This website calls out the NIV based on the fact that various verses are no longer present. The claim is that the NIV deleted these verses with the conclusion that the NIV is not to be trusted. I appreciate their appeal to want a complete Bible, to not tamper with God’s word, and an understanding that God does not want us manipulating his word, adding to it or taking away from it. Since we don’t have the original documents to work from there are differences in some texts. The question is, what is the best reconstruction of the original text in these instances? I did a little research into this to find out how the decision was made on the 45 (actually turns out affect 49 verses) verses mentioned on the website. I first want to mention what the verses are:
Matthew 12:47 – This verse IS in the text of the NIV. What they don’t like is the fact that the NIV has a footnote that says, “Some manuscripts do not have verse 47″
Matthew 17:21 – In the footnotes, “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
Matthew 18:11 – In the footnotes, “The Son of Man came to save what was lost.”
Matthew 21:44 – Present but a footnote reads, “Some manuscripts do not have verse 44.”
Matthew 23:14 – In the footnotes, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Therefore you will be punished more severely.”
Mark 7:16 – In the footnotes, “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Mark 9:44 & 9:46 – In the footnotes, “where / ” ‘their worm does not die, / and the fire is not quenched.”
Mark 11:26 – In the footnotes, “But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins.”
Mark 15:28 – In the footnotes, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “He was counted with the lawless ones” (Isaiah 53:12).”
Mark 16:9-20 – This is in the text with a disclaimer that reads, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Luke 17:36 – In the footnotes, “Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.”
Luke 22:43-44 – These verses ARE in the text of the NIV. There is a footnote saying some manuscripts do not contain them.
Luke 23:17 – In the footnotes, “Now he was obliged to release one man to them at the Feast.”
John 5:3b-4 – In the footnotes, “paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease he had.”
John 7:53-8:11 – Again, these verses ARE in the text but have a line and a note saying, “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”
Acts 15:34 – In the footnotes, “but Silas decided to remain there”
Acts 24:6b-8a – In the footnotes, “him and wanted to judge him according to our law. 7 But the commander, Lysias, came and with the use of much force snatched him from our hands 8 and ordered his accusers to come before you. By”
Acts 28:29 – In the footnotes, “29 After he said this, the Jews left, arguing vigorously among themselves.”
Romans 16:24 – In the footnotes, “24 May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen.”
1 John 5:7b-8a – In the footnotes, “Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)”
I appreciate the work they did compiling these verses. There are a couple of adjustments that were made to their list that made it a little more accurate. I also want to mention that all the verses mentioned are found in the NIV the question is whether or not they should be relegated to footnotes. There are many reasons the NIV committee decided to do that and I think it is important to realize that it wasn’t done haphazardly. I also want to mention that there are no doctrines that hinge on these verses and much of what is there is found in other places. Obviously that is no reason to say it is alright to remove verses otherwise we could remove much of the synoptic gospels as their content is found in each of the others. Is this a reason to throw out the NIV or were these good decisions? We will spend some time examining those questions.
For more information on how translators make these decisions see my post The Case of the Missing Verse (John 5:4) for more details.
Filed under: Acts of the Apostles, Bible, Bible Translations, Christianity, Gospels, New Testament, Religion | Tagged: Bible verses, NIV, translation
Either those verses belong in the Bible or they don’t. It’s hard to determine, but the NIV at least gives the average person the tools to think about the matter.
It doesn’t mean we cannot trust the Bible. It means that we have to be careful about figuring out what is the Bible.
Right on.
Textual criticism will continue until the Lord returns. And we will debate those verses until the Lord returns.
I’m reasonably sure that none of those affect any doctrine, major or minor, in the NT. Not saying that means we can ignore them if we choose, just saying that the debate is over the inclusion of those verses and not on the reliability of the NT.
Thanks for your input Bob. If you go to the link above you will see why I want to use this as an avenue to address this. There is that same old uninformed mindset at work that doesn’t understand things like textual criticism. They just see “missing” verses and think the Bible has been corrupted rather than ask the question of whether or not those verses were original. I will be spending more time here on those verses.
