Is Zondervan the Microsoft of Bible Translations?

In 1984 Zondervan published what would become the most popular Bible translation in print, the NIV. In 2005 Zondervan published and updated version called the Today’s New International Version but it didn’t fare quite so well. The gender neutral language was good in some places but had its critics. So they came out with another update in 2011 that Zondervan is pushing as just the “New International Version”…no RNIV or NIV 2011. They are pushing this as the full fledged NIV.

That has problems. Lots of problems. As a minister, it is important to me to use translations that people have in their hand. In my study, I rely heavily on the electronic versions of these translations in order to develop curriculum, classes and sermons. Zondervan is removing the 1984 from circulation, not just in print but online as well. I think this is a big mistake that is going to force people to either choose a subpar 2011 NIV or else jump ship from Zondervan and the NIV completely to another publisher and translation…remember, many are now going digital for their Bible reading which nixes the 1984 NIV from availability to the public in that format (unless you have old Bible software already on your PC or Mac). What is more, I just heard from a friend that he requested permission from Zondervan to use verses from the NIV in a book he was writing. They told him he only had permission if he used the 2011 NIV, otherwise the answer was no.

What is the point? If there is a good one, they sure haven’t told us what it is. All this adds up to me to wondering what in the world Zondervan is thinking here. I am sure they have their reasons. I am sure they have marketing gurus who are better at this sort of thing than I am. But on the consumer end this doesn’t look good. It hasn’t been well communicated and it just makes Zondervan look sort of like the Microsoft of Bible translations…more likely improvement over time but some real setbacks along the way that just aren’t communicated or executed really well and that make the consumer aggravated and disgruntled and eventually pick the Mac of the translation world, the ESV.


2010 NIV and “Confess”

Here is the breakdown of the 2010 NIV vs the NASB on “Confess” or “Confession”. All instances below (except for the one noted) are from the Greek word ομολογεω which can mean a variety of things but typically involves agreeing on the truthfuless of something sometimes with a public acknowledgement (BDAG, 708).  I selected the NASB over the 1984 NIV because they tend to keep the same English word for the underlying Greek word and it made this quicker to compile. Bold means the word is translated confess in both the 2010 NIV and NASB. So, for instance, 2 Tim 2:19 does not contain the word “confess” in the NASB (or in the Greek either. It literally says, “Names the name”). I have made notes in the NASB section of any place the 1984 NIV offered a different translation than “confess” so you could see that not all the 2010 changes are from “confess” to “acknowledge”, rather they kept it the same as it was).

NIV 2010

John 1:20 – Confess, but confessed

2 Cor 9:13 – accompanies your confession

1 tim 6:12-13 – “good confession”

2 Tim 2:19 – “Everyone who confesses” (literally, “names the name)

James 5:16 – “therefore confess…”


Mtt 3:6 – “confessed their sins”

Mtt 10:32 – “everyone who confesses”

Mk 1:5 – “confessing their sins”

Luke 12:8 – “everyone who confesses me before men”

John 1:20 – And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, ” I am not the Christ.”

John 9:22 – “if anyone confessed him to be Christ” (1984 NIV = acknowledge)

John 12:42 – “They were not confessing him”

Acts 19:18 – “confessing and disclosing their practices”

Rom 7:16 – “confessing that the Law is good.” (different root word, meaning to “agree”, which is how both versions of the NIV translate it)

Rom 10:9 – “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord”

Rom 10:10 – “and with the mouth he confesses”

2 Cor 9:13 – “they will glorify God for your obedience to your confession of the gospel of Christ”

Phil 2:11 – “every tongue will confess”

1 Tim 3:16 – “By common confession” (both NIV’s translate this “By/beyond all question” but it is the same root word as the rest of these for confession)

1 Tim 6:12-13 – “good confession”

Heb 3:1 – “consider Jesus, the Apostle and High priest of our confession” (NIV 1984 = “whom we confess”)

