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: 32531
Comments: 51
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?
|
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
Wow! I had to check for myself, sure enough they are missing in the online version.
#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."
#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.
#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.
#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
#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
#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.
#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.
#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.
Replies to Comment # 23.
There are no replies to Comment # 23.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]