|
Author
|
Topic: eliminated verses
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I agree with you. I have to admit, though, that I feel pretty silly sitting here at home and thinking that I might know better than the teams of Bible scholars who have spent years translating from Hebrew and Greek to write the modern versions in use today. Still, it is the living Word of God, and He intended that we understand Him. I think that whatever translation we prefer, the Holy Spirit will help us to learn what God wants us to learn.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
TY Carol.
quote:
If the nineteenth century focused chiefly on scholarship, the twentieth showed special interest in modernizing.
Tis why i feel that the KJV, the one translated for the King, has an edge. Besides, the peculiarness of the wording causes one to seek the Lord for understanding; for understanding comes by revelation. That, for some people on this site, means revealing!
You can go to Bible College and get fundamental relevance of the facts, but the life message comes from above.
This surprise statement at the bottom of the article echos what can be observed, which i was going to assert.
quote:
Surprisingly amid the profusion of modern renderings the KJV, either in its traditional form or with slight modernizations (New King James Version, 1979-82), still holds its own in sales and maintains a loyal following.
I know KJV is not pleasant to read for some. However, some of these translations make even the fundamental relevance, so fundamental till it is worldly.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I found this in the Holman Bible Handbook:
If the nineteenth century focused chiefly on scholarship, the twentieth showed special interest in modernizing. Already in 1901 an anonymous Twentieth Century New Testament appeared, and in 1903 F. Fenton published his Holy Bible in Modern English. Also in 1903 R. F. Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech caused real excitement with its more radical use of contemporary idioms. J. Moffatt followed this with his New Translation of the New Testament (1913), which commanded wide sales with its clear and felicitous renderings but also provoked criticism at specific points. Moffatt’s Old Testament (1924) proved less successful.
Along similar lines E. J. Goodspeed’s American Translation, first of the New Testament (1923) and then of the Old Testament (1935) and Apocrypha (1939), combined a fresh look at the originals with enhanced readability. Tending more toward paraphrase J. B. Phillips did especially helpful work in his Letters to Young Churches (1947), Gospels (1952), and Young Church in Action (1955). Discarding existing versions and working directly from the Greek, Phillips gave the content as it might have been expressed in twentieth-century English.
In 1956-59 K. W. Wuest published an Expanded Version that tried to catch the nuances of each verse by what is often verbose expansion. The Amplified Version (1958) offered the alternative meanings of Greek words but without indicating the most appropriate sense in context. The International Council of Religious Education resolved in 1937 to undertake a revision that would use scholarly findings and aim at modern, liturgically suitable English. A committee that included Moffatt and Goodspeed started work, assisted by an advisory board, and the result was the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1952 (Apocrypha 1957). Though it profited from textual and linguistic research, the RSV was consciously a revision. It sought greater accuracy and updated words and idioms but stayed as close as possible to the AV in rhythm, style, and wording.
British churches, however, decided on a new translation rather than a revision (1947). A joint committee undertook the project and produced the New Testament in 1961 and the full New English Bible (NEB) in 1970. Unlike the RSV, the translators of the NEB made radical changes in vocabulary, syntax, and word order, concentrating on the meaning rather than the words yet also avoiding paraphrase. The NEB undoubtedly recaptured something of the vigor of the original but can hardly claim literary excellence.
Evangelicals did their own updating of the KJV in the Berkeley Bible (1959), the New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1963), and finally the New International Version (NIV, 1973-8). The NASB attempts to offer a literal, word-for-word equivalent. The NIV translators felt the need to express the meaning of the original in the language of their times. The New Revised Standard Version (1990) and the Revised New English Version (1990) are further attempts to employ idiomatic English to communicate for contemporary readers the range of meaning of words in the original Greek and Hebrew.
Finally, the late twentieth century brought fresh attempts at popular versions. In 1976 the Bible Societies brought out the Good News Bible, complete with line drawings, explanations of technical terms, identifications, and index and setting vigor and relevance above exactness with the aim of helping young believers and seekers. The Evangelical layman K. Taylor produced an alternative in his Living Bible Paraphrased (1972), which he wrote primarily for children, beginners, and outsiders and which enjoyed phenomenal popularity in spite of some obvious weaknesses in what is admittedly a paraphrase.