Heb 4:14 – “let us hold fast to our confession” (1984 NIV = “profess”)

Heb 10:23 – “let us hold fast the confession of our hope” (1984 NIV = “profess”)

Heb 11:13 – “and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on earth” (1984 NIV = “admitted”)

James 5:16 – “If we confess our sins”

1 John 1:9 – “If we confess our sins”

1 John 2:23 – “the one who confesses the Son” (1984 NIV = “acknowledges”)

1 John 4:2-3 – “every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God…and every spirit that does not confess…” (1984 NIV = “acknowledge”)

1 John 4:15 – “Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God” (1984 NIV = “acknowledge”)

Rev 3:5 – “I will confess his name before my Father” (1984 NIV = “acknowledge”)

So you can see not all instances were actually a change from the 1984 edition. In many of those places they kept it the same. The toughest place for me on this is the Gospel of John. John is big about confessing Christ both in his Gospel and in his letters. Yet, the 2010 NIV only sees fit to have John use it once. For such a big theme that is a little uncalled for. The context is key. I am perfectly fine with some of their decisions where acknowledge makes perfect sense. But confession implies some things that profess or acknowledge do not (guilt being one) and I think that language still has biblical use, so I hate to see it go in such a wholesale manner as it is in the 2010 NIV.

2010 NIV Does Not Favor the Word “Confess”

Biblegateway now has the default search translation set to the 2010 NIV. I was doing a search for “confess” and it basically came up empty. It seems they have replaced it with “declare” (like in Romans 10:9, Heb 3:1), “acknowledge” (Phil 2:11), and “profess” (Heb 13:15). The only place it still shows up is in 1 Timothy6:13. Anyone out there up on why they made this change and why it is so inconsistent? I guess the context is probably in play here but it still seems like “confession” should still be in our vocabulary. It is a bit stronger of meaning to “confess” Jesus than to merely “acknowledge” him. Don’t you think?

Biblegateway, Can you Please Fix Genesis 2:7 in the NIV?

Biblegateway is an amazing tool and is something I use just about every day. I have emailed them twice over the last year or so asking them to fix Genesis 2:7 in the NIV and somehow such a glaring mistake still hasn’t been fixed. Here is what they have for that verse:

“the LORD God formed the man The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name Adam (see Gen. 2:20). from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” [LINK]

Notice anything strange about that? Other than the footnote being included IN the text it is a pretty descent translation. So, Biblegateway, thank you for spoiling me time and time again with all of your wonderful features, great variety of translations, and even some online commentaries. Can you please fix this one little detail so we don’t end up with this footnote in someone’s Bible reading on Sunday morning, in a diatribe against the NIV and its adding and deleting from the text, or some poor kid memorizing this verse wrong for Sunday school and never quite getting it right the rest of his life?

Update – if it appears correct in your browser, hit refresh a few times and eventually you will see the footnote jump up into the text. I have tried this in Firefox and IE and it has done it in both. So at times it appears correct but if you try it again, it messes up to the quote I gave above. Weird.

The TNIV Translators Speak

Hear what Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo, and Karen Jobes (some of the translators of the TNIV) have to say about the TNIV. These are some highly respected biblical scholars.

While the TNIV had its share of problems I really wish they would reconsider and at least do a thorough revision to give this translation a shot. I guess we will have to wait and see what becomes of the NIV revision and just write a “T” in front of it on the covers and title pages of our Bibles 😉

The NIV Does Not Call Jesus Satan – Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16

I have heard this accusation for the third time this week and I want the truth to be put out there clearly and concisely so that if people google this subject hopefully they don’t find all the misinformation out there but get the truth. Here is how this argument against the NIV usually goes. The claim is laid that the NIV is corrupt and deliberately misleads people into believing that the Savior is actually Satan. They attempt to work that out with two verses (Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). Here are the verses:

“How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!”
– Isaiah 14:12

“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 bright Morning Star.” – Revelation 22:16

No appearance of a problem until you look at Isaiah 14:12 in the King James Version – “12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

That is the basis of the charge…that the NIV deliberately replaced Lucifer with “morning star” the same word used for Jesus in Revelation 22. That appears to be problematic on the surface but let’s dig a little deeper.

