Subtraction of some verses from the Bible, why and who is to be blamed

[hmbld]

I would argue that the 17 verses omitted from the NIV should each be examined. It's to general to say that they took them out because of the difference of manuscript and to make it easier to read. 

 

For instance, while many of the verses are trivial and not necessarily "big deals," Mark 11:26 in the KJV states

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespass.

 

This is an important verse and is taken out of the Bible. Regardless of what Revelation says, this verse should reach everyone who reads. 

 

 

When I looked up Mark 11:26 in Niv, i found a reference to :

Matthew 6:15New International Version (NIV)

15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

 

So really, it is not missing from the bible then?  

 

[Allenjr289]

 

I would argue that the 17 verses omitted from the NIV should each be examined. It's to general to say that they took them out because of the difference of manuscript and to make it easier to read. 

 

For instance, while many of the verses are trivial and not necessarily "big deals," Mark 11:26 in the KJV states

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespass.

 

This is an important verse and is taken out of the Bible. Regardless of what Revelation says, this verse should reach everyone who reads. 

 

 

When I looked up Mark 11:26 in Niv, i found a reference to :

Matthew 6:15New International Version (NIV)

15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

 

So really, it is not missing from the bible then?  

 

 

I was confused at first about your post, lol. After re-reading it, I'd like to say that just because one part of the Bible states a verse, doesn't mean it should be taken away form another part of the Bible. 

 

One more thing. Two of the versions I have do not include the reference at all. 

 

Moreover, why take away from the impact? Even if a version includes the reference, why take the scripture out at all? It's common knowledge that not everyone pays attention to the references. Many Bibles have NO references at all and are not study Bibles. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by Allenjr289

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't have time to address all of the parts that Allenjr  has brought up, but let me comment on the reference to Is. 14:12.    The KJV refers to Satan as "Lucifier"   but the NIV calls him star of he morning.  

 

That is not an attack on Jesus.   Lucifer means, "day star" or :star of the morning."   The NIV, instead of using the name "Lucifer"  simply gave the translation of the Name.    The reference to Jesus as the Morning Star has no connection in the Greek to Is. 14:12.   The morning star in Revelation is not "Lucifer."   Both times it is referenced, it is Jesus

[hmbld]

 

 

Moreover, why take away from the impact? Even if a version includes the reference, why take the scripture out at all? It's common knowledge that not everyone pays attention to the references. Many Bibles have NO references at all and are not study Bibles. 

 

 

I guess I was just looking into your claim, as it is brought up fairly often here.  What I am saying, is that verse is in the bible, so it is not missing.  It seems a little technical, to object to a version when it still has it included elsewhere.  And when you dig into it in depth, the KJV can be shown to have minor mistakes.  I agree with what someone else posted here, one can find God by reading any of the commonly acceptable versions.  

[Allenjr289]

But Mark 11:26 isn't in many of the versions. Just because it references another verse that may say the same thing, doesn't matter. The Bible was given to Moses letter by letter. It is entirely divine.

 

I agree that one can find God from reading any version. One can also find God without reading the Bible at all, lol.

 

Much love either way,

 

Nothing hard.

 

It's a slippery slope. Why change it at all? Yanno? That's what I'm saying.

 

Either way,

 

God bless.

[Ezra]

So what about the English versions that preceded the 1611  KJV?

What about them? They are historical and of little significance at this point.

 

The primary objective of the King James translators was to provide an English translation that would be deemed "the best" out of many, and thus become "The Authorized Version -- "Appointed to be read in Churches".  I have a reproduction of the original 1611 edition (with the type set in modern typeface for readablity). That is exactly what is inscribed on the frontispiece. And it is only spellings, capitalization and punctuation which have been updated in our current Bibles.

 

Please note what "The Translators to the Reader" say about the significance of this translation "...to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall [sic] good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene [been] our indeauour [endeavour] , that our marke [mark]."

 

God's abundant blessings were on this translation for over 400 years, and it did indeed become THE BIBLE for all English-speaking Christians worldwide until the end of the 19th century.  Even today, a survey showed recently that it is the leading translation being used in the USA (you'll notice that movies use the KJV when quoting from the Bible).

 

What Christians should understand  in spite of all the negative propaganda (once they get past the 17th century usage, which is actually precise and corresponds to modern German in "thee" vs "you" etc.) is:

 

1. It is the most faithful word-for-word translation since it clearly shows the difference (italicised) between the words of the translators and the words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.  Even Hebrew names in Greek have not been translated but transliterated (see genealogies).

 

2. It is rooted in the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, which represent THE MAJORITY of manuscripts (vs modern version based primarily on one, or two, or five corrupt manuscripts).  For all intents and purposes, it is the Word of God in English. 

