:

It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way"

This is actually a quotation of Malachi 3:1. The King James has the proper reading, for it says "as it is written in the prophets". Verse 2 is quoting Malachi, and Verse 3 is quoting Isaiah.

Doctrinal Differences

Many of the changes in the NIV, including some that we have already looked at, affect doctrine. For example, the deity of Christ (the fact that Jesus Christ is God) is attacked in a number of places. One example is 1 Timothy 3:16. The KJB says:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The NIV has changed "God" to "He". This is a big difference. In this verse, the KJB clearly states that Jesus Christ is God, and in the NIV it does not.

Many times I have heard those who support the NIV say, "No doctrine is affected by the changes in the new Bible versions." We have just seen that it is. What they really mean is that no doctrine has been removed entirely. That is, there is still another verse in the Bible somewhere that teaches the doctrine. So then, they believe it is perfectly OK to remove a doctrine in one place as long as they do not obliterate it entirely.

By this same logic, would it be OK with God if we removed the entire Gospel of Mark? After all, most of the doctrines taught in Mark are also taught in Matthew or Luke. No. This is faulty reasoning, and there is no excuse to remove even one word from God’s words.

In the KJB in Luke 4:4, Jesus says:

... MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD.

By the way, "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD" has been removed in the NIV. If you want to have the words of God, EVERY WORD OF GOD, get a copy of the Authorized King James Bible.

Summary

So, is the NIV the Word of God? We have seen omissions ranging from one word to entire verses. We have seen errors ranging from misquoting a prophet, to the removal of Lucifer (Satan) and the insertion of Jesus Christ in his place. We have even seen changes affecting the doctrine of the deity of Christ. After examining the evidence, could you say that the NIV is the Word of God? Could you call the NIV "HOLY BIBLE?"


Our Vision

There are many false doctrines being taught today, both inside and outside of the Christian Church. We at Grace Bible Church have a great desire to see that these false teachings are exposed and refuted by the Word of God. It is our desire to produce materials that may be placed (free of charge) in the hands of God’s people - to enable them to share the truth with those who have been misled by false doctrine.

Would you like to have a part in this ministry and help us get this message out to others? If so, you may make as many copies of this material as you need to give to those who have been misled by the false teaching exposed here. If you would like information on other subjects, write or email to the address listed at the beginning.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, diva betsy ross (#0)

The phrase, without a cause, has been removed in the NIV. This would make Jesus Christ a sinner in Mark 3:5, where the Bible says that he was angry. The NIV implies that Jesus is a sinner, despite the fact that the Bible says that he never sinned and is without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).

Your article is correct in how the NIV errs here in depicting Jesus as a sinner because He is angry. I suppose they would try to weasel out of it by saying it is fine for Christians to be angry with non-Christians but not with other Christians. It is just one of many examples of inconsistencies found in the ever-evolving NIV text if you read it closely.

There was a major textual discovery made recently that is just coming to light.

The extensive Green Collection (owned by the family who owns Hobby Lobby) contained about 100 Egyptian death masks. These are essentially paper mache applied to the outside of a mummy, often incorporating old papyrus of all kinds with the plaster.

But scholars can dissolve the plaster and recover the papyrus.

They've found papyrus in these death masks of items like Egyptian dowry contracts and copies of Homer's Ilead.

There have been no official information yet but it appears there are 18 fragments comprising 43% of the New Testament text in this discovery. 17 are second-century (including early copies of Hebrews and other texts) and this one first-century copy of Mark. Supposedly.

Some more info here:

ChristianityToday.com: Earliest manuscript of Gospel of Mark reportedly found

So this is a pretty major discovery if it pans out.

To summarize this from a blog post:

Dan Wallace, in part, writes,

We have as many as eighteen second-century manuscripts (six of which were recently discovered and not yet catalogued) and a first-century manuscript of Mark’s Gospel! Altogether, more than 43% of the 8000 or so verses in the NT are found in these papyri. Bart had explicitly said that our earliest copy of Mark was from c. 200 CE, but this is now incorrect. It’s from the firstcentury. I mentioned these new manuscript finds and told the audience that a book will be published by E. J. Brill in about a year that gives all the data. (In the Q & A, Bart questioned the validity of the first-century Mark fragment. I noted that a world-class paleographer, a man who had no religious affiliation and thus was not biased toward an early date, was my source. Bart said that even so, we don’t have thousands of manuscripts from the first century! That kind of skepticism is incomprehensible to me.)

