response to the "missing verses in NIV"

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Chris1984, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. Chris1984

    Chris1984
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Friend,
    Thank you for writing with your excellent question.

    Those scripture verses in the notes of the NIV are not "missing", but purposely put
    in the footnotes as they were not found in the earliest manuscripts. Below
    is some of the information. We have in-depth and extensive resources available online that provide detailed information about the translation process and background of the New International Version.
    http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/4.php
    Blessings, Marilynne for the folks at IBS

    In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek
    text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to
    work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial
    manuscripts and papyri. Isn't the King James Version Good Enough?

    (The KJV and the NIV Compared)
    Edwin H. Palmer

    I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory
    verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses
    the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was
    translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in
    the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted,
    sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used
    translation.

    The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for
    two reasons: (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and
    misleading renderings of God's Word.

    Additions to the Word of God

    The KJV translators did not intend to add to the Word of God. They did their
    best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek
    manuscripts of the New Testament books. These were very late copies dating
    from a thousand (!) years after the New Testament was written. In a few
    sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on
    the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been
    in the Greek!

    Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been
    preserved and were subsequently discovered-in fact, more than five thousand
    of them. Some were very old indeed, dating back much farther than the
    relatively few the KJV translators used. Some of the Greek manuscripts date
    back to the four hundreds and three hundreds-even to abouta.d. 200. These
    ancient manuscripts were more reliable and accurate, not being corrupted by
    errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the
    late manuscripts used by the KJV.

    As a result we know today, with a high degree of accuracy, what was in the
    original writings.1 Uncertainty now exists in only an infinitesimally small
    part of the New Testament (the difference would be comparable to that
    between "don't" and "do not" or "street" and "way").

    Some examples of verses that the KJV added to the Word of God, even though
    it did so unwittingly and in all innocence, are Matthew 17:2l; 18:11; 23:14;
    Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37;
    15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. In addition many phrases
    and words were also added.

    A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of the original
    text, changed the original is John 1:18. The KJV says: "No man hath seen God
    at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
    hath declared him." John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of
    those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But,
    without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered
    what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus "Son." Using the
    archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: "No man hath seen God at
    any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
    hath declared him." Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: "No one has
    ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side,
    has made him known" (NIV).

    Some Evangelicals get concerned because some modern paraphrases do not
    really give us the Word of God. They distort, alter, and revise it. This
    concern is justified because we believe that the Bible is the very Word of
    God, and we do not want any paraphrases to change what the Holy Spirit
    inspired. Yet some of these same evangelicals calmly go on reading the KJV,
    which in many places has added to (and so changed) God's very words. Such a
    practice is unfortunate.

    Obscure and Misleading Renderings

    The KJV has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. This is so
    in part because some English words have changed their meaning since 1611. It
    is bad enough when translators have available only inferior copies of the
    original text of God's Word, but when, in addition to that, their
    translation of the Hebrew and Greek conveys erroneous ideas, the problem is
    compounded.

    This is not to say that the KJV did not do an admirable job-for its time. We
    should thank God for it. Many of the examples of erroneous translations
    given below were not errors in 1611 when the KJV was published, but they are
    definitely errors today in view of the current meanings of those words.
    (see Web site http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/index.php)
     
  2. PastorGreg

    PastorGreg
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2000
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting that this article does not note that of the 5,000+ manuscripts discovered, over 90% agree with those from which the KJV was translated. The article criticizes the KJV because the translators only had 6 Greek manuscripts. The footnote in my NIV in the middle of Mark 16 says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." Sounds like overwhwelming manuscript evidence in the light of 5,000+. 6 is not enough to be accurate, but 2 that change what had been accepted as God's Word for 1,800 years are accurate? Where is the intellectual honesty here?

    Got to grant you the obscure words, though.
    For example:
    Acclamation vs. voice in II Chron.15:14
    Alcove vs. little chamber in Ez. 40:13
    Blunted vs. cut in pieces in Ps. 58:7
    Colonnade vs. porch in I Kings 7:6
    Fomenting vs. speaking in Is. 59:13
    Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
    and hundreds more. Of course, in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV. ;)
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Appreciate the simple and straightfoward presentation (and link).

