Jump to content
KiwiChristian

NIV REMOVES WORDS AND VERSES

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Anonymous Aristotle said:

Were you , are you, also the member named Limey Bob? 

I was reading through the forums here yesterday. I noticed Limey Bob seemed to have /has a penchant for calling out certain Christian denominations and then casts aspersions on their legitimacy. Much like what you're doing with Bible versions now.

Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity with an answer. :) 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Running Gator said:

They should have used the word Passover as they did the 28 other times they translated the word.  That is what they should have used as that is what Herod was waiting on.  Herod was not waiting on the "Christian passover" or some other such nonsense.  Why would Herod care about the "Christian passover"?    

Plus, there is no evidence of this "Christian passover" being celebrated in 42 AD. 

If they used the word Passover 28 other times, that's because they were referring to Passover.

Whether or not the Christian Passover was celebrated in 42 AD or not is unimportant. The KJV writers were translators not archeologists or historians.

The 'Passover' they mentioned was being celebrated by Jews and Christians alike - therefore it was not the usual Jewish Passover.

The Greek word 'pascha' is unclear and can refer to any celebration or holiday.

You're trying to find fault where there is none and your gripe is a petty and insignificant one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 11:13 AM, Running Gator said:

In order to correctly call these "NIV removals" you would need to offer some evidence they were correctly added to the KJV.  The fact they are in the KJV and not the NIV does not automatically make the NIV incorrect. 

We know that the KJV incorrectly uses the word "Easter" in Acts 12, so it is not infallible as many seem to think

Actually, Easter is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, OakWood said:

If they used the word Passover 28 other times, that's because they were referring to Passover.

Whether or not the Christian Passover was celebrated in 42 AD or not is unimportant. The KJV writers were translators not archeologists or historians.

The 'Passover' they mentioned was being celebrated by Jews and Christians alike - therefore it was not the usual Jewish Passover.

The Greek word 'pascha' is unclear and can refer to any celebration or holiday.

You're trying to find fault where there is none and your gripe is a petty and insignificant one!

But there was no Easter in 42 AD, that cannot be debated.  Thus Easter cannot possibly be the correct translation.   Also, the verse refers to Herod, and Herod was not waiting for Easter to be over, he was not waiting for any "Christian" holiday to be over.  

I would agree the error is insignificant, but since you are the one giving the KJV some sort of divine position, it becomes significant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Actually, Easter is correct.

No, it really is not.  Unless you can show that Herod knew about and cared enough about Easter to wait till it was over to do something.   Which of course would be impossible since there was no such thing as Easter in AD 42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Running Gator said:

No, it really is not.  Unless you can show that Herod knew about and cared enough about Easter to wait till it was over to do something.   Which of course would be impossible since there was no such thing as Easter in AD 42

Well, it's important to read and know the Bible in order to understand what is actually going on.

The Bible defines Passover as the Lamb that is killed on the 14th day of Aviv.  That's Passover.  That's the only biblical definition there is. Notice what is said:

And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Act 12:3-4)

This event occurred during the days of the feast of unleavened bread.  The days of unleavened bread begin on the 15th of Aviv.   Passover has already come and gong.   The days of unleavened bread start on the 15th and last until 21st (seven days).   So, since Passover has come and gone and there is a different festival in play, the Greek "pascha"  cannot be translated or understood as Passover, as the Bible nowhere refers to the festival of unleavened bread as "Passover."

Herod was a pagan, not a Jew. He was a puppet king who ruled at the good pleasure of Rome.   Easter was celebrated at that time, but it was not called "easter."   The translators understood this and used the word "Easter"  to correctly communicate the pagan fertility rites that were observed at that time.    "Easter"  didn't start with the Church.  It is named after the Babylonian goddess,  "Ishtar" and occurs in different forms in every pagan religion, including the pantheism of ancient Rome. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Well, it's important to read and know the Bible in order to understand what is actually going on.

