1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

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

Top Posters
Page 2 of 6
  1. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no question that Anglicans supported often the divine right of kings. But there is also no question that Separatists, Puritans and other protestants (who were not Anglican) were willing to work with them.

    Obviously the Protestants (who sought to limit the power of the King) formed smuggling systems to support the Geneva Bible [in French and English]. That just proves that both the King was wrong and so were many of the Anglicans.

    At the time of the King James, there were 22 printers with a royal liscence to print. All books had to bear a stamp or seal of approval.

    The Geneva Bible was despised by the King because
    of its notes that called for Kings to be accountable to God. But before we go deciding that King James was totally against All Puritans, we should remember that he was raised by them, before he became James VI of scotland.

    He had a problem with the Geneva Bible: the problem was mainly one of civil war. King James knew better than to agree with either side. So he agree with both and neither.

    King James himself wrote a book about the divine right of Kings, and that all of his subjects should obey him. Yet he also appointed several Puritans to the translation committees of the King James Text. One of those puritan translators wrote a book saying that the King derived his right to rule from the consent of the Governed.

    King James ordered the books supressed, but kept the translator working on the KJV translation.

    ------
    Concerning the Founding Fathers who were puritans, they used the Geneva Bible (which is fine by me).

    It is simply innacurate to say that since the KJV was mainly done by Anglicans, that this means that all Anglicans were bad. Some Anglicans were in fact, bad. I do not propose to defend them.

    But King James had the wisdom to draw on many different groups, which is one of the strengths of the KJV. It would take his death and the revolution under Cromwell, for the Kings to agree to a parliamentary monarchy. It was resolved in the settlement act of 1688, if memory serves. That is 65 years after the KJV.

    Those who opposed the KJV in its own time were skeptical because they were skeptical of King James and some of the High Anglicans. Who can blame them for that ? But after years of evaluation and understanding that it did NOT change the meanings of the Geneva Bible, it was adopted by a wider group.

    However it should be noted that the Anglicans of yesteryear, those Anglicans of 1611 - would make many Christians today seem like theological liberals. The Anglicans and Puritans of 1611 are much closer to each other, than either of them would be to modern versions or to modern translators.
     
    #21 Surfer5, Sep 3, 2003
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    YOu don't even start this thread honestly. How in the world should we take you seriously??????? These verses were not deleted in teh NIV. They were never there most likely, as an objective evaluation of the evidence shows. They were added into to other versions through years of hand copying. You have not offered one iota of evidence that the JWs (people) and the NIV (the Bible) agree. Please stick to the facts here. These types of threads are not profitable for discussion because they cast doubt on the word of God and dragging immature and untaught believers into positions of false doctrine. Let us show respect for God's word, whether or not it is in a translation that we particuarly prefer.
     
    #22 Pastor Larry, Sep 3, 2003
  3. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay lets see. Those verses are in the majority of the ancient manuscripts. They are also in Geneva Bible. They are in the Spanish Reina Valera. They are in the German Bible of Luther.
    They are in the Gothic text of Ulfilas. They are in the Vetus Itala (which is the latin version before Jerome's latin Vulgate).

    So you would prefer to object to the characterization that the verses were "deleted", rather than express concern that they are not there. Call them anything you want. Just don't call them "present", because they aren't in the modern versions, though they are in the Older versions.

    [​IMG]
     
    #23 Surfer5, Sep 3, 2003
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Sufer5 concerning his quotation:

    I have lists of manuscript evidences supporting many verses that Surfer5 showed. Matthew 17:21, for example, is found in 49 manuscripts. However this verse was removed by 13 manuscripts.

    Surfer5 showed these evidences between NIV and JW bible reflecting many verses removed because their Greek text is W/H text. You need to look at this one to match them.
     
    #24 Askjo, Sep 3, 2003
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 things:

    1. why did u not mention the no. of manuscripts including n excluding this Comma?

    2. in followup to Archangel's point, why do the KJB n NWT show the greatest affinity on the 2 most critical verses proclaiming Jesus' Deity--Titus 2:13 n 2Pet 1:1?
     
