The World's Fastest Bible Memory Plan

When has has the KJV ever been called a perversion? We hear this charge regularly, but never get shown the proof.

 

No one will edit your posts if you question a translation, or point our perceived errors in other translations. That is what the thread is all about. The KJV is open to the same scrutiny as any other version.

 

Perhaps, we can talk through a couple of these verses and try to understand each other a bit better. It has been alleged in this thread that the omission of these verses does not effect doctrine. The first verse listed, is Matthew 17:21 (as well as 20), which in the Holy Bible reads...

"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." - Matthew 17:21​

This was a teaching (doctrine) given by Jesus to the disciples regarding the removal of a devil from a lunatick child. The disciples couldn't do it and Jesus rebuked the disciples and rebuked the devil, curing the child. The disciples ask Jesus why they couldn't cast the devil out and Jesus Christ provides the reason and instruction in Matthew 17:20 & 21.

Thus, I respectfully ask, where would we find the teaching provided in Matthew 17:21 of the KJV, in the NIV?

 

The parallel passage is Mark 9:29 --

He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.” (NIV)​

Obvious is that the NIV and Eclectic Text-based versions will not have the TR-based words "and fasting". Much could be discussed about the practice of fasting.

 

Is it safe then to say that these two books have two different doctrines relative to this matter? The KJV indicates that fasting is important for the removal of this type of devil, whereas the NIV omits this teaching correct?

 

What were you doing then? I thought I was giving you the benefit of the doubt using the term "making fun of". It seemed at best making fun, if not it might have been mocking, belittling, or at worse attacking (which based on your perversion remark, might be more where you were coming from). But I would like to hear what you feel you were doing in your original post, if not making fun? You sure weren't praising, or glorifying.

 

I think it is a significant difference worthy of notice. The phrase "and fasting" is suspect as being exactly the kind of addition that a pious scribe might be willing to add to the scripture.

However, how much fasting is required is not specified. When I wake up in the morning I have fasted for about 8 hours; is that enough? I think the point that Jesus made was that the disciples were under-prepared. Let's not become bogged down with the fasting portion of this verse.

 

Yes, indeed. As a child and as a teenager, I was brought up to attend the Parish Church of the Church of England. This was in the 1950s/early 60s, so no NIV around, yet baptismal regeneration was clearly taught. We even sang a hymn (726 in "Hymns Ancient and Modern", the main hymnbook used by the Church of England at the time) where the first verse said:

I was made a Christian
When my name was giv’n,
One of God’s dear children,
And an heir of heaven.
In the name of Christian
I will glory now,
Evermore remember
My baptismal vow.​

Praise God, He showed me when I was about 20 that I was not a Christian, and I needed the salvation that only Jesus Christ can provide. Oh, the riches of His grace!

 

I do believe these two are pretty telling and practical real-life examples of the issues.

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/salvation.html
http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/anything.html

I am sure there are examples from the other side of this as well, but I do believe it is an issue worth contending about.

http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/why_use.htm

I do not consider myself KJVO (the Geneva Bible is a good Bible as well, same with Luther's German), but I am most definitely against the work of Westcott and Hort. I look at it this way, it is best to design a city with the river water intake upstream of the sewage outlet. If you don't you can still get water out of it, but it is likely to impair your overall health.

Likewise with the Bible, the work of W&H obscurred many major doctrines. These doctrines are still visible in the modern versions, but the obfuscation of them I believe is a crime against mankind. If we back up and put our intake upstream of the work of these men, we are able to remove some of the impurities causing so many problems in our churches today. Unfortunately, we have to admit though that in the KJVO or anti-MV camp there are many unkind people who do not glorify God by their arguments. It is these people who actually do this issue its greatest disservice.

That being said because a person holds to a KJVO or similar position it does not make them superior to one who does not, however from the disagreements caused by this division we can plainly see that there are differences between what the KJV teaches and what the modern versions teach.


BGTF

 

Are you suggesting the disciples ate throughout the night? I doubt they did, so while the amount of time required may not be specified, surely you can see that fasting throughout the night was insufficient.