The word translated Lucifer by the KJV and “Morning Star” by the NIV is the word הֵילֵל (heilel). That word literally means “shining one” as the verb form means “to shine.” It is not a word that means Satan or the devil in Hebrew as a proper name. So two questions arise:

  1. Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”?
  2. Why does the NIV use “morning star” and not “shining one”?

1 – Why does the KJV use “Lucifer” and not “shining one”? Lucifer is how the Latin Vulgate translated this word, which the KJV adopted. Lucifer in Latin is a combination of two words Lux = light and ferous = “to bear” or “to carry” which would make Lucifer = bearer of light in Latin. That was a valid translation in the Vulgate. The problem is the KJV didn’t translate it into English. They kept the Latin Lucifer instead. The problem is 99.9% of people don’t know that any more and only think of it as a proper name referring to the Devil or Satan.

So the first point to make is that the verse is not about Lucifer but is about a “light bearer.” Who is that light bearer? Let’s have a look at Isaiah 14 in context…that is always a good idea right? When we do this, we see exactly who Isaiah 14:12 is referring to and it is not Jesus or the Devil. Look back at Isa 13:1 – “An oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw.” (NIV). Isaiah 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon (see especially 13:19). Chapter 14 continues this message. 14:1-3 is about the return from exile back to Israel. Then notice 14:4 (just 8 verses before the verse in question) – “You will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:” The taunt seems to go from 14:4b-8. Then 14:9 talks about the grave meeting them at their coming. Meeting who? The same people the taunt was against – Babylon. It is a curse referring back to the object of their taunt…not Jesus or Satan but the King of Babylon. Then 14:11-23 is more about Babylon – “your pomp has been brought down, maggots are spread out beneath you, worms cover you….how you have fallen from heaven shining one, son of the dawn.” Also, notice verse 16-17 – ”

Those who see you stare at you,
they ponder your fate:
“Is this the man who shook the earth
and made kingdoms tremble,

17 the man who made the world a desert,
who overthrew its cities
and would not let his captives go home?”

In context you see this is about a man and not Satan. It is about what the rest of the chapter is about – the king of Babylon.

2 – Why does the NIV use “morning star” instead of “shining one”?
This is best understood by the rest of the verse Isaiah calls him “son of the dawn.” It is a parallel to a star that rises high and bright in the sky at morning but then disappears quickly (like the planet Venus). There was an ancient myth in the Babylonian literature that Heylel the morning star Venus scaled to great heights to make himself like a king in the heavens but was quickly driven back down. That is what the king of Babylon will be like…one who rises to great heights and then is toppled from his high position. In other words, the NIV makes the connection that would have been made by Isaiah’s hearers and people in Babylon…those who knew the myth about now its new found application by God toward the king of Babylon. The NIV translators recognized this parallel and made us of it as in the Babylonian mind the “shining one” was the “morning star Venus.” Was that the best move? Probably not if you are going for a literal translation. But if you are trying to read and hear the Bible as they heard it, it is actually a pretty good take on this verse. It is a little too much interpretation in the text for me.

Bottom line, I wish the KJV had actually translated this rather than borrowed from the Latin. I wish the NIV had left interpretation for the footnotes and not taken so much liberty with the text. But at the end of the day it can hardly be said that the NIV was propogating a view that Jesus and Satan are the same based on this text. Instead, when you look at the evidence it appears to be more the case that the NIV was taking history, cultural context, linguistics and much else into consideration to give their best shot at this verse to end up with “morning star” and not some grand conspiracy by wicked and careless translators.

For more information on this as well as more details and a thoughtful analysis, see this link as well.

