JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Surfer5, Sep 3, 2003.

  1. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV

    The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text ...

    Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

    Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

    Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

    Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

    Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

    Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

    Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

    Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
    Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

    Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
    Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"

    John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?"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."

    Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

    Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

    Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

    Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

    Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

    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 NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
    "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
    This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the tri-unity of God? If so, then you might find this deletion a problem.
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guilt by association is a *really* lame argument. [​IMG] What version did the JW's use when they were founded, hmmmm? What version do Mormons use even today? [​IMG]

    How about some actually useful information, such as the textual reasons these verses are in question?
     
  3. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    1.Calling my arguement a name is not a response to the argument

    2. The issue is whether or not this has taken place. The arguement concerns the TRUTH and accuracy of the claim - about the removal of verses. Since we Christians are concerned with doctrine first, removing verses that help to support Biblical doctrine is what matters

    3. The fact that the same verses are ommitted from the JW version should cause us to carefully consider what the basis of their translation and the Modern Translations are.
     
  4. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you saying ? Are you saying that if someone comes along and mis-uses the Bible, that this means that we should no longer use the Bible ourselves ???

    THe issue concerning the JW Bible version however, is that they stopped using the KJV and went to a different version, one that they found was a) further removed from historical Christianity but b) closer to their doctrine, and c) that did not contain Bible verses that would be a problem for them.
     
  5. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Main reason these verses are in question is because of the Manuscripts that were used in the Compilation of the Greek Text on which the NIV and the JW translation both rely.

    Both the JW Version and the NIV rely on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. They are held in high regard, but mostly by Catholic theologians, who have used them to justify many of their own doctrines.

    These 2 manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the Minority Text. They Disagree with 98% of the rest of the Greek Bible Manuscripts.

    They also have been retouched several times, and the distinction in handwriting is also visible; so they are simply a compilation between various authors written, added and changed over the centuries.

    Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus DISAGREE with 98 %of the rest of the Greek Bible Manuscripts. That however might leave the implication that they agree with each other.

    They do not agree with each other. In fact, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus disagree with each other in more than Two Thousand places.

    When Translators use manuscripts that 1) disagree with the rest of the Bible Manuscripts in Greek that have been used by the Protestant Church, 2) that are accomplished by Translators who rejected the Deity of Jesus Christ and 3)who believed that Christianity had really been lost and the Bible was wrong in anycase, We should not be surprised to know that they would have eliminated verses that testify either to the Deity of Jesus CHrist, or to Christian Doctrines.

    Surfer5
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I didn't know you were actually making an argument. Guilty by association is not really an argument, it's what people resort to when they have trouble coming up with a real argument. ;)

    No, the issue is *WHY* it has taken place. Your post tries to connect the reason to the JWs, which has nothing to do with the real issue.

    You have put forth a circular argument then, for I believe those verses were *added* during history, thus the "truth" is not about the removal of the verses, but about whether they were added from some Bibles or removed from others.

    You have it backwards. We should not determine the authenticity of scripture by how well it matches our existing doctrine. We derive doctrine from scripture, not the other way around.

    Why??? What relevance does it have? They used the KJV prior, so why don't you try applying your point to when they used the KJV?

    Nope, I'm not saying that. You seem to be saying that, by saying that since they also removed the same verses as "modern versions" did, the modern versions should not be used.

    As did the majority of Christians in general.

    Depends how far back in history you go. [​IMG] Go far enough, you might see those verses that were "deleted" were removed because *historical Christianity shouldn't have had them* because they were *added*.

    Then they didn't need their own translation, they could have used an existing one.

    That may have been a reason for some of their choices, who knows. But again, their reasons are different than ours, so we can be "guilty by association" for their reasons.

    They disagree *2%* of the time. There's a big (HUGE) difference.

    Ever hear of the Textus Receptus? [​IMG] Same thing.

    Yes, and there are 30,000 differences between a 1611 KJV and a 1769 KJV. Come on, how many of those differences are significant?