    Sadly, those who accept the KJV as "perfect" cannot let it stand. Be prepared for some flak! :rolleyes:
     
  4. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I look up one at random:

    Pastor Greg: "Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
    ... in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV."

    While "red" is certainly simpler than
    "porphyry", it is also incorrect.
    Porphyry is a purplish stone.

    And, if one uses the REAL King James
    Verson (KJV), the one authorized version
    actually authorized by King James,
    one reads in the sidenote of
    Easter 1:6:
    Or, of perhpyre

    Hello, can you spell KJBO deception?

    This really upsets me.
    Don't people bother to check the
    REAL KJV of 1611 and not the
    Modern Version (MV) KJV1769? :mad:

    God bless [​IMG]

    [ September 24, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
     
  5. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you get this idea from naturalistic scholars from some sources where I found the facts.

    NIV -- 5,000 MSS? Is that true?

    Ok, let's see, how many MSS support the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge of these MSS, how percent of MSS agreeing with the KJV?

    Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)

    John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "

    John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."

    2 verses on NIV contradict the doctrine of Jesus. Therefore ask yourself, "Is NIV obscure? [​IMG]

    Tell me, how would you solve some problems on these passages that you stated they added in the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge, why are these passages found in massive MSS where NIV negated?

    Who beget God? Do you mean that God beget God? Do you deny Jesus is God's begotten Son?
     
  6. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, actually it is more than that. 5000 is the closest easy rounding number. It is somewhere closer to 5500 I think. The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.

    In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.

    John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

    John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:

    Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ. So are you prepared to stand by your attack on God's word? Or will you, having been shown the error of your way repent of your attack on God's word?

    Ues a modern version, which is what I do.

    Because they were copied from the wrong manuscripts. 1000 copies of an error does not mean it is right. No matter how many times the error is copied, it is still wrong. That is why some of these passages are found in a lot of manuscripts.

    Knowing the meaning of monogenes would help here. The word means "unique" or "one of a kind." Jesus, the word, is the unique or only God. He is not some secondary God or created God. He is teh only God. This is the most powerful passage in Scripture to refute the JWs, but you cannot do it from a a KJV. You have to use a modern version to get this explicity testimony to the deity of Christ.

    [ September 25, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  8. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are unbelievable to say that.

    Again, you are unbelievable to say that.

    Witness and record are not same meaning. No contradiction!

    You use them because they are corrupted.

    Did God errorly and wrongly preserve His Word in these MSS?

    Strong's Concordance would not agree with you concerning "monogenes."
     
  9. AV Defender

    AV Defender
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    List those verses please;but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18;! Thessalonians 1:6,3:3,2:13;Hebrews 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Philippians 1:8;how do you account for that??
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably because there is no such thing as the "NASV".

    Maybe you mean the "New American Standard BIBLE in which case we will need your source and will have to do some homework.
     
  11. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.

    Of course, this will mean nothing to a KJVO, but everyone else should recognize what a great witnessing tool the correct translation is when evangelizing JWs and Muslims.
     
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excluding the disputed passages referring to Jesus, every appearance of 'monogenes' in the NT is a reference to begotten offspring. Is this merely coincidence?

    Hebrews 11:17
    By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

    Luke 7:12
    Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

    Luke 8:42
    For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

    Luke 9:38
    And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

    When referring to the Father, monogenes is never used, but only with the Son. Another coincidence? Or perhaps Jesus is unique and one of the kind, but not so the Father? The NIV messed this one up big time. I thank God for my trustworthy King James Bible!
     
  13. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strong defines monogenes:

    "monogenes = only-born, i.e. sole:-- only (begotten, child)."

    "mono = only."

    "genes = beget, be born." GenEs is from the word, GennaO which mean to "be begotten."

    The full word, "monogenEs" means "only begotten" that the KJV translated from the TR Greek.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are unbelievable to say that.

    Again, you are unbelievable to say that. </font>[/QUOTE]
    Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not. This is common knowledge to people who know what they are talking about. They may differ on where they come down about the reliability of these manuscripts, but they know these simple facts.