Surprisingly amid the profusion of modern renderings the KJV, either in its traditional form or with slight modernizations (New King James Version, 1979-82), still holds its own in sales and maintains a loyal following. All revisions face the problem that a successful version achieves a familiarity and venerability that hamper the acceptance of needed alternatives. At root is the inherent difficulty of combining accuracy, clarity, dignity, and relevance in a version serving liturgical, devotional, instructional, and academic purposes.
Yet the task of providing the best possible English Bible remains. No version is perfect, and new work must be done as new materials become available and language changes. The Bible is no ordinary book. It is God’s written Word bearing authoritative witness to the incarnate Word. It must not be obscured by inaccuracies or outdated English terms. If it is to do its proper work in the power of the Holy Spirit, then no definitive rendering can ever conclude the history of English Bible translation. As of making books in general, so of making English versions of the Book of books there can be no end.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Isaiah
Advanced Member
Member # 6699
|
posted
Great topic -and very important. First, man has no pure languages -God will later give us one (Zep 3:9). All of our languages leave room for misinterpretation and confusion. Add to this the fact that the scriptures are translated by people with misconceptions and preconceptions, and the end result is nowhere near the original idea. Also, a king might want a translator to get it "right', but "right" might be in the king's eyes -according to his beliefs! Some mistranslations, ommissions or additions have little effect on the whole message, but in some cases they completely destroy the original intent.
Some might find it strange to know that God himself purposefully made it difficult to understand the bible without researching a subject very thoroughly.... Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isa 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
Isa 28:12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Isa 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
.....
One of the most important misunderstandings / controversies is the subject of the holy spirit. Some believe it is a separate person -some do not. The ones who are mistaken will not receive the spirit -it would be disasterous. Some verses seem to suggest strongly that it is a person..such as...
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
...However, the words translated "whom" and "him/he" are also quite correctly translated "which" and "it" -depending on context -or the perception of the translator! (Note the last verse)
Another such subject is that of hell.
There are many different words associated with/translated into the one english word "hell" ....hades, sheol, tartaros, gehenna... having very different meanings.
Hades and sheol are essentially the grave -when a person is dead - their body is decaying -and their spirit returns to God awaiting resurrection. Tartaros is the place or state of restraint of the sinning angels -the demons, and gehenna refers to the lake of fire -named after a place outside Jerusalem where trash was burned.
This has led to many misconceptions. According to the bible, many are now in hell(the grave), but no one has yet been cast into hell(the lake of fire) -however, the sinning angels are now in tartaros (that is, they are quite closely monitored and do only that which is allowed by God -affecting man only as much as God allows -otherwise inhabiting ruined places) -but this does not mean they won't still be cast into gehenna later.
Still another is the word "paradise" -it does not mean heaven -though many assume it does. It refers to the wonderful state of the EARTH when Christ returns to rule it! The thief on the cross would be in paradise with Christ that day... because once the thief died, he would not know tha passage of time for thousands of years -then would be resurrected -either at the first or second resurrection -but it would seem the very next instant to him! Also note that Christ did NOT go to heaven THAT day! Even when there was a "mini" resurrection, they did not come down from heaven having been alive and aware -but from their GRAVES -where they were "asleep" (dead)(Mat 27:52)! Yes -the bible actually states we do NOT go to heaven -but that we inherit the earth!
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Act 2:35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Psa 37:9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
..which brings us to 'heaven' -sometimes it means simply the atmosphere/sky -sometimes space -where the stars ar -and sometimes specifically where the throne of God is now located. Anyway -it takes some doing, but it is well worth understanding the truth -it makes sense.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
My take? I agree wid TB. Unless you are an original Greek, you are going to have to read a translation, or go to school.
I never liked the NIV from within hours after i opened it for the first time. I like the KJV. And just to be seriously funny, you do realize that it was translated for a King! Do you know what has happened to people in the past if they trifled with a King? So i think that they were pretty conscientious, even if they spake funny!