    Since all 3 of your claims are completely in error, I'll just ask you to back up your claims. [​IMG]

    Brian
     
  7. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry I was so unclear. The fact that the NIV agrees with the omission of verses from the JW translation is an effect, not a cause.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Like guilty by association, a circular argument is not really an argument at all. [​IMG]

    Ah, so the fact that the NIV agrees with the JW translation that God created the world and that Jesus was born of a virgin is also reason to reject the NIV. I see. [​IMG]
     
  10. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe where we derive our doctrine from is different. I derive doctrines from:

    1. The Bibles which I know are accurate, and accepted by the Historical Protestant & Baptist
    Churches.
    2. The Doctrines of the Historical Baptists, and those of the Reformation that agrees with the Baptists.


    If you wish to define your own doctrine on the basis of a new Bible version, that would be up to you.
     
  11. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know they are "accurate"? Why does "accepted" mean "accurate"?
     
  12. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok. Before versions like the NIV were around, the JWs had to use their own version, which is an invented and spurious text. Prior to the invention of the JW text, the JWs used the KJV which they regularly de-contextualized to make their points.

    Now the NIV has omitted verses, and the JW has also followed the decision of the NIV translators to omit those verses.

    Both versions omit Bible versions that included verses historically accepted and used by Baptists. Both versions (JW & NIV) are omitting verses that are significant Bible verses.

    The reason for this is that they are both using the same source: Both the NIV and the JW translation use the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

    The JW Interlinear, comes with the Nestle-Aland Text.

    What makes the use by JWs of the NIV, different from their use of the KJV in past times ?

    In the old days, JWs had to distort the KJV to make it say something it did not. But now, both the NIV and the JW translation undercut the deity of Jesus Christ.

    The JWs don't have to distort anything...because this is now already done for them in the NIV. When they wish to convert Christians away from Evangelical & Baptist circles, they use the NIV and the Nestle-Aland Greek Text.

    :(
     
  13. Archangel7

    Archangel7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, this very same argument can be turned on its head and applied to the KJV. One example should suffice, and I'll present it using in a form that might look familiar to you. [​IMG]

    John 14:14 -- Vitally important word COMPLETELY removed from the KJV [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible."] In the KJV it says,

    "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (KJV)

    Compare the KJV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading --

    "If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it." (NWT)

    What are KJV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

    "You may ask *me* for anything in my name, and I will do it." (NIV)

    This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying to the deity of Jesus, since prayer is to be offered to God alone. That is why the Jehovahs' Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the KJV leave it out? Reader, do you believe that Jesus is God? If so, you might find this deletion a problem.


    See what I mean? Are you willing to be consistent in your argument? Consider the following verses:


    Titus 2:13 -- Denial of the divinity of Christ by separating "God" and "Saviour"

    KJV ...the glorious appearing of *the great God* and *our Saviour* Jesus Christ
    NWT ...and glorious manifestation of *the great God* and of *our Savior Christ Jesus*

    NIV ...the glorious appearing of *our great God and Savior*, Jesus Christ


    2 Peter 1:1 -- Denial of the divinity of Christ by separating "God" and "Saviour"

    KJV ...through the righteousness of *God* and *our Saviour* Jesus Christ
    NWT ...by the righteousness of our *God* and *[the] Savior* Jesus Christ

    NIV ...through the righteousness of *our God and Savior* Jesus Christ


    Romans 8:26 -- Denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit by use of impersonal pronoun with reference to the Holy Spirit

    KJV ...but the Spirit *itself* maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
    NWT ...but the spirit *itself* pleads for us with groanings yet unuttered.

    NIV ...but the Spirit *himself* intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.


    So does the fact that the KJV agrees with the JW's NWT and supports JW doctrine in these key passages (while the NIV does not) mean that the KJV is "corrupt" and the NIV is the "real Bible?" [​IMG]
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    They *still* use their own version. [​IMG]

    *Precisely*. It is NOT any particular text that is the issue for the JWs, it is their *interpretation* of that text. If it is not the KJV's fault they misinterpret it, it is not the NIV's fault they misinterpret that as well.

    So what? [​IMG]

    Acceptance does not equal accuracy.

    "Significance" does not equal accuracy.