…“This papyrus fragment—just like the other new discoveries that we are preparing for publication—strongly confirms what most scholars have already said is the original text.”…

So a book is coming out in a year which purports to relate a manuscript of Mark which predates P52, dated roughly between 100 and 150. If this manuscript is really before that, we can expect some rebuttals, although as they usually are, nonsensical, from the mythicists. How will this affect my thesis work? Not sure. First, we have to see if it is a complete Mark and, then, what the date is.

I expect this will be interesting as it is revealed whether these fragments reflect the Alexandrian text type (modern Bibles) or the Byzantine text type (leading example King James bibles). Or maybe an early Coptic text.

At any rate, this discovery could be as important or more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls or the texts of Nag Hammadi in helping to resolve some of these long-enduring textual arguments, some of which have direct implications for bible translation and for theology in different denominations.

Tooconservative  posted on  2012-03-11   13:29:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)

A Look at the Issue

I used to go to a church where it was common practice to quote from a variety of Bible translations. The pastor would often say, "The NIV says ..., the NASV says ... - Who has the King James?", etc. During Sunday School one morning, the teacher was reading John 5:4. The King James Bible (KJB) says:

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

And then the teacher made a statement that caused me to freeze in my tracks (pew). I think my chin must have hit the floor. He said, "For some reason, the NIV has left this verse out". I was shocked. I went and checked a copy of the NIV that I had at home, and sure enough, the verse was missing. This and other similar events caused me to realize that all Bible versions are not the same.

Up until this time, I had believed that the only differences between the NIV and the King James was that the NIV was supposed to be easier to read and to understand. Boy, was I wrong. I knew that I needed to look into the matter further. By the grace of God, I was able to do just that. The information contained in this booklet represents some of the information that resulted from that study.

They Can’t Both Be Right

Wow! This is not exactly a fair argument. Quote Raymond Brown of the leading Johannine scholars, "these verses, which describe the periodic stirring of the water by a descended angel and the resulting healing of the first to enter the pool, clearly are inauthentic. This is indicated by were external attestation and the presence of as many as non-Johannine works in one sentence (R. Brown 1966:207).
John 3b-4
Not only is the NIV missing the passage, but so are most Bibles. In Greek this verse begins with the pronominal phrase “in these,” which TEV makes explicit as on the porches and NEB as “in these colonnades.”
TEV takes sick people as a generic term, qualified by the specific terms the blind, the lame, and the paralyzed. The same exegesis is apparently followed by NEB, JB, NAB, and Phps. It is possible to follow RSV and others and take sick people as a specific category (“a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed”). However, in Greek this term is very general (literally “those who were weak”), and it is better taken as a generic term followed by the specific types of illness.
A large crowd of sick people may be rendered “many, many sick people.” Some languages may require an indication of the precise relation between the generic expression sick people and a more specific description of them as blind, lame, and paralyzed. One may say, for example, “These sick people included those who were blind, lame, and paralyzed.” Terms for these conditions may be rendered as negatives, for example, “they could not see, they could not walk, and they could not move.”
In TEV the last half of verse 3 and all of verse 4 are included in a footnote, indicating that these verses do not appear in the earliest and best Greek manuscripts. It seems likely that this part of the text was added by some ancient scribe as a kind of marginal note, explaining why the sick people gathered about the pool and how they reacted when the water was stirred up (perhaps by an underground stream that flowed in from time to time). This explanation probably represents a popular belief held by the people of that day, that is, that the stirring up of the water was caused by an angel of the Lord, and that whoever should be the first sick person to go down into the pool after the water was stirred up was healed from whatever disease he had. In addition to the fact that they are omitted from the best Greek manuscripts, verses 3b–4offer serious textual problems.

GarySpFC  posted on  2012-03-11   19:48:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: GarySpFC (#2)

I honestly don't know about what you posted. But what about his one?

The phrase, without a cause, has been removed in the NIV. This would make Jesus Christ a sinner in Mark 3:5, where the Bible says that he was angry. The NIV implies that Jesus is a sinner, despite the fact that the Bible says that he never sinned and is without sin (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15).