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Back2Bread
New Member
Member # 5646
|
posted
As posted by Lonlesol :
Since Jesus is Equal to God the Father, and has been since the beginning, it is then obvious that the ''morning star'' mentionned in Isaiah 14:12 isn't Jesus at all, I believe that it rather refers to the king of Babylon...to get to that conclusion, we need to also read the verses 13 and 14...which say:
13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
You caught a good one there that when others do not read the entire thing they believe it to be The Lord spoken about but in this case God was letting us know that satan stole His name " The Bright and Morning Star ". Just as he stole many things and has every intention of thieving His throne as well but he has much higher expectations than are realistic. God swore by His own name He will always be our King. satan is like a scripture lawyer. That's why we have to put him behind us in the name of Yeshua, Jesus rather than argue with him. Good to see so much insight from people in this forum. But then, what else is there to expect from God's people?
--------------------
God's peace!, Sherry
Posts: 6 | From: Pa | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
BecauseHelives...
Other than the NIV Study Bible, I also have a French Thompson Bible that includes a chain of references in it for further study, it is a revised version of Louis Segond. It was edited and prepared by Professor Frank Charles Thompson...
I have compared it with the list on the site that I posted earlier that mentions all the missing verses in the NIV Study Bible and I was pleased to see that the Thompson Bible does include all the verses the way they should be... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
19th century preacher Charles Spurgeon once declared of author John Bunyan, "Read anything of his, and you will see that it is almost like reading the Bible itself." Bunyan's allegorical novel, The Pilgrim's Progress, was a cornerstone of early Protestant literature; frequently, it would be the second piece of literature translated into the vernacular by missionaries, the first being the Authorized Version itself — though it is noteworthy that The Pilgrim's Progress mostly quoted from the Geneva Bible. According to Thomas Macaulay, "he knew no language but the English as it was spoken by the common people; he had studied no great model of composition, with the exception of our noble translation of the Bible. But of that his knowledge was such that he might have been called a living concordance".
I agree with BrianGrass1234, the original is the only inspired Word of Yahweh!
The King James is probably the best translation but it has many mistranslation and Roman Catholic biases (the word “Easter”) readily comes to mind.
But if the child of Yahweh reads the Bible, reading only with the aid of prayer and the Holy Spirit, you will always have the right meaning Yahweh is conveying to His people, washed in the blood of His Son.
Heart of the issue, is still and always will be issue of the Heart.
Rely on Yahweh and not mans idea of Yahweh!
By the way lonlesol …. I like http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm and http://www.av1611.org/niv.html
web sites, recommend them to people often and quote from them also.
Be Bless and study to show yourselves approved a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of Truth…. 2 Timothy 2:15
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WKUHilltopper
Advanced Member
Member # 5472
|
posted
I didn't realize there were "missing" passages in the NIV until I got a "Side by Side" Bible a couple of years ago. This Bible has four Bibles versions, the King James, The New King James, NIV and some other one I can't remember as I'm typing this. Each passage is printed "side by side" so you can see the changes or notations.
There is one passage the King James' talks about Jesus being the cornerstone of the church. The NIV calls him as the "capstone". Since a cornerstone and capstone mean different things, I finally decided to "ditch" the NIV. I can't stand it now and don't trust it nor it's intent.
If you want a version in modern English, I've found that the Holman Christian Standard Bible to be pretty decent. But I usually read this this side by side with a King James.
Posts: 259 | From: KY | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
BrianGrass1234,
You seem to be making some distinction between the "inspired" words of the biblical authors and the words of translators or copists. How can you do that? No one has a copy of the "original" inspired texts of any biblical author.
You indicate that in order to resolve this problem one should quote:
test the translation against the text in its original language
That is good to do, if you are a scholar in Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic. Even then such scholars are working with copies of the biblical documents in these languages, and not all of these documents are exactly alike in every passage. The ancient massoretes and scribes were extremely careful as they copied words of biblical documents, but there are apparent differences between some passages in some of these ancient biblical manuscripts. It is these differences that account for the differences between various modern translations as they work from various available biblical manuscripts. But none of these manuscripts are the "originals" of any biblical authors, according to F.F. Bruce. Yet the biblical manuscripts are considered by biblical scholars to be reliable copies of the "inspired" words of their original authors.
