Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Which Versus Did the NIV Delete
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.sound-doctrine.net/VersesDeletedFromNIV.htm
Published: Oct 26, 2014
Author: Sound Doctrine
Post Date: 2014-10-26 09:58:21 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 32480
Comments: 51
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?
|
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Wow! I had to check for myself, sure enough they are missing in the online version.
#2. To: nativist nationalist (#1)
Why does it seem to be compatible with the Jehovas Witness "Bible"? I find that strange and intriguing.
#3. To: nativist nationalist, redleghunter (#1)
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says, "For there are three that testify:" Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading-- "For there are three witness bearers," What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say? KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Why does it seem to be compatible with the Jehovas Witness "Bible"? I find that strange and intriguing.
I found this article on the same topic. Interesting.
#5. To: nativist nationalist (#4)
I read your link. When my kids went to christian school. They had to do memory verses. They wanted to memorize the NIV version. But I was adamate that they memorize the harder King Jamees version.
It always bothered me that they used the NIV.
In the NIV you can find out that Jesus is a sinner.
Let me explain.
I'm not sure what verse but anyone can find it and I will if asked. Anyhow the NIV says that to be angry is a sin. It also says that Jesus was angry. So according to the NIV Jesus is a sinner.
The KJV makes it clear that to be angry without cause is the sin and not just being angry.
That is why I have never liked the NIV since I read these things. I stick with the KJV. I'm sure the Bishops Bible or Geneva Bible would also be correct.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Wow...
And just wait until the ONLY Bible deemed "legal" in the Amerika in the NIV version -- but an even more "tidied-up version where Jesus is "gay," and all his miracles are deleted, along with EVERY supernatural event. Yeah, sorta like the Jeffersonian "bible."
#7. To: A K A Stone, nativist nationalist, liberator, Uncle Siggy (#3)
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says, "For there are three that testify:" Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading-- "For there are three witness bearers," What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say? KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
It has to do more with manuscript textual criticism than with the JWs and the NIV. The KJV as did most early English Bibles used Textus Receptus or the Received Text. Where there were questions on passages in the Greek, the scholars referred to the Latin Vulgate as well. Which was very close to the what the Eastern Orthodox used the Alexandrian text. These are all manuscripts.
So when the KJV was meted out they had a limited number of manuscripts compared to 50-200 years later. There was an explosion of various manuscripts shared after the KJV. Schools and universities focused on the Koine Greek, produced scholars on Greek Koine, and as time went on there were more accurate approaches to translations because more data to compare one manuscript to the other was made available. This was called textual criticism. That would be academic criticism, not the atheist type:)
So today the KJV stays faithful to the RT and other English Bibles mostly use what is called the Majority Text (MT). Meaning when translating they want to be faithful in transmitting what the majority of the manuscripts evidence.
So we have both the RT and the MT and a some others as well. When we draw out the Venn diagram we see some very tight circles and what comes out are a handful of passages everyone loves to disagree about.
The fact is most Bibles, like the NASB, and many others either bracket and footnote the passages not either found in the MT or not in abundance. Some just footnote. I have not explored the NIV much to see if they bracket or not. The foot note usually says "does not appear in the MT, or early manuscripts.
The JWs are another deal. They translated their Bible from English to English and used a bastardized way of adjusting the Greek Lexicon to fit their Arian doctrine that Jesus is "a lesser 'god' than the Father." They totally don't get the concept (or ignore) what "Logos" meant to the apostles and the early church fathers.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#8. To: Liberator (#6)
...but an even more "tidied-up version where Jesus is "gay," and...
If that happens gay dubya pegler and sneakypoof will transform into the biggest bible thumpers at Liberal Poofs.
#9. To: redleghunter (#7)
the KJV stays faithful to the RT and other English Bibles mostly use what is called the Majority Text (MT). Meaning when translating they want to be faithful in transmitting what the majority of the manuscripts evidence.
A democratic, mob rule, interpretation of the bible. Average in the Wiccan Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Communist Manifesto, and the NAMBLA Charter, and put it to a vote.
An interesting opinion poll, but not likely the word of God.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#10. To: nativist nationalist (#8)
If that happens gay dubya pegler and sneakypoof will transform into the biggest bible thumpers at Liberal Poofs.
:)
#11. To: redleghunter (#7)
Here is the way I see it. God said he would trnaslate his word to all tongues. I would take that to mean living tongues or languages spoken.
There must have been the right manuscripts if his word was going to be published. Isn't it his word? If it is it is complete of everything needed.
The NIV took away and makes Jesus a sinner. The NIV was made by some homos wasn't it. I read that somewhere years ago I think I confirmed it.
#12. To: All (#11)
Also if the NIV came out centuries later. Why is that? Because it isn't Gods true word?
#13. To: hondo68 (#9)
A democratic, mob rule, interpretation of the bible. Average in the Wiccan Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Communist Manifesto, and the NAMBLA Charter, and put it to a vote.An interesting opinion poll, but not likely the word of God.