    #25 Forever settled in heaven, Sep 4, 2003
  6. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Without any doubt that is true since the Puritans were a pretty close spin-off at that point.

    However, neither would be closer to us in doctrine than the NASB translators if the statement of faith each of them signed truly represents their views.

    Also- as similarity seems to carry a great deal of weight with you- the TR based versions, MT based versions, and CT based versions all have more in common with each other than the 6-10 Greek mss Erasmus used to create the TR had with one another.
     
    #26 Scott J, Sep 4, 2003
  7. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Okay lets see. Those verses are in the majority of the ancient manuscripts.</font>[/QUOTE] Define "ancient" as you are using it here. Are all mss "ancient" or is there a year that delineates the ancient from late? It would be helpful if you cited the oldest evidence for the various disputed words or phrases. (I am not trying to be antagonistic but would like to bolster my leanings toward the MT position.)

    If you are going to support the Jonannine Comma, I would like to see ante-nicene proof. If it was not used by the early church fathers to put down arianism then the likelihood of it being original is very low.

    These were derived from the TR but even so, Luther did not originally include the Johannine Comma.
    I would like to see a proof of this. None the less, Latin, even old Latin, cannot carry the same authority as Greek or even Syriac from the same era.

    Depends on what constitutes "older versions". How old? 400 years? 800 years? 1800 years?
     
    #27 Scott J, Sep 4, 2003
  8. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because I was saving the comma for a future discussion...


    My short answer is I do not know. But the fact that the KJV and NWT actually have a verse in common about the Deity of Jesus does not prove that they have not deleted other verses that do attest to this. And we do know - about the JWs, that their goal is certainly to preach a system of salvation by works which attacks and denies the Deity of Jesus.

    [​IMG]
     
    #28 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  9. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I don't see how this could be the case for a few different reasons. 1) I think that most of the Puritans would still be pretty close to us today.

    2) About the NASB:

    Help me to understand the genealogy of the NASB.
    Isn't the NASB dependent on the Translation of Westcott & Hort or do you believe that the NASB follows the Nestle-Aland Text (which is based on the Westcott/Hort Text & Tischendorf) ?

    If the NASB is based on the Westcott/Hort Text in whole or in part, then it would not matter what the statement was, that the NASB translators would have signed. In order for them to complete the NASB translation work, they would have to depend upon the Westcott/Hort text which is based upon the Spurious Codex Vaticanus - that is at odds with the rest of the ancient Bible Manuscripts (in other words, Codex Vaticanus is a fake Bible, aside from the fact that it is also the main text used to support Catholic Doctrine and the Latin Vulgate).

    I am not suggesting in this post that the NASB translators lacked integrity. I am suggesting that they were at the mercy of a bad Biblical Greek Text. I do not see how all of their good theology in the world, would cause them to be able to avoid being affected by the more than 3000 changes (according to Burgon) made by Westcott & Hort.
     
    #29 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  10. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am probably too tired here...but

    TR = TExtus Receptus
    MT = Majority Text
    CT = ??
     
    #30 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  11. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    I actually think it was and will try to address that in a post sometime in the next few days. As to the church fathers, the translations of the Church Fathers published by Eerdmans, are actually reprints of translations of those same church fathers that were done earlier...at the direction of Schaff.

    Since Schaff was the one in charge of the American Version of the W&H Revised Version (ASV), and since He was president of Union Theological Seminary that has attacked the deity of CHRist almost since its inception, I will not be taking Schaff's word that the Church fathers said anything. If Schaff agrees with other translations, so much the better. But I would find his citations problematic.
     
    #31 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  12. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    They are also in Geneva Bible. They are in the Spanish Reina Valera. They are in the German Bible of Luther.
    --------------------------------------------------
    As far as I know, the Comma is still in the other Translations I cited. I will provisionally grant the point about Luther until I have the chance to see this for myself. But let that not take away from the point I was attempting to make in that post: The variations found within the family of texts that follow the T.R. is much smaller than the variations that occur between the TR texts and those texts that contradict it, such as Codex Sinaiticus & Vaticanus.

    [​IMG]
     
    #32 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  13. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are in the Vetus Itala (which is the latin version before Jerome's latin Vulgate).
    --------------------------------------------------
    Yes, I would like to provide you with that proof.
    I will see if I can do something along those lines...