The subject of this thread is well covered in Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". I suggest that you read it, if you haven't already.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
Just wanted to say that the only inspired text are the words that were written down by the original authors. Everything else is just a translation made by men. Thats why it is best not to only test one translation against another, but to try and test the translation against the text in its original language.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
hey lonlesol,
Immature?? not
It was a great explanation. I always encourage people not to take one verse out of the bible and say "the bible days....."
The bible says Cain killed Abel
Does the bible give one the authority to kill?
I know this is extreme, but I wanted to make a point
I mentioned about Lucifer and the Morning Star in Isa. realizing there are a lot of people who take one verse and "run" with it.
As we forementioned there are inconsistencies between versions of the bible which can cause people to come to the wrong conclusion ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Blessings ![[Bible]](graemlins/bible.gif)
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
Isaiah is in the Old Testament and I haven't studied that part of the Bible yet...I have of course read some of it, but I have to admit that I am having a hard time understanding it's content, I find it complicated because the language style used in that part of the Bible is very different from the New Testament...What I enjoy reading the most are Jesus' own words found in the New Testament...
I haven't been reading the Bible much lately, I had to go back to work a little over a year ago and I have been so busy at it that the free time I do get, I can't concentrate enough to study the Bible because I am often too tired to do so...
Taking just one verse from the Bible can easily be missinterpreted...the best way to understand the meaning of a particular verse is to always include the whole text...something too many people don't even take the time to do...
Since Jesus is Equal to God the Father, and has been since the beginning, it is then obvious that the ''morning star'' mentionned in Isaiah 14:12 isn't Jesus at all, I believe that it rather refers to the king of Babylon...to get to that conclusion, we need to also read the verses 13 and 14...which say:
13 You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
Jesus cannot in the future make Himself like the Most High because He already is, has always been and will always be since He is part of the Trinity...and how can God make Himself better than He already is since He has always been Perfect to begin with?...
It seems to me that the king of Babylon was a very ambitious man, was full of pride and exalted himself quite a lot...
I know that this explanation can sound pretty simple and immature but that is how I see it...
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
Amen to that.
But that's hard to explain to a non believer and even a believer, taht is why I am here, who is seeking the truth.
i.e.
As pointed out in the web page you referred to me, If one only reads the NIV a conclusion can be made that Jesus, the morning star, is the one who fell from heaven, not Satan as mentioned in
Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven,Morning Star, son of the dawn. . "
Isaiah 14:12 KJB says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ."
It's Lucifer who falls from heaven not the Morning Star(who in Rev is Jesus )as stated in the NIV
and
Rev 22:16 NIV says, I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the brightMorning Star."
How would you answer the following question by a non-believer with conviction?
In Isa 14:12, all these bibles say different things, which one is accurate?
NIV How you have fallen from heaven, Morning Star, son of the dawn...
MESSAGE What a comedown this, O Babylon!
Daystar! Son of Dawn...!
AMP How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning!...
KJ How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ."
ENG How you are fallen from heaven,
O Day Star, son of Dawn...
AMS How you have fallen from heaven,
O star of the morning....
NLT How you are fallen from heaven,
O shining star, son of the morning...
Lonlesol,
Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts with me
God bless you
afisherofman
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
I believe that if anyone really wants to know the Real Truth, the Holy Spirit will lead them and they will follow the right path...
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
Thank you for the info and link lonlesol
I share your sentiments about Mark 11:25 in the NIV.
Bottom line tho, Is one getting the true word of God if they read anything other than the King James?
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
quote:
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
For what it is worth, this is what I think of this particular verse. It isn't found in the NIV Bible, that is true, but notice how it is written in the NIV Bible...it says:
''And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.''...Mark 11:25
The verse 26 may have been completely removed in the NIV Bible, and it may not have been written the same way as in the King James Bible on the verse 25, but if you take the time to really ponder on the words of the verse 25 in the NIV Bible, it does mean the same thing as what it is written in the verse 26 of the King James Bible. It depends on how you perceive your own self...if I believe that I am always innocent of any wrong doing, then I need to think twice and take a good look in my own heart...