A K A Stone  posted on  2012-03-11   20:35:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

if you look carefully at verse 22 you will see the word AGAIN, which is to be included. You have 22A and 22B, with B amplifying A. The Aramaic Raca is a word of contempt, meaning "good-for-nothing". One must view A and B together as ONE verse. Reading carefully it is apparent to me Jesus is NOT saying to be angry is a sin, rather one must be very guarded when angry, and make certain contempt is not involved. Note the clause, "leave your gift at the alter. One must take the complete passage into account, and not isolate 22a.

GarySpFC  posted on  2012-03-12   0:40:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)

What I am saying in post #2 is the NIV and the majority of Bibles are correct in not including the passage. It is a gloss, something not in any of the early manuscripts. The copyist sometimes included notes within the texts. When you have 10 to 20 of the earliest manuscripts from different regions lacking the passage, then we know it was never in the autograph (original).

GarySpFC  posted on  2012-03-12   0:57:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: GarySpFC, A K A Stone, TooConservative (#5)

What I am saying in post #2 is the NIV and the majority of Bibles are correct in not including the passage. It is a gloss, something not in any of the early manuscripts. The copyist sometimes included notes within the texts. When you have 10 to 20 of the earliest manuscripts from different regions lacking the passage, then we know it was never in the autograph (original).

I think the NASB (95) does a great job in not omitting the texts and uses a bracket instead. The NKJV keeps the passages there but uses foot notes. So from what I see the literal translation Bibles account for the omissions in the earlier manuscripts. In another example, the NIV includes John 7:38-8:11 but in italics. The foot note there in the NIV says:

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

In the NKJV says this in the foot note:

l.John 7:53 The words And everyone through sin no more (8:11) are bracketed by NU-Text as not original. They are present in over 900 manuscripts.

On the main point, there may be some confusion with folks who are looking for a literal translation of the Bible and going to the NIV, which is a dynamic equivalent. But the addressed know that.

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-15   19:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: redleghunter (#6)

The foot note there in the NIV says:

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

I don't think they should include it if they actually don't believe it belongs there. It impugns the credibility of the entire translation. A translation is not an exercise in comparative literature.

You do see a bit of this borrowing unwarranted readings from other texts in any translation. There is the dead hand of familiarity, a particularly apt phrase in verses well-known to the public. The NIV is shameless about it.

You do find a bit of that in the old bibles too, like KJV or Bishops or Geneva. I would say that their compilers were most honest about their textual bias. And the use of italics were not used to include references to manuscripts that were not the primary authority for the translation.

Tooconservative  posted on  2012-03-15   20:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: TooConservative (#7)

You do see a bit of this borrowing unwarranted readings from other texts in any translation. There is the dead hand of familiarity, a particularly apt phrase in verses well-known to the public.

What is interesting, even in the English versions you get a hint of the now "bracketed" verses as interdicting a thought or flow. You, Gary and Bob make the good point of reading the text without verse numbers and chapter numbers. You can pick up some of these "brackets" when you do so. I would be very interested in reading about how and why these phrases entered in and were copied as scripture.

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-15   20:59:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)

The new English translation of the Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible does contain Joh n 5.4:

For an angel went down at certain times into the pool, and stirred up the water. Then whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had.

By they also annotate this passage (and a few others) by enclosing the passages in angle brackets, which Indicates words that may have been added in the Byzantine textual tradition for the purpose of clarification, harmonization or liturgical use, but which may not have been part of the original manuscripts


Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate

jwpegler  posted on  2012-03-15   21:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, Too Conservative (#8)

The following quote from Word Commentary on the John passage will provide some insight as to how the passages were included by copyists.