    The Holy Spirit inspired John to use the same word. One is noun form (5:31 - marturia); the other is the verb form (8:14 - martureo). So John thought these two things were the same. It is only by some strange quirk of translation that you think they are different. On this point, you should stick with teh Holy Spirit; He was right when he wrote it.

    This is a place where you have listened to false teachers and believed them without bothering to check what God actually said.

    As for the KJV having verses with no manuscript support, here are some examples: Isa 13:15; Rev 17:8; Rev 16:5. There are some others but that will keep you busy for a while.

    Why would I use something because it is corrupted?? That doesn't even make sense. You are charging me with deliberate corruption of God's word and that is highly offensive. You can differ with me without stooping to such levels.

    You asked what a person should do with the added verses in teh KJV. I said use a modern version where these verses were not added.

    No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts. No two of these manuscripts match. Therefore, by your own standard, you must charge God with wrongly preserving his word. (I don't think "errorly" is a word but perhaps someone can look it up.)

    Strong's concordance is what you use when you cannot use other lexical resources. You would be better off using something better geared to the problem. Strong's gives a very simply gloss for words. It is not intended to be used as a definitive source. BAGD, the standard lexical work for NT Greek, say "only, unique." If you use your STrong's to look up the other 5 or so verses where monogenes is used, you will find that that the definition I give is exactly the right one, and there will be one usage that will completely refute your understanding.
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just did a quick comparison. All of these verses are essentially the same in the NASB and KJV. You are going to have to define more precisely what you think was included or omitted without mss support.... unless you are saying that both versions are wrong.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0

    NASB
    You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,

    KJV
    And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:

    In case you are stumbling over "followers" vs. imitators:

    Strong's Number: 3402 Browse Lexicon
    Original Word
    mimhthvß from (3401)
    Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
    Mimetes 4:659,594
    Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
    mim-ay-tace' Noun Masculine

    Definition
    an imitator


    King James Word Usage - Total: 7
    follower 7

    Once again, are the NASB and the KJV in error here or do they both have support?
     
  17. Lacy Evans

    Lacy Evans
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2003
    Messages:
    2,364
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kind of reminds me of those archaic families who had consistent parents. When the mischievious boy who couldn't get his way with one "standard" ran to his "other standard", she would bust his behind and send him back to Dad

    There you go again my friend. "Bankrupt, comic-book philosophy producing pharaseeism."

    You said a mouthfull. . . of nothing.

    Show me how I am a pharasee. "Get me a labrador and I'll retrieve it."

    Lacy
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

    Example:
    1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?

    Did God make any mistakes?
     
  19. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

    Example:
    1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript? </font>[/QUOTE]
    Papyrus 72 is one out of many. Considering something does not mean that it gets selected. It means that different things are compared with the one that appears most likely to be original is selected.

    Did God make any mistakes? </font>[/QUOTE]How would you answer this question? You would have us believe that no one had the perfect Word of God before 1611... or maybe that's 1769. So if God perfectly preserved His word in the way you demand that He did, why was the KJV (which was unlike every Bible produced before it) necessary? If it was always perfectly preserved then the KJV must obviously be a perversion of something that was already perfect.

    God did not perfectly preserve the exact wording of the originals. That is so obvious only an idiot or the willfully ignorant could miss it. This fact is testified to by over 5000 Greek mss that all differ from one another.

    God's Word, the substance of His communication in the originals, is perfectly preserved. This fact is also testified to by over 5000 Greek mss and the fact that the faithful translations we have today teach the same doctrines and message.
     
  20. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

    Example:
    1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?

    Did God make any mistakes?
    </font>[/QUOTE]It takes a lot on a discussion board to make me lose my patience, but that was just petty and childish. There was nothing in the statement made to justify your response to it; consideration does not mean adoption. Editors can consider a manuscript, but that doesn't mean they'll adopt its reading. Many times the KJV editors put a variant reading from their manuscript collection into the margins--because they thought it likely to be the correct reading but not as likely as the one they chose to use in the body of their text. And if a reading they considered was deemed unlikely, they were under no obligation to even note it in the margin at all.
     

Share This Page

Loading...