So I cannot believe that I am missing anything from this particular verse...The way I always understood it, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if I do not forgive the ones that have sinned against me, my Father in heaven will not forgive me for my own sins. I will then be found guilty when I stand at the Throne...so who am I to throw the first stone?!...
I found a link a while ago where a person explains about forgiveness...I think the way the person explained it with the verses he included in the text is wonderful...here is the link to it, do take the time to read it, I think that it is well worth it...
Forgiveness
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
WOW !!!!
Thank you lonelysol. There is a lot I wasn't aware of
I did a little research with other versions of the bible and I found out that the NIV is not the only one with misleading, deleted and/or footnoted verses
i.e. in the New Living Translation John 3:16 reads...
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
it does the same as the NIV
Again, I ask anyone... The reason why there are versions of the bible with misleading, deleted and/or footnoted verses compared with the King James Bible.
How reliable are these bibles in the eyes of God.
Are we getting the truth, as God wants the truth to be told??
your feedback will be appreciated
God bless you
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
WOW !!!!
Thank you lonelysol. There is a lot I wasn't aware of
I did a little research with other versions of the bible and I found out that the NIV is not the only one with misleading, deleted and/or footnoted verses
i.e. in the New Living Translation John 3:16 reads...
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
it does the same as the NIV
Again, I ask anyone... The reason why there are versions of the bible with misleading, deleted and/or footnoted verses compared with the King James Bible.
How reliable are these bibles in the eyes of God.
Are we getting the truth, as God wants the truth to be told??
your feedback will be appreciated
God bless you
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
afisherofman ...
A friend of mine sent me a few links about whole Bible verses deleted in the NIV Study Bible...she is a King James Bible reader only...
The New International Perversion
Jesus is Lord
Part of the text from the link posted above:
WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV
The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."
Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.
Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes
Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"
John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."
John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes
Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."
Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"
Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."
Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. 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...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you. People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
hi lonelesol,
What you said......
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the first one that I started reading when I gave my life to Jesus because it was easier to understand
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
applies to me too.
Yes the NIV mentions the trinity, but I ask anyones'input as to why the NIV, even though it mentions the trinity, leave out that they are one in the main text.
Also why would the NIV footnote ..... "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost." Matt 18:11, and not keep this verse in the main text?
again....
Some of the other verses eliminated from the NIV or footnoted are .....
King James
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Acts 8:37
However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” Matt 17:21
If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!” Mark 7:16
Thank you in advance for your response
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
Very interesting question, and I would like to know other people's thoughts to this one as well...
Some say that the NIV Study Bible version is a bad one...
But I cannot say that it is completely bad, I do compare it with other versions, like the King James version although I don't always understand that languaged used in this one...
It is the first one that I started reading when I gave my life to Jesus because it was easier to understand and I think that I have read other verses in this Bible that do talk about the Trinity in some way, it isn't as if there weren't any? It isn't as if the NIV Study Bible denied the Trinity?... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
afisherofman
Advanced Member
Member # 6899
|
posted
Hi All,
We use the NIV at our church exclusively. Recently I received an e-mail citing some key verses in the NIV that were either
totally eliminated from the bible or appeared at the at the bottom of the page with a foot note.
for example...
1John5:7 King James states,
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
1John5:7 NIV only states
For there are three that testify:
There is no mention in the main text of the NIV that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one.
However, there is a footnote of verse 8 not 7 in the NIV which states...
1John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
Shouldn't this important fact that the trinity is one be in the main text so it's not overlooked??
The NIV is not the only version of the bible which has this verse eliminted in the main text.
Some of the other verses eliminated from the NIV or footnoted are .....
King James
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. Matt 18:11
Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Acts 8:37
However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” Matt 17:21
If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!” Mark 7:16
Major concern...Is the NIV and other bible with key eliminated verses the true word of God and why were they eliminated either from the main text of footnoted??
God bless you....your feedback is appreciated
Posts: 43 | From: PA | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