 

3. It is noteworthy that "The first JPS [Jewish Publication Society] translation was completed in 1917 by a committee led by Max Margolis and was based on the scholarship of its day. Its literary form was consciously based on that of the King James Version".

 

4. It is consider an English classic in its own right, and indeed the very foundation of  modern English.  Multiple sayings from Scripture have passed into everyday language. e.g. "an eye for an eye", "casting pearls before swine", etc.

 

5. Ninety nine percent of the language can be easily understood by even schoolboys, and what is not clear should be clarified with an Exhaustive Concordance.  The lame excuse that the KJV is "hard to understand" is just that, since for close to 400 years no one complained.

[Guest shiloh357]

The reason I ask is that  most KJV only folks tend to  argue, as you do, that the KJV is God's perfect word to the English speaking people.  Some on this board (and I am not sure where you stand on this)  have even gone so far as to argue that the KJV is itself an "inspired" translation.  They have gone so far as to argue that it is inspired on the same level as the original manuscripts.

 

My question regarding the other prior English translations is why if God's intent is to preserve His Word, why He couldn't get it right the first time?   Was God not concerned about a perfect English translation until James I commissioned the translation of a new Bible?  Why didn't God preserve a perfect English translation without need of revision after revision?

 

Secondly, why is it that KJV only people make all kinds of grandiose claims about the KJV that the translators themselves never made?  They don't claim to have been inspired, or that there was a need for  perfect English translation. 

 

The only reason the KJV came into existence is that James the I  hated the Geneva Bible due to the commentary in the margins regarding kings.  James and the Puritans didn't get along very well and the Geneva Bible had notes in the margins that contradicted his views on the divine right of Kings.    James I believed that he was the head of the church of England. 

 

It was that view that caused him to commission the KJV in 1604.   The KJV is  revision of the English Bishops Bible.  It is not a direct, fresh translation from Greek and Hebrew.  It is really nothing more than a English revision. And the translators in their title page make that exact claim.  They claim that they were not  trying to make a good translation out of a bad one, but were making a good translation better.   So  this is just a revision of an already good translation, according to the men who did the work.

 

I like the KJV and I use it, but I would not put it up on the pedestal that KJV only folks do who ignore the history behind why it was commissioned and what it really is.  It's is, in the main, an English revision that was commissioned by a King who wanted to maintain his singular, political control over the Church of England.  It was not the  product of a Divine edict from Heaven.

[another_poster]

 

So what about the English versions that preceded the 1611  KJV?

What about them? They are historical and of little significance at this point.

 

The primary objective of the King James translators was to provide an English translation that would be deemed "the best" out of many, and thus become "The Authorized Version -- "Appointed to be read in Churches".  I have a reproduction of the original 1611 edition (with the type set in modern typeface for readablity). That is exactly what is inscribed on the frontispiece. And it is only spellings, capitalization and punctuation which have been updated in our current Bibles.

 

 

You make the common mistake about why the KJV came to be. It became common use because it was mandated to be used and declared that other translations were not to be used. That is the reason it became so common in use. Shiloh explains it in post #17. 

 

As for the points you made why don't you respond to what has been said already? Rather than just passing judgement on people why don't you take the time to outline why you believe you are correct? That is why these threads usually get closed quickly because people are busy passing judgement. By all means outline why you believe my statements to be wrong. 

1. It is commonly acknowledged that word for word can miss the actual meaning of the passage. Lets look at the saying "Lets hit the road Jack". A word for word translation of that would have people wondering if they should hit the road with a stick or a stone or their hand and also wondering why they are supposed to hit the road. However different method of translation would translate it as "Hey lets go now". Which of those two is accurate to the meaning? The latter of course but that is not a word for word approach. Both methods have their flaws.

 

2. You make the pre-judgment that the manuscripts are corrupt. Yet you give no justification for that. Remember just because the majority agree on something does not make it right. The majority once upon a time believed the earth was flat. Does that mean the earth used to be flat? Of course not. 

 

3. So what to be honest! The language in use then was different to language in use today. There are several saying that people claim are based on the bible but are not. 

 

4. There are plenty of pieces of work that are considered to be classics. That does not make them automatically true. 

 

5. Comprehension and the ability to read the words are two very different things. At ten years of age I was reading at the level of a eighteen year old. I could read so well. Didn't understand all of it which is why I did not appreciate the lord of the rings books until I read them later. Reading them at eight years of age was just too much of not understanding. So it is not a cop out. There are plenty of other reasons why it may be hard to understand and your dismissal of those reasons lacks compassion. Unless of course you just haven't thought it through very well and don't realise what you are actually saying. Also look at scientific studies. I can read the words no problem but I still don't understand what it all means.