Communication and the Bible

Communication is not just what is said, it is also what is heard. What is heard is dependent on all kinds of factors. In face-to-face interactions that might include non-verbals like posture, eye contact, expression, and gesticulations. It can also include tone, volume, and very last…words. You know how Americans go overseas and talk really loud to everyone like it will help them understand what is being said better? Well, when language breaks down volume is just one part of the rest of our communications arsenal that we have at our disposal (although I would wouldn’t recommend that approach!). We tend to think that we say what we mean but often everything around our words can cloud the very meaning we are trying to convey with the words we choose to use.

Now add in to that mix talking to someone who has a different culture than you. They use different expressions, different non-verbals to communicate meaning, and even a different pace of speaking. Now lets say that person speaks a language you don’t know…things get tricky. Let’s add one more…let’s say they are from a different culture than you are and that culture is from 2000 years ago half way around the world. You realize there is a lot of explaining to do. They don’t know ipods and Segways (So lucky. don’t we all wish we didn’t know Segways too?). We would have a hard time understanding life from their more distant and somewhat primitive perspective.

You will probably need an interpreter to help you converse with the other person at which point many of the nonverbals and other cues we typically use to communicate with another person are diminished and we have to rely on the translator to bridge the conversation and, what is more, the meaning from one person to the other. I heard Mikhail Gorbachev speak when I was at Harding University. His speech was passionate and vibrant. It was full of energy and zeal. His tone was fused with energy and enthusiasm. He was moving even though I couldn’t understand him. Then his translator would speak in a slow, monotone and draggy voice. Even though he was translating his words so we could understand what Gorbachev was saying, 90% of the passion, feeling and even meaning was lost.

Now think about how this applies to scripture. The nonverbals that you benefit from when someone is standing right in front of you talking to you have been removed. You can’t read anything into the tone, because it is text on a page rather than hearing the spoken word. We don’t have the advantage of watching the gesticulations of the person who is trying to communicate to us the truth about himself and the universe and about us as human beings and our need for Him. Then you realize that we are even using a different language than the original text of the scriptures. Add into that them being from a different time and a different culture than we are familiar with. Things get tricky.

We are fortunate to be surrounded by a number of interpreter scholars. When you open a decent English translation of the Bible, that is what you are getting. That is what a modern Bible translation is. It is like having a group of interpreters who have studied the language, the culture, and the text that we are trying to understand in order to better converse with the one who ultimately communicated those words (God). Just like when using an interpreter in another country today, no interpreter gets all the words right all the time. No interpreter can perfectly communicate from one culture and language to the next first of all because even translations as old as the KJV are still 1600 years removed from the language and the culture that is being translated and, as mentioned above, 90% of the communication process has been stripped away (nonverbals, tone, gesticulations, volume, etc) due to the fact that we are dealing with words on a page rather than speaking with Moses or Paul or Jesus or Peter face to face.

So what we are left with is our best attempt to try to reconstruct the original meaning of the text into something roughly comparable in the English language. That is not an easy thing to do and that is why it is important, especially if you are not familiar with Greek (which at least removes a part of the awkward process of using an interpreter and instead makes us rely on lexicons and books on grammar that even still keep us a step removed from actually walking in the shoes of the biblical writers) to refer to at least two translations when studying a passage of scripture.

Romans 8:37-39 in the New Living Translation (NLT) vs. New International Version (NIV)

A very interesting translation of this text in the New Living Translation:

“37No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us. And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from his love. 38Death can’t, and life can’t. The angels can’t, and the demons can’t. Our fears for today, our worries about tomorrow, and even the powers of hell can’t keep God’s love away. 39Whether we are high above the sky or in the deepest ocean, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Compare that to the NIV:

“37No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

So which is closer to the mark? Literally it reads something like this:

“37But, in all these things [we have] complete victory through the one having loved us. 38For I have been convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor present, nor future, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Verse 37 – The emphasis in 37 is on the victory that is won more than us being the conquerors (point NLT).
Verse 38 – The structure of this verse is a single sentence that carries on and on so much so that it almost leaves you breathless by the end…giving the effect that the list of powers that are unable to subvert us from God’s plan and power is quite a long and exhaustive list. The NLT breaks it up with lots of commas and periods that makes it more choppy and loses the effect that the NIV and Greek text creates. (Point NIV)
Verse 39 – NLT takes on much more dynamic equivalence here than the NIV does. That is not too uncommon for the NLT. In other words, it supplies many words that are not in the original text to get the point across of the intent of the author (Paul). That is not just true of the descriptive terms but also the word “ever.” I think Paul has that sense here in just how final and authoritative God’s love is about any other competing power in the universe. The NIV follows the Greek text much closer here than the NLT. (Point NIV).

Looks like the NIV wins. I do love the NLT’s take on the text and it gets you thinking about some components of this verse that fits the context of Romans 8 well but aren’t necessarily in the text itself. The ESV does a pretty good job on these verses as well. Link to ESV translation.

The Case of the Missing Verse – John 5:4

I always thought the fact that the NIV has 49 blank verses just made it easier to win a memory verse competition by saying, “Matthew 23:14” then pausing, “Mark 7:16” then pausing, until you have quoted 49 memory verses without having to say a word. Go figure. On a serious note, there have been accusations that the NIV has deleted verses in the New Testament. The insinuation is that the NIV committee did not have a proper respect for the text and that earlier versions of the English Bible are more accurate and faithful to God’s word because they contain these verses. The first thing that we have to understand when coming to this issue is that translation is a difficult job. There are over 3000 Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament of varying age. Each one was hand copied, which leaves room for mistakes and even practical decisions of what to do with what the previous copyist has done. John 5:4 is one of the verses in contention. Here it is in the NIV and KJV.

John 5:3-5 (NIV)
“3Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. 5One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.”

John 5:3-5 (KJV)
“In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4For 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. 5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.” (italics mine).

What happened to verse 4? The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD. The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.

What happened in the 800 years between the texts the NIV is based on and the texts the KJV is based on? Copying, copying, and more copying. Often a copyist would write an explanation in the margin and some times that explanation would end up in the text. Bruce Metzger (Text of the New Testament, 194) thinks that is exactly what happened in the case of John 5:4. Why? For several reasons (listed in Metzger’s textual commentary 3rd ed, 209):

1 – Because the earliest manuscripts don’t contain it. Why not? Did they omit this verse just like the NIV? Of course not. They don’t contain the verse because the manuscripts they were copied from didn’t have it and the ones before them didn’t have it because the original didn’t have it. It doesn’t start appearing in manuscripts for at least 500 years When no manuscript before 500 AD has a verse you can be fairly certain that it was added in from a marginal note, from a copying error, or due to the copyist remembering that verse in another gospel and accidentally harmonizing them in his head and copying it wrong (such is the case of a few other “missing verses”). But once it is added it then gets copied over and over and from that point on may appear original to the next copyist
2 – Multiple Greek manuscripts copied after 900 AD have a mark showing that they thought the verse was questionable but they included it because it was in the manuscript they were copying from.
3 – This verse has multiple words that John doesn’t use anywhere else = out of character
4 – This verse has a larger number of textual variants = there are many versions of this text in many different Greek manuscripts which points to it being very questionable as to what was original if it even was original.

With all that weight against it the NIV decided not to include that verse in its translation. Did the NIV delete the verse from the inspired word of God? They didn’t delete it if it wasn’t there to begin with. It may seem like a verse was removed because previous English versions like the KJV included it because it was in the manuscripts they used to translate from. People read it for 400 years in English and became accustomed to it. So when they spot it missing from the NIV eyebrows go up and accusations begin to fly. So it probably wasn’t so much that the NIV deleted something or that the KJV added something. The problem was the texts the KJV was translated from were simply not ideal.

Why Did the NIV “delete” verses in the New Testament?

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.