NIV and missing verses

[Romanos]

Has anyone seen the sections where the NIV has missing verses?

 

[Michael]

Has anyone seen the sections where the NIV has missing verses?

Yeah. Personally don't use the NIV or other modern translations too often, partly due to that fact; and also because most contain some bias toward certain theological doctrines that are not exactly found in the original texts.

The NKJV (KJV), the NASB and the ESV are my most oft-used translations in writing and teaching; while I frequently pull out my HCSB, Hebrew/Greek Interlinear, Rotherhams or JPS Tanakh while studying or preparing an essay or lesson.

 

[NewCreation435]

was verses are you talking about?

 

[Romanos]

was verses are you talking about?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...glish_translations#The_sixteen_omitted_verses

 

[Andrew]

A friend sent me this video a while back to make a point about missing verses so never mind the click bait title and let me provide a time stamp. At 8:30 he starts going on about missing verses in the NIV , I have not checked into whether it's true or not but this is the only part of the video he wanted me to watch.
8:30
https://youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ

 

[Andrew]

Here's a frame shot of the "missing verses"

 

[Andrew]

Actually I had to stop watching the video because the guy is obviously lying about NIV readers believing that Joseph is Jesus father... I have never heard of any Christians believing that Jesus is not the Son of God, SMH

 

[George]

Actually I had to stop watching the video because the guy is obviously lying about NIV readers believing that Joseph is Jesus father... I have never heard of any Christians believing that Jesus is not the Son of God, SMH

What about people believing that Jesus gave up being God while on Earth?

 

[Andrew]

What about people believing that Jesus gave up being God while on Earth?

I've heard that before actually

 

[George]

I've heard that before actually

There was a topic that deviated into that here on CH years ago, it was originally about Mary, but went down the road of stating that Jesus gave up being God.

 

[Andrew]

There was a topic that deviated into that here on CH years ago, it was originally about Mary, but went down the road of stating that Jesus gave up being God.

That's sad.
I actually heard this while perusing through the lead vatican website where anyone could comment, there were two individuals who were saying that the vatican is trying to hide that Jesus gave up on being God on the cross and just moved on and died like the rest of us basically becoming on apostate Jew/anti religion martyr.
The Talmud suggest something similar, that Jesus left judaism to form and worship his own idol. These people who promote that idea are mostly new agers from what I see and just see Jesus as an "ascended master" like Buddha or Shiva...
I think I've heard just about every blasphemy there is

 

[JRT]

Yeah. Personally don't use the NIV or other modern translations too often, partly due to that fact; and also because most contain some bias toward certain theological doctrines that are not exactly found in the original texts.

The NKJV (KJV), the NASB and the ESV are my most oft-used translations in writing and teaching; while I frequently pull out my HCSB, Hebrew/Greek Interlinear, Rotherhams or JPS Tanakh while studying or preparing an essay or lesson.

We have no original texts.

The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 10,000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Modern Bible scholars and translators seek to avoid doctrine and dogma and concentrate solely on using all available manuscripts in an attempt to get as close to the original texts as possible. On rare occasions this might mean some verses are rejected as not being in the original but were a later scribal addition. For example, if you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

 

[hedrick]

Or the King James version has added verses.

 

[Josiah]

There are "variant readings."

As we look at the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of manuscripts, they don't always totally agree. There are variations.

Sometimes a word or sentence or even a chapter appears in some and not in others. Best known: Ending to the Lord's Prayer. Pretty much all of Mark 16.

Scholarship on this has evolved. You will fine some things PRESENT or MISSING in the KJV from the 17th Century compared to some translations TODAY; some PRESENT or MISSING in Luther's translation in the 16th Century compared to works of today. Scholarship has evolved; Scholars have changed their opinion about some words.

None of these impacts theology or doctrine. But we do see it.



.

 

[NewCreation435]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...glish_translations#The_sixteen_omitted_verses

Looks like they are omitted because they aren't either in the earliest texts or there are duplicated elsewhere.

 

[kiwimac]

We do not judge modern versions of the Bible by the KJV. The translators of the KJV had access to far younger texts than modern translators. Further many of these "omitted" verses are moved into marginalia or footnotes. As for Gail Riplinger, she is simply a liar.

 

[hedrick]

Looks like they are omitted because they aren't either in the earliest texts or there are duplicated elsewhere.

This could use clarification. No one looks at a verse in Luke, says "hey, that's in Matthew, too; we don't need it" and then removes it.

Rather, when different manuscripts have different readings, there are a couple of things scholars look at. One is which is the oldest. But they also look at which reading can explain the others. E.g. scribes sometimes lost their place and ended up either dropping or duplicating lines. So if we have a reading that's like others except it repeats a section, a critic would suspect it might be the result of an error like that. Similarly, where there are very similar passages in two Gospels, if one manuscript differs from others, and its wording is like the wording in another Gospel, scholars might suspect that the copyist got confused, remembering what was in the other Gospel.

But these aren't absolute rules. For any difference, you have to look at all the considerations and then weigh them. Usually there's a clear consensus, but not always. The UBS Greek (which is the main edition used in modern translations) has a rating system, A through D, for how certain they are of a reading. Where there's significant doubt many English translations use a footnote. In my opinion that kind of footnote should be a warning: Don't base any important doctrine on this passage. Fortunately important doctrines aren't normally based on one or two passages.