You may win today's vote for most pleasant person:)
I opined. There is nothing more powerful than quoting in the KJV English. Love it. Also love the NASB. Don't care much for how the NIV was put together.
Frankly, I use Bibles according to RT, MT and the Eastern Orthodox versions in my studies.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I would have to look at your accusations of the NIV. As I stated to Bushbot, I don't like it much.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#15. To: A K A Stone (#11)
The NIV was made by some homos wasn't it. I read that somewhere years ago I think I confirmed it.
www.jesus-is- lord.com/woudstra.htm
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#16. To: CZ82 (#15)
Your link seems to indicate that what I said is correct but the NIV people dispute it.
Here is something else interesting. Why is Gods word copyrighted and owned by a corporation? The KJV isn't.
The New International Version (NIV) is an English translation of the Christian Bible. Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society) is the worldwide publisher and copyright holder of the NIV,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version
#17. To: nativist nationalist (#4)
Yes Jack Chick is VERY King James only.
His tracts are great too.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#18. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#11)
Here is the way I see it. God said he would trnaslate his word to all tongues. I would take that to mean living tongues or languages spoken.
More specifically as we see in Matthew 24:
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.(KJV)
So I believe your understanding is correct. And as evidenced at Pentecost we see in action the Gospel proclaimed in many languages.
We are left so many manuscripts IMO so we could not make stuff up like the Mormons and JWs.
The Comma Johanneum controversy was not so much putting the RT and KJV into question, but a majority of scholars identifying those specific verses appeared to be a Latin addition to the Greek manuscript tradition. Some conservative scholars believe it was a margin comment like we see in our modern Bibles. That is commentary, footnotes, cross references.
And we have to remember the KJV was not the first English language translation.
History of English Bibles chart
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#19. To: A K A Stone (#16)
Every Bible version today is copyrighted. The KJV, Geneva Bible 1599 and a few others are not given the time period.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
May have but not now.
KJV:Matthew 12:47: 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
NIV:Matthew 12:47: 7 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
That's just the first of the claims of the linked site and it is incorrect.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#21. To: redleghunter (#19)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There is no copyright on the KJV. You can't copyright Gods word. it is for humanity. If you go try to publish a NIV I bet you get sued. If you do that to a KJV you will not. imo. I think that means something. I think it means it is a private Bible.
#22. To: redleghunter (#20)
Let me get back to you on this. Ping me in a couple of days if I forget.
#23. To: A K A Stone (#21)
Stone I don't think their were copyright laws back then. The general consensus was every ploughmen should be able to read the Bible at his home.
By today's laws the KJV and Many other older English Bibles are old enough, that if they were once copyrighted now have by duration of time passed into the public domain. Why it was so easy for revival tents in the 19th and 20th century to buy copies from multiple publishers and hand them out.
If you go to Bible Gateway each version will show the copyright history.
From Wiki (I know but accurate info) on the KJV in the UK:
Copyright status The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[153]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Copyright_status
So the UK does do this.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#22)
On Acts 8:37 I share your concern. For the Catholics have a problem with this verse. The Catholics when thumping a Bible will either say the Vulgate only or in English the DRA Catholic Bible. The DRA is very close to the KJV and Acts 8:37 appears in the DRA. But not the Catholic NABRE, which is supposed to be their official modern Bible. So they have the same conflict on the posted passages and many traditional Catholics are not happy.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)
:::Beating Head Against Wall:::
Stone, approximately 30+ years ago I was close friends with Dr. D. A. Waite and Dr. D. K. DeVitro, both leaders in the KJV Only Movement. I know these men. If you spend a little time studying textual criticism, you'll see there are valie reasons why those passages are not listed in our modern Bibles.
To say the NIV, NASB, Amplified, HCSB, ESV, and other major translations are inferior to the KJV is nonsense.
"It was once thought that the NT was written in a special “Holy Ghost” language, but study of sources from the era of the NT has demonstrated that the NT was written in the common Greek of the day. The King James Version of the Bible was an outstanding product of the scholarship in its day, but we now have many more manuscripts for both the NT and the OT, and hence our English Bibles are even closer to the original today because of recent manuscript discoveries and the careful work of scholars in text criticism."
Schreiner, T. R. (2007). Has Historical Criticism Proved the Bible False? In T. Cabal, C. O. Brand, E. R. Clendenen, P. Copan, & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (p. 1467). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.
BTW, I have almost 100 Bibles in my Logos Library system, and I use all of them including the KJV, but mostly the original Greek and Hebrew texts. I would also ask which version of the King James Bible are you using?
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#26. To: A K A Stone (#0)
"Other popular books defending the KJV-only models and castigating other translations as demonic are Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions and Which Bible Is God’s Word? Few scholars, even among evangelicals, take these views seriously; James White has produced an excellent critique in The King James Only Controversy.
