Bible version

[TSDBB]

I tend to read the NIV and also the message versions.  In church the older people use the KJV but the pastor uses the NKJV.

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37

 

Is the NIV a reliable source?  I always thought that it was a modernish translation of the original text.  I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school for me but is it more accurate?

[Deborah_]

It does sound worrying - but as is often the case, the reality is considerably less alarming.

Most of the so-called "missing verses" (in modern Bible translations) are actually duplications of texts that also occur elsewhere in the New Testament. So, for example, Matthew 17:21 is the same as Mark 9:29 (which is in the NIV) and Matthew 18:11 is the same as Luke 19:10 (which is in the NIV). I don't know about the Message, but certainly most editions of the NIV will inform you of these verses in footnotes and either give you the 'missing' text or tell you where to find it.

You may not be aware of this, but there is no "original text" of the Bible. What we have are many many copies, some of them older than others, and all of them containing numerous errors, omissions and additions (which are inevitable when hand-copying long documents). People disagree on which of these copies should be considered as closer to the original. The general consensus of opinion amongst modern-day Bible translators is that the NIV is following the most reliable text, but there are a substantial number of believers (especially in the US) who strongly disagree and think that the longer text used by the KJV is better.

Thousands of Christians use the NIV quite happily, and are none the worse for it. If you don't feel confident to do so, the NKJV is the modern equivalent of the KJV, and could be a good compromise.

[LadyKay]

I can't answer your question. But just for info. I have been using the Holman Student Bible. The passages that you posted that have been removed from the NIV are in my Holman Student Bible with a note next to them saying that "Other mss(which I think means manuscripts) have omitted". In the NIV Bible that I have, the passages that you posted are not in the text; but are in a footnote at the bottom of the page. Why this has been done I can not say. I am sure with some research an answer can be found.

[Ezra]

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

It should be extremely worrying, but because Christians have been sold a bill of goods, most Christians are not aware of how seriously deficient the NIV is.  It should be regarded as THE MOST UNRELIABLE of popular modern versions.  I have done the necessary in-depth research to say this with confidence.

 

I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school

for me but is it more accurate?

Christians have been deceived into thinking that the modern versions are "better", "more accurate", "more reliable", etc. etc. That is pure propaganda, which began in the 19th century with Westcott & Hort promoting the most corrupt manuscripts as "the best" solely because of age. All modern "Bibles" are translated from the Critical Texts, which are based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts (the Minority Text).  On the other hand, all Reformation Bibles (including the KJV and the Geneva Bible) are based squarely on the Traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) Text and the Traditional Greek (Byzantine or Majority) Text.  The traditional texts represent the MAJORITY  of manuscripts, hence are the most reliable.

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

I agree Ezra, but have a question;

Can a person learn enough from the NIV to come to salvation?

[Ezra]

You may not be aware of this, but there is no "original text" of the Bible. What we have are many many copies, some of them older than others, and all of them containing numerous errors, omissions and additions (which are inevitable when hand-copying long documents).

This is incorrect and misleading information. While we do not have the original Bible manuscripts -- the autographs -- which were Divinely inspired, we have thousands of FAITHFUL COPIES of copies which constitute the Traditional Texts.  It is in the Minority Text (based on Gnostic corruptions and other corruptions) that we have errors, omissions, additions, and substitutions.  That is the basis of the modern Critical Texts.

The job of textual scholars (Lower Criticism) was to properly collate all the existing manuscripts in order to determine the true text.  Instead of doing that faithfully, Westcott & Hort created a dubious theory which said discard all the traditional manuscripts and elevate two ancient manuscripts (Aleph and B or Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) to the status of "infallible".  Yet these were the two which were the most seriously corrupted.  Unfortunately the Christian world swallowed the lies of W&H, and so we now have the mess that exists.

[TSDBB]

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

It should be extremely worrying, but because Christians have been sold a bill of goods, most Christians are not are of how seriously deficient the NIV is.  It should be regarded as THE MOST UNRELIABLE of popular modern versions.  I have done the necessary in-depth research to say this with confidence.

 

I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school

for me but is it more accurate?

Christians have been deceived into thinking that the modern versions are "better", "more accurate", "more reliable", etc. etc. That is pure propaganda, which began in the 19th century with Westcott & Hort promoting the most corrupt manuscripts as "the best" solely because of age. All modern "Bibles" are translated from the Critical Texts, which are based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts (the Minority Text).  On the other hand, all Reformation Bibles (including the KJV and the Geneva Bible) are based squarely on the Traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) Text and the Traditional Greek (Byzantine or Majority) Text.  The traditional texts represent the MAJORITY  of manuscripts, hence are the most reliable.

That's interesting, I'll have to dig further into this. Thank you.

[LadyKay]

I agree Ezra, but have a question;

Can a person learn enough from the NIV to come to salvation?

I did.

[enoob57]

It does sound worrying - but as is often the case, the reality is considerably less alarming.

Most of the so-called "missing verses" (in modern Bible translations) are actually duplications of texts that also occur elsewhere in the New Testament. So, for example, Matthew 17:21 is the same as Mark 9:29 (which is in the NIV) and Matthew 18:11 is the same as Luke 19:10 (which is in the NIV). I don't know about the Message, but certainly most editions of the NIV will inform you of these verses in footnotes and either give you the 'missing' text or tell you where to find it.

You may not be aware of this, but there is no "original text" of the Bible. What we have are many many copies, some of them older than others, and all of them containing numerous errors, omissions and additions (which are inevitable when hand-copying long documents). People disagree on which of these copies should be considered as closer to the original. The general consensus of opinion amongst modern-day Bible translators is that the NIV is following the most reliable text, but there are a substantial number of believers (especially in the US) who strongly disagree and think that the longer text used by the KJV is better.

Thousands of Christians use the NIV quite happily, and are none the worse for it. If you don't feel confident to do so, the NKJV is the modern equivalent of the KJV, and could be a good compromise.

I agree with this assessment...

[enoob57]

Anyway, a friend of mine sent me a message to say that the following passages have been removed from the NIV!! I haven't checked them all but this is worrying!

It should be extremely worrying, but because Christians have been sold a bill of goods, most Christians are not are of how seriously deficient the NIV is.  It should be regarded as THE MOST UNRELIABLE of popular modern versions.  I have done the necessary in-depth research to say this with confidence.

 

I don't like the KJV as it's just too old school

for me but is it more accurate?

Christians have been deceived into thinking that the modern versions are "better", "more accurate", "more reliable", etc. etc. That is pure propaganda, which began in the 19th century with Westcott & Hort promoting the most corrupt manuscripts as "the best" solely because of age. All modern "Bibles" are translated from the Critical Texts, which are based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts (the Minority Text).  On the other hand, all Reformation Bibles (including the KJV and the Geneva Bible) are based squarely on the Traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) Text and the Traditional Greek (Byzantine or Majority) Text.  The traditional texts represent the MAJORITY  of manuscripts, hence are the most reliable.

One of the most studied men I know is John MacArthur ... and his opinion differs greatly from your own!