    I hear that some JWs drive Fords, as do some Baptists! Gasp! [​IMG]

    False. The JW's translation does, but the NIV doesn't. In fact, I spent considerable time discussing this with a JW who was "witnessing" to me. He would allow me to use the KJV in our discussions (it calls the Holy Spirit an "it", it says Jesus was firstborn of creation, etc), but he would not allow the NIV because "it explicitly says Jesus is God" (Rom 9:5, 2 Pet 1:1, Titus 2:13, John 1:18).

    That's not my experience. My experience is the opposite.
     
  15. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    To BrianT

    Have you personally read "The Revision Revised" by John William Burgon (Dean Burgon) ?
     
  16. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am partially through it. It is quite a long, dry read, complete with it's fair share of "vigor" against W/H, and it makes for tedious reading. [​IMG] Have you read it? Which W/H books have you read?
     
  17. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    To Archangel7,

    Hi. My point was that the JW and NIV translation are changing the Greek Text.

    I did use verses in English, but what I am saying is that to use sources that delete these verses in the Greek is a problem.

    If the English KJV omits words that alters or substantively changes the meaning of the text as the Greek has it, then that would be a problem.

    It would not be good if any translation omits words from the Greek to the English, but I would take the alterations to the Greek more seriously.

    What say you now ?
     
  18. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe where we derive our doctrine from is different. I derive doctrines from:

    1. The Bibles which I know are accurate, and accepted by the Historical Protestant & Baptist
    Churches.</font>[/QUOTE]
    Who do you think copied the mss used to create the TR? Do you actually trust RCC and Greek Orthodox monks? Who created the TR? (hint: he wasn't Baptist... he wasn't even Protestant even though Protestants tried to convince him to join them). What was the source/basis of these Bibles before the Reformation?

    BTW, the KJV was vehemently rejected by our Baptist and Separatist forebearers in the 1600's after the Anglicans outlawed all other English translations. Some of them even formed a black market/smuggling scheme to bring in Geneva Bibles from the European mainland.

    Ask yourself this question, when the earliest English colonists started coming to America to escape religious persecution in the early to mid 1600's, who were they trying to escape?

    The earliest Baptist confessions point to the originals as the source for biblical authority. They did not specify a family of mss nor a particular tradition. I am sure they would have welcomed mss that originated prior to the worst RCC and Eastern Orthodox doctrinal/practical abuses.


    I disagree with Brian in that I think the majority text is probably more accurate on the whole than the critical text. I have worked with data entry people and observe that most errors are omissions, not additions. But even so, sound doctrine can be derived from any faithful version... even the NIV that I personally distrust.

    OTOH, the KJV isn't really a majority test Bible either. It has several places with little or no Greek mss support.

    In other places, it has poor translations... such as one I just found in Romans 5:1. It renders an aorist verb as "being" rather than "having been." As a Baptist, this should be pretty significant to you. We are not "being" justified, we have been justified. The KJV leaves room for a works based salvation whereas MV's do not.
     
  19. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    You would have to be the first W&H defender that will actually read Burgon. I find that surprising
    (but good).

    What have I read of W & H ?

    Life & Letters of each

    Church History by Westcott
    Commentary on the book of John by Westcott

    (I have read more than that, but it is an old memory)
     
  20. Surfer5

    Surfer5
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought for a moment you were going to tell me
    "Chrysostom" , but I think you mean Erasmus.

    But the point is that T.R. still agrees more with the older Bible Manuscripts in Greek, far more than Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which have apocryphal books in them, and leave out the last section of Marc, etc.


    Obviously, the short answer is "God". But about the practice, Beza & Stephens (1550/51) did rely on Erasmus to a certain extent, but not entirely.
    Is it the Fault of Erasmus, that he happened to agree usually with the Greek Manuscripts that came before him ?

    Olivetain (relative of Calvin) credits the Waldensians for some of their translations that they preserved high in the Alps totally independent of Rome. Despite the exception of Erasmus (and who would say he was the standard Catholic leader ?), most of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has a bad history of banning bibles and persecuting those who dared to own copies.
     

Share This Page

Loading...