Questions for KJVO's

http://bible.cc/matthew/17-21.htm

http://bible.cc/matthew/18-11.htm


There's two...there are more.

 

Words in question are in the footnotes, even in my first edition NIV which I have had since it came out. It is unfair to say they are not there. It Mrs Riplinger has any integrity she would point out that they are in the footnotes.

And, BTW, I am not an NIV defender, I don't like it and never have.

 

Roger, I'm almost certain they are referring to one verse in Acts and the end of Mark and I think there may be one more verse in Matthew. The interesting thing is that there is no doctrine missing unless you consider handling snakes and drinking poison will show you who the true Christians are.

After all, the last few verses of the KJV were taken from the Latin Vulgate (Revelations) because the had no true record of it, but it doesn't make it wrong.

 

I am too lazy to go back upstairs and check my NIV, but I think all of those are in the footnotes. I'll look, when I go back up for bed

 

I am almost 100% certain that all of the printings of the NIV have the ending of Mark either listed in the words with a footnote that "some older manuscripts do not contain these verses." or the entire end of Mark is included in a footnote, which I don't believe I've seen; but, I know the NIV has (at least to date) included those verses. Whether it lays out a single verse or not in Acts or Mathew I don't think it does, it is very good about footnoting the different manuscripts.

For those of you unfamiliar with the NIV it was done by committee of mixed groups and it was considered to be a "conservative" leaning Bible, although it is a little too much on the side of "thought for thought" translation. That is the reason I like my ESV and NASB.

 

And I won't read a Bible that has verses in footnotes instad of where they belong.

 

It is in the text with a footnote?

 

Not to me I know, but I have an NIV (1985) and the end of Mark is in the text - under a line with an explanation in parentheses about manuscripts.

 

I'm at the library right now. I have in front of me a 1978 NIV.Verses 9-20 of Mark 16 is all there in regular sized print. There is a space before those verses saying [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.]

In other Nivs and TNIVs the print is considerably smaller,bracketed and has a cautionary notice such as the above.

 

In the 1978 NIV

It has John 7:53-8:11 in the same font size. But before that section there is a note:[The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53-8:11.]

 

Thanks Rip - I could have checked but don't feel like getting out of my easy chair to go up to the office and check it

My copy is a 1978 copy as well

 

I checked in the TNIV study Bible on the shelf and it has the same []ed phrase. The text may be slightly smaller. It is italicized and that makes it a bit harder for comparison.

I probably should say that the NIV I mentioned above is not a stand alone but a parallel with KJV.

 

Hey Bitsy. How are you?

 

I'm doing great! Hope you are.

 

Actually, isn't all of this based mainly on which edition of the Greek text one basing translation on?

and wouldn't it by best be seen that one can indeed be a KJV preferred , but that one cannot KJV only, as you are making a case based upon Greek texts, and that even "experts" cannot agree on which is to be seen as "best!"