Peter Ruckman even goes so far as to affirm that the Greek text must be corrected by the King James Version (CHME, 115–38). Noteworthy is his statement that “mistakes in the A.V. 1611 [King James Version] are advanced revelation.” Thus, he adds, “in exceptional cases, where the majority of Greek manuscripts stand against the A.V. 1611, put them in file 13”2 (ibid., 126, 130). Ruckman appears to believe that the English text of the King James is an inerrant, “re- inspired” version. Armed with this presupposition, adherents of this view speak of other translations of the Bible as “perverted Bibles” and those who use them as “Bible haters.”
Geisler, N. L. (2002). Systematic theology, volume one: introduction, Bible (pp. 432–433). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#27. To: GarySpFC (#25)
To say the NIV, NASB, Amplified, HCSB, ESV, and other major translations are inferior to the KJV is nonsense.
I respectfully disagree sir.
The NIV says to be angry is a sin. It says Jesus was angry. That makes Jesus a sinner.
I'll stick with the NIV.
Why does the NIV leave out so many verses? Just like the cult Jehovas Witness fake Bible.
Just the way I see it my friend.
#28. To: GarySpFC (#26)
Other popular books defending the KJV-only models
I am not KJV only. As far as I can tell the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible are also good.
I just have a problem with the NIV and probably others if I looked at them. Like the living Bible too.
#29. To: GarySpFC (#26)
1) I TIMOTHY 3:16: The clearest verse in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God. The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, plainly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". The NIV reads, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV "twists" "GOD" to "HE". "HE appeared in a body"? So What? Everyone has "appeared in a body"!"He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT make sense! The NIV subtilty (see Genesis 3:1) perverts I Timothy 3:16 into utter nonsense!
Here is 1 Timothy 3:16 in the Greek:
#30. To: orthodoxa (#29)
ping to above
#31. To: A K A Stone (#27)
The NIV says to be angry is a sin. It says Jesus was angry. That makes Jesus a sinner.
Where does the NIV say anger is a sin?
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#32. To: A K A Stone (#29)
I know a little Greek. :) I Timothy 3:16 is NOT the clearest statement in the Bible that Jesus is God. Look at Colossians 2:9, which reads, "9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, NIV
If all the fullness of Deity lives in Christ, then how much more deity has to live in Christ for Him to be fully God? What is lacking in that passage. Clearly, the passage makes it clear Christ is God, and with far more strength than I Tim. 3:16.
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#33. To: GarySpFC (#31)
Matthew 5:22New International Version (NIV)
22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[a][b] will be subject to judgment.
King James Bible But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mark 3:5New International Version (NIV)
5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
According to the NIV Jesus is in danger of judgement. According the the flawless KJV Jesus was angry with cause so he isn't in danger.
I take the Bible literally unless it says in the text not to. To me this is an obvious contradiction.
#34. To: GarySpFC (#32)
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing? KJV: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Why is this missing from the NIV?
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
According to the NIV Jesus is in danger of judgement.
Jesus does all the judging, and is not subject to judgment. Furthermore, the passage does not say being angry is a sin, rather being angry puts one in danger of being judged by Jesus as to if one was guilty or not.
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#36. To: A K A Stone (#34) (Edited)
From the UBS Handbook: "Mark 11:26, Text This verse, introduced into manuscripts from the parallel Mt. 6:15, is omitted by all editions of the Greek text, save Textus Receptus and Kilpatrick."
Bratcher, R. G., & Nida, E. A. (1993). A handbook on the Gospel of Mark (p. 358). New York: United Bible Societies.
The NIV does not omit the passage, rather it places the passage in the correct place. Adding to the Word is every bit as bad as taking away from it. Rev. 22
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#37. To: GarySpFC (#36)
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
You think this is added to? You think it shouldn't be there?
You said it was in the Textus receptus and kilpatrick.
#38. To: All (#37)
I'll add just in case anyone wonders. I don't doubt you are a christian.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#37)
it is not in the earlier manuiscripts.
www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org
#40. To: A K A Stone (#28)
Geneva Bible are also good.
If you are in the market for one they have them on sale at Christianbook.com until 4 Nov.
Bought one for the wife about 5 years ago and one for the middle daughter last Xmas, haven't heard anything negative about them.
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/easy_find? Ntt=geneva+bibles&N=0&Ntk=keywords&action=Search&Ne=0&event=ESRCG&nav_search=1&c ms=1&search=
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
#41. To: GarySpFC (#39)
it is not in the earlier manuiscripts.
I don't know. Because I don't read greek. God did promise that he would translate his word for all tongues though. I trust the early translations. I don't think it took an extra 500 years to get it right.
I trust those translations because they all seem to say the same thing. From what I have compared.
The NIV and other translations sometimes seem to be telling an entirely different story in some aspects.
I don't think I'll go wrong with the KJV. So if it is correct then why bother with the NIV which seems to me to have some contradictions and omissions.
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 51) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]