Luke 17:36 Missing in NIV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by drfuss, Sep 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. drfuss

    drfuss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my New International Version Bibles, Luke 17:36 is missing. In the KJV, Luke 17:36 reads: "Two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken, and the other left."

    Not only is the verse 36 words left out of the NIV, the number 36 is also left out, i.e. it goes from 35 to 37.

    Any explanations?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Opening Post (OP)::
    //In my New International Version Bibles, Luke 17:36 is missing.//

    Your statement is incorrect. Luke 17:36 is NOT missing from
    relilable NIVs.

    Ed's Explantion:

    You have a flawed New International Version (NIV):

    Unless your NIV reads like this, it is a POOR COPY :(

    Luke 17:35-37 (NIV):

    35 Two women will be grinding grain together;
    one will be taken and the other left.*
    37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied,
    "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.


    Translator's footnote:
    Some manuscripts:
    36. Two men will be in the field;
    one will be taken and the other left.


    Luke 17:36 is NOT missing from the NIV.

    BTW, those who use a REAL KJV (King James Version) already knew this:

    Luk 17:36 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.*

    Translator's Sidenote:
    * This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies

    The KJV1769 Edition that most KJV users actually use, generaly misses
    the HONEST REPORT contained in the REAL KJV, the KJV1611 Edition,
    in the translator's sidenote.
     
    #2 Ed Edwards, Sep 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 18, 2006
  3. drfuss

    drfuss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed writes:
    "Luke 17:35-37 (NIV):

    35 Two women will be grinding grain together;
    one will be taken and the other left.*
    37 "Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied,
    "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.

    Translator's footnote:
    Some manuscripts:
    36. Two men will be in the field;
    one will be taken and the other left."

    Thanks Ed, you are correct. My NIV does have a footnote to that effect. I find it unusal that they actually missed a number in the verses. I would have expected them to list the verses as 35,36 with a footnote rather than actually miss a verse number.

    Does anyone know of any other places where verse numbers are missed? This is the first one I have run across.
     
  4. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Sending this on to the proper forum ...
     
  5. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, a few places. I have found this in the NIV and NASB when a verse is not in the manuscripts the NIV and NASB use. Sometimes the verse is bracketed, sometimes the verse and verse number are omitted but there is a footnote, or there is a bracket and a footnote (as in my Scofield NASB).

    Check out Matt 17.21, 18.11, 24.14; Mk, 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28, 16.9-20; Lk 23.17; Jn 5.4; Acts 15.34, 24.7, 28.29; Rom 16.24; and 1 Jn 5.7.
     
  6. drfuss

    drfuss
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, I just run across Luke 17:36 by accident. Until the past few years, I used the KJV, the Amplified Bible and the Living Bible (paraphrased) for my study so I didn't realize this was the practice in the NIV.
     
  7. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many manuscripts contained this verse, but other manuscripts removed it.
     
  8. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,973
    Likes Received:
    129
    Luke 17:36:
    A Student's Guide to
    New Testament Textual Variants

    TEXTS that omit verse 36
    EVIDENCE: p75 S A B K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 28 33 565 892 1010 Byz cop {covers all text types}

    TEXTS that include verse 36: "Two [men will be] in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."
    EVIDENCE: D 700 Lect f13 lat vg syr

    COMMENTS: "Although it is possible that verse 36 was omitted by a mistake of the eye, when copyists' eyes jumped from "left" in verse 35 to "left" in verse 36, since it is missing from so many manuscripts, it is more likely that it was added here by other copyists from the parallel passage in Matthew 24:40."
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of Luke 17:36, Brother Deacon says:
    (Bolding by Ed):
    Amen, Brother Deacon - Preach it! :thumbs:
     
  10. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    If verse 36 is left out, the understanding would be left "wanting" to know where all the men were???

    I suppose the period of silence in Heaven is true? "No women there":tonofbricks: :eek:

    The understanding by the omission would have it that only women were working and us "godly" men were either lying around sipping iced tea watching football, or we had been raptured as a whole and only half the women were raptured as well.:1_grouphug:



    :flower: To all those ladies who know different!
     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    drfuss, I hope that you understand the answers that these folks have left (some humorous and some quite scholarly).

    The explanation simply is that the NIV is based on a slightly different Greek text, than say, the KJV. (The paraphrasing of a Bible makes it difficult to determine what the underlying Greek text actually is.) The verse numbers generally are maintained as a convenience so that the reader can follow along with previously written commentaries, concordances, or the speaker, etc.

    Personally, I dislike the terms 'left out' or 'omitted' because (as the evidence has been presented by Deacon) it is not determined whether the word/phrase was added into what the inspired author originally wrote. Therefore, it is not 'missing' from these translated texts. They should be noted as variants.
     
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    And there is the problem: God is not variable, for there is no shadow of turning in Him. To offer variants to the Word of God causes the reader to pick and choose rather than be certain of the Scriptures.

    The undertaking of translating the MSS must have it's translators very disciplined and knowledgable in their ability and understanding of the Original tongues.

    I believe, well, I know, that the understanding is very precise and the clarity very well made in what is deemed "archaic" today, but that is due to a lack of allowing a watering down of educating the reader and thereby also allowing the lesser to have precedence over the greater.:tonofbricks:
     
  13. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not only is the verse 36 words left out of the NIV, the number 36 is also left out, i.e. it goes from 35 to 37.

    Any explanations?


    Simple. If they didn't skip the number 36 in the text, then concordances, cross-references, and other helps that use the chapter and verse numbers to refer to specific chunks of the text wouldn't work.
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    That would mean the NIV doesn't "work" without verse numbers then.:thumbs:
     
  15. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    It isn't missing. It is referenced in the footnotes. The MSS used by the NIV translators is an earlier one than that used by the KJV translators. The KJV translators often referred to the existing Latin texts, particularly the Vulgate and the Bishop's Bible, in places where the manuscript was unclear. the NIV translators are simply acknowledging that this is a place where there is a variation in the manuscripts, and are properly deferring to the text of the earlier manuscript, while referencing the other, leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions.

    Because the chapter and verse markers were inserted into the text much later, and the same markers were consistently used by the KJV translators, when the NIV draws on an earlier manuscript, and there is a variant, to give deferrence to the earlier text, the entire verse must be lifted out of the text.

    Actually, I appreciate that way of footnoting and referencing variant manuscripts. It is easy to find where there are variants and easy to see what they are.
     
  16. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother Jack Matthews -- Preach it! :thumbs:
     
  17. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

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

    did u know that the KJB translators did "pick n choose rather than be certain of the scriptures," placing plenty of textual notes in their 1611 translation?

    wld u accept the fruit of their variableness?

    also, precision n clarity vary fr one langauge to another. altho the thee/ye distinction appears more "precise" than the use of "u," there is precision in other aspects in MVs that the earlier versions lacked, e.g. Jn 1:12 "children of God" (correctly) rather than the overspecific "sons of God"; n the identification of male n female speakers in the Song of Songs.

    speaking of variableness, is ur mind susceptible to alteration thru facts n evidence? :BangHead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...