 

 

 

You actually start with a common mistake. That passage only refers to revelation. It does not refer to the entire bible. We need to remember how the bible came about. It was not complete when revelation was written.

Here we go.  Instead of upholding the fundamental Divine principle that Scripture cannot and must no be altered, we have this comment above.  And Revelation COMPLETES  Scripture, so your comment is incorrect to begin with. That was the whole point of the warning in Revelation.  There will be no more Divine revelations from God.  Scripture is complete. Do not tamper with the Word of God. You will pay for mutilating Scripture.  So that is not "a common mistake" but a proper application of Scripture.

 

However what is stated in Rev 22:18,19 is a general principle applicable to the whole Word of God.  This principle was stated in the Torah a long time ago, and reiterated throughout Scripture (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6).  Since "EVERY WORD of God is pure..." (Prov 30:5) and "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Mt 4:4) it should be evident that every Hebrew and Greek word is critical -- indeed every jot and tittle (Mt 5:18) -- which refers to the smallest Hebrew markings in the OT.

 

Wrong. Revelation was written somewhere between 65-96AD depending on who you believe. The bible as we know was put together after. Just because they are now in the bible does not mean that that verse applies to the entire bible. The bible was written by man although inspired by God. That much is clear to see and is evidenced in the bible. We see personal opinion put in. Did God inspire the people who caused Paul to write what he wrote? I trust you know what I'm talking about since you claim to have thought this through and done the research.

 

You also ignore the clear mistakes in the translation of the KJV. Do you know which passage I'm talking about? Hint: It is in the gospels. That is the KJV shows that the KJV has made mistakes in the translation. There is no convincing argument as to why the KJV is reliable while others are not unless one ignores facts such as what caused it to become so widely used. A lot of it is nothing but politics. Other factors are socio-economic. It has nothing to do with people believing it to be far superior or the only accurate translation. I have no problem with people being KJV only as long as they recognise that is simply their choice and it is not a sin or backsliding or a path to hell to read other translations. 

 

You claim that other translations are not more easily understood than the KJV. I assume that is based on the usual line that young kids can read most of the words. Reading and comprehension are two very different things. While the language in the KJV was common use language for the time it was written it is not common use language now and many people find it difficult to get their head around. If the KJV is as clear as you claim then there really is no need for the spirit and we should banish the holy spirit should we not! Of course not. 

 

 

You can quote a heap of passages out of context to try and prove your point but I will not accept that. The way you have used Matt 5:18 for example does not in any way reflect good hermeneutics. Just like the other passages you mention when read in context also do not support your claim.

 

Someone once provided me with a list of changes that they felt made the translation not only wrong but evil! I went through the first 30 and was able to demonstrate that the meaning of the passage was unchanged. I did not bother with the rest of the list. 

[another_poster]

I would argue that the 17 verses omitted from the NIV should each be examined. It's to general to say that they took them out because of the difference of manuscript and to make it easier to read. 

 

For instance, while many of the verses are trivial and not necessarily "big deals," Mark 11:26 in the KJV states

But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespass.

 

This is an important verse and is taken out of the Bible. Regardless of what Revelation says, this verse should reach everyone who reads.

 

See this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. That verse is just repeating the end of verse 25 but in a different way. The message is still there and unchanged so there really is no problem. Of course it does also have the footnote that some texts include words similar to Matt 6:15 which also says the same thing. If it was some big conspiracy like we are told to change the word of God why would they point out that others include it? Why would they tell you where to find those words if they didn't want you to know them? It just makes absolutely no sense. Rather it is an argument made up by someone at some point in time who had already formed their view and wanted to justify it. Much like the glass being half empty or half full. Both statements are correct but the view existed before.

 

The same for Matthew 18 passage. Why do you think they include the verse number? It is not to hide anything but rather it lets people know to look at the footnotes which shows the words. We know that several of the gospels relied on the other gospels to fill in the blanks. That was common and accepted practice. All they have done is said it is not in the manuscripts we are using but others include it.

 

 

There is also a very simple explanation of the morning star if you want to accept it. It is not actually a problem. It is just something people with pre-formed views jump on thinking they have made a good point. Post 13 explains it so I won't repeat it.

[another_poster]

But Mark 11:26 isn't in many of the versions. Just because it references another verse that may say the same thing, doesn't matter. The Bible was given to Moses letter by letter. It is entirely divine.

 

I agree that one can find God from reading any version. One can also find God without reading the Bible at all, lol.

 

Much love either way,

 

Nothing hard.

 

It's a slippery slope. Why change it at all? Yanno? That's what I'm saying.

 

Either way,

 

God bless.

The bible was given to Moses letter by letter? Really??? That statement is so wrong I just don't know where to start. Unless of course your claiming the bible only contains five books