I have referred numerous “KJV” folks to D. A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate. This book opens the eyes wide for those who are willing to see beyond the fog of web sites like you’ve mentioned. Also, for those wanting detailed enlightenment on the subject you have broached, Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament is invaluable.
Peace.
No major doctrine is at risk with any of the verses up for debate in textual criticism. A disciple can still hold to inerrancy and not worry about those “missing” verses although I prefer that translations do as the New American Standard (NASB) and add them with brackets.
S.D.
That is a good point and basically makes all of these discussions food for thought rather than something to rant and rave about and get all upset with each other about.
Hey thanks a lot for this! I was getting a little panic-y about after going to that same site! Atleast I know they didn’t remove them completely (:
However maybe I’ll try another translation
Jeremiah, I would really suggest you read my post on the Case of the Missing Verse (John 5:4). That should be helpful in understanding how and why these decisions are made by translators. Thanks for reading here at Kingdom Living.
I think this speaks volumes!
im not impressed you no in the bible it says there will be false teaching in the word of god well this is one of them this bible is not right!!!! the end times are comming brothers and sisters, watch out for false teachings! god bless you all
Jess,
Thanks for stopping by and voicing your opinion. It is always welcome here. I am not asking that anyone be impressed. I am just telling the story of how this occurred in as objective way as I know how. Sorry we disagree on it. God bless.
Jess,
The more I thought about your comment it made me wish you would at least make a case for what you are saying. If you are going to call me a false teacher I think it needs to come with some evidence and with scripture to back it up rather than just toss dangerous words around like that. Let’s be fair with these kinds of things.
My problem with this I guess is that when we add or delet things from the bible it give non belivers more ammo to fire at us how are we to answer questions about this is there a good reason why these writtings are taken out of any bible last time I checked there was only one God why so many versions of his word?
Upon1CBR,
The reason we have so many versions is because we don’t have the originals. Over time we find various tiny differences in some manuscripts that show things have changed to a very slight degree over time. If we had the originals we wouldn’t have to figure this out but we have copies of copies and so we try our best to figure out as close as possible what the original was.
The King James Bible is the Bible that is the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Bible. why have the new translations been produced people say that is easier to read but it isn’t people have taught children to read the King James Bible so ther you have it the new translations are not easier to read.
Preston,
Can you back up your statement that the KJV is the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek Bible? It was based off manuscripts copied 1000 years after the originals but I am not going to rewrite all the facts again here. I am curious why you think it is closer. I am also curious to get your feedback from this post – http://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/2007/02/14/paradigm-issues-facing-the-church-translations/
that I posted here two years ago.
If you do a grade level analysis of the KJV vs the NIV you find the KJV is on a higher reading level than the NIV. I have run the numbers as have many others.
I really love the fact that you have taught children no matter what translation you are using. It seems like you really have a heart for God and for the truth and I really admire you for that. Blessings,
Matt
those arent just ‘little’ or ‘tiny’ differences. Removing whole verses is removing whole messages. To say ‘but these are only removed through prayer and fasting’ is VERY important. It allows us to know that we can’t rely on prayer alone, but fasting is also essential.
you probably shouldnt be advocating the removal of portions of scripture…
Thank you for your comment and your insights, especially regarding fasting and prayer. I guess you missed the logic of the post and of translators decisions on whether or not certain verses should be removed. Let’s say you were translating the Bible from 10 Greek manuscripts that all dated from 900 AD to 1100 AD (which is basically the case of the KJV translation). Later on you discover a couple of dozen (in reality hundreds) of manuscripts dating from 200 AD to 500 AD that consistently don’t have a couple of the verses in the manuscripts from 900-1100. What do you do? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that maybe those verses weren’t in the originals?
So it is not a matter of removing legitimate portions of scripture. It is removing verses that weren’t there to begin with that earlier translators just didn’t have old enough manuscripts to understand. Hope that helps. Always, glad to talk more if you like.
Matt
The problem is not that the NIV eliminated the verses, but that the KJV added them to start with.
Exactly. But not that they knowingly or maliciously added them. Those verses were in the newer manuscripts that they had in their possession to translate from.