Why not get "bogged down"? The charge has been made that these verses do not affect doctrine. There are complete verses in one book (KJV) that are not contained in another book (NIV) and the first one that we looked at clearly shows that the doctrine of fasting for curing a lunatic child of a devil is required.

In one book the Lord Jesus Christ is recorded as saying...

"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." - Matthew 17:21 (KJV)​

In the other book He says...

" " - Matthew 17:21 (NIV)​

I'm reminded how Jesus Christ says that man does not live by bread alone but by every word of God...

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." - Luke 4:4 (KJV) ​

Oh wait...perhaps NIV readers don't believe that one either?...

"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone." - Luke 4:4 (NIV)​

 

When we say it is an omission by the NIV, you turn around and say it is an addition by the KJV. The question then remains, who is right?

Is it right to fast or not? What significance does fasting have? What did the people of the time understand about fasting? Can we find any examples of fasting related to its significance for the believer?

Once you have answered these questions it should become apparent that the KJV has it right while the NIV has deleted this portion for reasons not yet understood.

I have appiled the same kind of tests for many other deletions in the NIV vs supposed additions for the KJV and have come to the conclusion that yes, ineed, doctrines ARE affected by the many changes in modern Bibles.

 

Rufus_1611: //Thus, I respectfully ask, where would
we find the teaching provided in Matthew 17:21
of the KJV, in the NIV?//

In my NIV (it is on page 2244 right next to
Matthew 17:21 (KJV1873 Edition):
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by
prayer and fasting

Translator footnote for Matthew 17:20:

Some manuscripts, "you. 21 But this kind
does not go out except by prayer and fasting.

 

Note the variation of my statement above and this statement
from Rufus_1769:

 

Is that translator footnote scripture? Is it inspired?

 

NIV FOOTNOTES
[1]Mat_17:20 Some manuscripts you. 21 But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.



I just wanted to show that it is the NIV. (at least in the footnotes)

Also here is a note from the NET Bible as to why the verse is not in it...
39tc Many important mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* pc e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Ë1,13 Ï lat, but is almost certainly not original. As B. M. Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

Then here is the note on Mark 9.29
48tc Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones (Ì45vid א2 A C D L W Θ Ψ Ë1,13 33 Ï lat co), have “and fasting” (καὶ νηστείᾳ, kai nhsteia) after “prayer” here. But this seems to be a motivated reading, due to the early church’s emphasis on fasting (TCGNT 85; cf., e.g., 2 Clem. 16:4; Pol. Phil 7:2; Did. 1:3; 7:4). That the most important witnesses (א* B), as well as a few others (0274 2427 k), lack καὶ νηστείᾳ, when a good reason for the omission is difficult to find, argues strongly for the shorter reading.

Now with that said...
I believe "and fasting" should be in Mark 9:29...
But not in the Matthew passage...

Here is my reasoning...
Yes scribes would have tried to make parallel passages read the same.
So they would have inserted the phrase,
"this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."
To make it read the same as Mark 9...

Of course that brings us to Mark 9..."and fasting"
If they wanted to make Matt read the same as Mark, the "and fasting" would have had to be in Mark.
Also.. the notes in the NET Bible clearly says that, "Most witnesses, even early and excellent ones" have "and fasting"

So to sum this up... I believe the NIV is right in Matthew 17:21, and wrong in Mark 9:29

 

Ed_Edwards_NIV,

In my NIV 1984 Edition by Zondervan, it does not include a Matthew 17:21. Thus, Jesus did not say anything about prayer and fasting. If I perchance look at 17:20 and notice the little "b" at the end and think to look down at the footnote rather than look at the next verse, then I might find that maybe Jesus said "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting" but I don't really know this because only "some manuscripts say this." That sounds a lot like "hath God said" or if you prefer "Did God really say"? Bottom-line is, according to the NIV, in Matthew 17:21, Jesus Christ doesn't say anything because there is no scripture included in Matthew 17:21.

 

Which footnotes would you suggest are inspired and which are not? If, God forbid, I was reading from a Schofield Bible, do you propose that I should treat the notes in it as inspired?