JWs & NIV Agree : Verses missing from the NIV

The first example I gave (Jn. 14:14) is an instance of where both the NWT and KJV are translated from a changed Greek text that OMITS a crucial word.

εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω

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

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

εαν τι αιτησητε *με* εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω

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

The theological issue at stake is the deity of Jesus. Prayer is to be offered to God alone. In the Greek text used by the NIV Jesus says that prayer can be offered to Him, so He must be God. The Greek text behind the KJV and NWT omits that key reference.

So again I must ask -- are you prepared to be consistent in condemning the KJV for its omissions too?

 

But this is precisely the issue! If there are two forms of the NT text -- one shorter, the other longer -- then there are really only two possible explanations: (1) the shorter text is original, and the longer text is an addition; or (2) the longer text is original, and the shorter text is a deletion. The question then becomes, "How do we determine which form of the text is original?" This requires a patient examination of ALL the textual evidence before a determination can be made. It prejudices the matter from the outset to characterize the NIV's text as being full of "deleted verses" when there are excellent reasons for believing that these so-called "deletions" are actually the restoration of the text to its original form by removing later additions. It would be helpful to take a specific example like the Johannine Comma and look at the evidence before pronouncing it a "deletion."

 

I have Surfer and I also have another of his works which has been recently re-released:

The Defense of the Traditional Text.

In this 300 page book he defends the Traditional Text by showing though the analysis of many variant word charts and lists that the early Church fathers and ancient translations such as the Peshitto and the Old Itala, overwhelmingly support the Traditional Text against Aleph/B.

HankD

 

Surfer5 said:

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...?

My church is half a block from a Kingdom Hall. I have seen Jehovah's Witnesses wearing neckties.

I have also seen KJV-only men wearing neckties.

I wonder why that is? Hmmmm.

 

Surfer5 said:

Quick...take off your necktie

So you do wear a necktie. How very interesting.

 

It will be obvious to anyone who reads the entire NIV New Testament that this version teaches the deity and preemience of Christ just as clearly as the KJV does (perhaps more so). When I study the NIV (or NASB or ESV) I feel closer to God, not alienated from Him or confused about Him. Satan can certainly use our emotions against us, but one emotion he cannot inspire is the true joy that comes from reading the Word of God. If a Bible version moves me to praise God, to love Him more, to follow Him diligently, to obey Him and please Him with all my heart--how can this book be from the Enemy? Textual matters aside (and I've investigated them as well), I know that the NIV, while imperfect, is not from the same spirit that produced the NWT. And that is certainly what the author of this thread is insinuating.

 

Shame on you, DCK! You're not supposed to see the forest for the trees.

 

The verse is Jn. 14:14. This is how it appears in the Greek TR used by the KJV translators:

εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω

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

It is also the form of the verse followed by the JW translators:

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

This is the form of the verse as it appears in the NA 27 and UBS 4 Greek texts (note the *highlighted* Greek word *με*, which is omitted by the TR):

εαν τι αιτησητε *με* εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω

This form of the text has the earliest and most widespread attestation in the MS tradition. It is supported by representatives of all three major textual groups: Alexandrian (P66, P75vid, Aleph, B, W), "Western" (OL c,f), and Byzantine (E, H, and numerous lectionaries).

This is the the text used by the NIV translators (note the *highlighted* English word *me*, which is omitted in the KJV):

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

So here we have an indisputable example of an omission in the Greek text of the TR and the English text of the KJV which weakens the doctrine of the deity of Jesus (we can only pray to Jesus if He is God). This omission also agrees with the text of the NWT and JW theology, which denies that Jesus is God. If the situation were reversed, and it were the *modern* versions rather than the KJV which had this glaring omission, it would be trotted out as an example of how "corrupt" the modern versions were and we would never hear the end of it. But when the omission appears in the KJV, it is not even acknowledged by KJV-Only apologists.

Inconsistency of this kind is one of the hallmarks of KJV-Onlyism.

 

I just wanted to say that was a very good response. I don't agree with it, but the quality of it was good...

</font>[/QUOTE]Danke!

 

I am probably too tired here...but

TR = TExtus Receptus
MT = Majority Text
CT = ?? </font>[/QUOTE]Critical Text (CT) refers to the W/H text, UBS text, Nestles Text, NA text and others.

 

Meine Voreltern waren im Jahre 1843 aus Deutschland gekommen. Ich komme aus der Vereinigten Staaten. Schade, kenne ich doch nicht Tischendorf. Ich weiss fast nichts darueber ihm. Es tut mir leid.

 

No. As far as I can tell from their statements, it is not based on a translation by Westcott and Hort.

Being based on something does not make it equivalent to that thing. My understanding is that the NASB utilizes the NA but does not always follow the suggested text.

But you have labored at length to show that W&H were heretics. You said elsewhere that Westcott's writings were relevant. Yet here you say that what the NASB translators believe is not important. Why the double standard?

This statement is inaccurate. WH and modern textual critics give greater weight to older mss. That in and of itself is reasonable. Where I depart with them is on the idea that "shorter" and "more difficult" readings are more likely to be original.

Not in the whole and not substantially if the Bibles translated from modern texts are any indication. They are the same in substance in most places to the KJV and other TR derived versions.

I will have to ask for your proof here.

The TR relies on the Latin Vulgate for some of its text. The TR originated with a RCC scholar who did not leave a testimony of salvation by grace through faith. As far as we know, he died trusting the RCC with his soul. As you said elsewhere, someone's abuse of scripture does not make the scripture wrong.

I frequently study the KJV and NASB in parallel. I will continue to look for 3000 substantial changes... I haven't found them yet.

 

You're in America now. Please speak Spanish like the rest of us .