    -------
    None the less, Latin, even old Latin, cannot carry the same authority as Greek or even Syriac from the same era.

    Well I would agree with you about the Greek Vs Latin, but I would probably not agree concerning the Syriac. The Syriac texts seem to be a mixture. While some are reliable, their reliability is not something which is fully established...I have seen some of the syriac texts that I believe are from the 1-2% minority texts, so I cannot take them at face value.
     
    #33 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  14. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on what constitutes "older versions". How old? 400 years? 800 years? 1800 years?

    - ummmmm, that is an issue, I should have revised that statement to:


    Older for that question meant versions older than the KJV. Since the contention appeared to be that the KJV translators had inserted these verses into the text, the disproof of that point was simply to demonstrate that those verses existed
    in Bible versions, prior to the time of the KJV, or outside the scope of control directly exercised by the KJV translators in England.

    -------

    As to the actual question about the age, "Older"
    is usually something that I define contextually, though I am willing to define it, whenever someone wants me to define terms within a specific post (or series of posts).

    I usually have two "older" ranges:

    "older" definition A = 600 to 1200 AD

    "older" definition B = 0 to 400 AD

    That probably does not help much, but that is how I often use the term.

    The fact that a text is old is significant. the fact that it agrees with the Majority of the Texts (which is what I believe the T.R. does) is also significant. If a Manuscript disagrees with the TR, most of the time it will turn out to be a text for which there is less than 5% support among the rest of the Manuscripts. That does not mean that this is true, (though I think it is), but that is my perception.
     
    #34 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  15. Surfer5

    Surfer5 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you read the Revision Revised by John Burgon ? He cites much of the evidence and discusses many of the specific manuscripts.

    Surfer5
     
    #35 Surfer5, Sep 4, 2003
  16. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    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.     </font>[/QUOTE]The point is that guilt by association is not a rational argument, and the claim that some verses are "omitted" from the JW version as well as the NIV is circular reasoning--also not a valid argument. The initial post makes no effort to establish that some verses were actually omitted rather than that those verses' original absence was restored. No effort was expended to provide any examples of parallel verses in other gospels that have been retained, nor was the possibility of accidental scribal repetition or harmonization addressed. It appears that rather than an argument a series of assertions were made based on unproven assumptions.
     
    #36 Taufgesinnter, Sep 4, 2003
  17. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    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     </font>[/QUOTE]100% of all the Greek manuscripts disagree with one another. No NT Greek manuscript is absolutely identical to any other.
     
    #37 Taufgesinnter, Sep 4, 2003
  18. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    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]     </font>[/QUOTE]Excellent! James White has compiled an entire table of verses showing how the KJV presents a weaker testimony to the Deity of Christ in a whole slew of verses when compared to the NIV and NASB. Have you seen it?
     
    #38 Taufgesinnter, Sep 4, 2003
  19. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay lets see. Those verses are in the majority of the ancient manuscripts. They are also in Geneva Bible. They are in the Spanish Reina Valera. They are in the German Bible of Luther.
    They are in the Gothic text of Ulfilas. They are in the Vetus Itala (which is the latin version before Jerome's latin Vulgate).

    So you would prefer to object to the characterization that the verses were "deleted", rather than express concern that they are not there. Call them anything you want. Just don't call them "present", because they aren't in the modern versions, though they are in the Older versions.
    </font>[/QUOTE]What about the Peshitta?
     
    #39 Taufgesinnter, Sep 4, 2003
  20. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    2 things:

    1. why did u not mention the no. of manuscripts including n excluding this Comma?

    2. in followup to Archangel's point, why do the KJB n NWT show the greatest affinity on the 2 most critical verses proclaiming Jesus' Deity--Titus 2:13 n 2Pet 1:1? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]The KJV translators were ignorant of what later came to be known as the Granville Sharp Rule and the NWT committee intentionally didn't follow it. Adhering to this rule of Greek results in English rendering of "our God and Savior" instead of "God and our Savior," etc.
     
    #40 Taufgesinnter, Sep 4, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 6
Loading...