It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form. The evidence may be summarized as follows. (i) It is omitted from our earliest copies of the Greek NT. (ii) In the East it is not found in the oldest form of the Syriac version, the Sahidic and sub-Achmimic, the oldest Bohairic MSS, some Armenian MSS, and the older Georgian version. In the West it is not in some Old Latin MSS and not in the Gothic version. (iii) No Greek commentator on the Gospel before Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) discusses the passage, and Euthymius stated that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it. (iv) No Eastern Fathers cite the passage prior to the tenth century. The earliest Western Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, also make no reference to it. (v) The passage is found in the MS D, and in the mass of later Koine MSS, in some old Latin MSS, the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic version and a few MSS of other versions, the writings of Ambrose and Augustine; Jerome said that it was in many Greek and Latin codices. (vi) Many of the MSS which have the passage have asterisks or obeli, showing that the scribes knew the uncertainty of its status. (vii) There is an extraordinary number of variant readings in the passage. (viii) While most of the Greek MSS that include it set it in its present position, in the Ferrar group of cursives it follows Luke 21:38, in 225 it comes after John 7:36, in the Sinai Georgian MS 16 it follows 7:44, and a number of MSS, including the Armenian, set it after 21:25. (ix) The style and language are more akin to the synoptic Gospels than to the Fourth Gospel.

There are some uncertainties in the evidence. Eusebius states that Papias, writing in the mid-second century, “told another story about a woman who was accused of many sins in the presence of the Lord, a story which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (HE 3.39.17); this could relate to the same episode as that in John 7:53–8:11, but of that we cannot be sure (see Vielhauer in Hennecke’s New Testament Apocrypha 1 [Tr. R. McL. Wilson. London: Lutterworth, 1963] 121–22). More important is the reference in the Syriac Didascalia vii, of the early third century: bishops dealing with repentant sinners are admonished to do “as he also did with her who had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed.” We cannot know where the author found the story, whether in a canonical or uncanonical gospel or in some other kind of writing.

It is clear that the story was not penned by the Fourth Evangelist (or any of the other three Gospel writers), yet there is no reason to doubt its substantial truth. The saying that it preserves is completely in character with what we know of our Lord, and quite out of character with the stern discipline that came to be established in the developing Church. (Augustine tells of the fear of some believers that the story would give their wives encouragement to sin with impunity! This led him to believe that this was the reason for its removal from the Gospel, de coniug. adult. 2.6.) We may regard the story as one those incidents in the life of our Lord that circulated in the primitive Church and did not come to the notice of our Evangelists (unless the fear that Augustine mentions led them to keep it out of their Gospels!—an unlikely eventuality); it was saved from oblivion by some unknown Christian, who wrote it down. If we ask why it was set in its present place, the answer must be a genuine sense of fitness of context. The theme of judgment is strong in chaps. 7–8; the story could well be regarded as illustrative of 7:24 and 8:15–16; and we note the opposition of the Pharisees to Jesus in 7:46–52 and 8:13.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John. Word Biblical Commentary (143–144). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

GarySpFC  posted on  2012-03-17   14:28:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone, Too Conservative (#10)

Here is the NICNT commentary on the John passsage:

The textual evidence makes it impossible to hold that this section is an authentic part of the Gospel.1 It is not attested in the oldest manuscripts, and when it does make its appearance it is sometimes found in other positions, either after verse 36, or after verse 44, or at the end of this Gospel,2 or after Luke 31:38. It seems clear enough that those scribes who felt it too important to be lost were not at all sure where to attach it. And if they could not agree on the right place for it, they could not agree on the true text for it either. The manuscripts that have it do not agree closely. The very large number of variants indicates that the textual history of this pericope is different from that of the fourth Gospel. In addition to the textual difficulty many find stylistic criteria against the story.3 While the spirit of the narrative is in accordance with that of this Gospel the language is not Johannine. The passage is too short for this argument to be completely decisive, but for what it is worth it does tell against Johannine authorship. There is also the fact that the passage does not fit well into the context, whereas 8:12 follows naturally after 7:52.

But if we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic.4 It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though not as an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient. Many authorities agree that it is referred to by Papias.5 It is mentioned also in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.24). But it is not mentioned very often in early days. The reason probably is that in a day when the punishment for sexual sin was very severe among the Christians this story was thought to be too easily misinterpreted as countenancing unchastity. When ecclesiastical discipline was somewhat relaxed the story was circulated more widely and with a greater measure of official sanction.

53 This verse shows that the story was originally attached to some other narrative, but what that was we can only guess.

Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (778–780). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

GarySpFC  posted on  2012-03-17   14:33:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: GarySpFC (#11)

Thank you for posts #10-#11. Very informative.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; Save me, and I shall be saved, For You are my praise. Jeremiah 17:14

redleghunter  posted on  2012-03-19   17:26:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com