The Bible defines Passover as the Lamb that is killed on the 14th day of Aviv.  That's Passover.  That's the only biblical definition there is. Notice what is said:

And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Act 12:3-4)

This event occurred during the days of the feast of unleavened bread.  The days of unleavened bread begin on the 15th of Aviv.   Passover has already come and gong.   The days of unleavened bread start on the 15th and last until 21st (seven days).   So, since Passover has come and gone and there is a different festival in play, the Greek "pascha"  cannot be translated or understood as Passover, as the Bible nowhere refers to the festival of unleavened bread as "Passover."

Herod was a pagan, not a Jew. He was a puppet king who ruled at the good pleasure of Rome.   Easter was celebrated at that time, but it was not called "easter."   The translators understood this and used the word "Easter"  to correctly communicate the pagan fertility rites that were observed at that time.    "Easter"  didn't start with the Church.  It is named after the Babylonian goddess,  "Ishtar" and occurs in different forms in every pagan religion, including the pantheism of ancient Rome. 

Nonsense.  The entire week is known as the passover, even to this day.    In Israel today the First day of Passover and the Last Day of Passover are national holidays. 

They were not celebrating Ishtar or Easter in Jerusalem in AD42.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Nonsense.  The entire week is known as the passover, even to this day.  

No, the nonsense is all yours.   The Bible is our (or at least my) final authority and it defines what Passover is.   I am going by what the Bible says.   If you reject the Bible on this matter and choose to let Israel be your final authority on the matter, that is up to you.

I am a Christian and Christians recognize the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.  So I will stick with Scripture.   You can go in whatever direction you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the nonsense is all yours.   The Bible is our (or at least my) final authority and it defines what Passover is.   I am going by what the Bible says.   If you reject the Bible on this matter and choose to let Israel be your final authority on the matter, that is up to you.

I am a Christian and Christians recognize the Bible as the final authority on all matters of faith and practice.  So I will stick with Scripture.   You can go in whatever direction you want.

I am going with the Bible, just not your view of it.   Scripture tells us that the Feast of the Unleavened bread was part of the Passover festival, the two are tied together and viewed as on week long event not two totally separate events as you try and put forth. 

From Matt 26:

17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

 

Deut 16:

Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the Lord shall choose to place his name there.

Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.

And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Acts 12:2-4
2  And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3  And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

the passover was over it was now the days of unleaven bread that took Peter not on the Passover day.

Then Herod decided to have his heathen celebration which is called Easter and then kill Peter

1. Passover - is over

2. Unleavened bread days - was in affect when James was killed and Peter taken 

3. Then Easter - Herod pagan celebration

4. kill Peter after Easter

This Easter is not the Passover day it came later

How I see it.

 

KJV is good.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      - The Teen Study Bible gives a standard dictionary definition of "sex", but the "alternative definition" is disgusting. Remember this is aimed directly at impressionable Christian teenagers. The "alternate definition" (1993 edition) for "sex" is "—another fun thing mean adults tell teenagers to keep away from."
      The 1998 edition of Zondervan’s Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for "sex". It took five years – but hallelujah, somebody at Zondervan finally woke up (or maybe somebody actually read a King James Bible. . . it COULD happen. . .) Of course, the "alternative definition" in the 1998 lacks much to be desired when compared to God’s serious warning of fornication. The 1998 "alternative definition" for sex reads "a three-letter word with some really l-o-n-g consequences". )
      - Another troubling "alternative definition" is given for "prayer". The great preacher John Wesley said, "God does nothing but in answer to prayer". The Teen Study Bible’s "alternative definition" for prayer? "prayer —talking to the ceiling and wondering if anybody’s listening.".
      - The Teen Study Bible "alternative definition" for "church" is "what you have to get dressed up for so you can be bored for an hour at a morning service". Now, that is really helpful to get teenagers interested in church?
      The 1998 edition of the Teen Study Bible changed the "alternative definition" for witnessing to "telling your friends about God and sometimes having them laugh at you."


    • By KiwiChristian
      Dec. 23rd - Westcott: "My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church." (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
      1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany - Westcott: "After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory...It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a 'Pieta' the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)...I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours." (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
      1848 July 6th - Hort: "One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise...no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic...the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical...the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many 'chapters' seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary...still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us...I am inclined to think that no such state as 'Eden' (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants" (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
      1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
      1865 Sept. 27th - Westcott: "I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles".
      Nov. 17th - Westcott: "As far as I could judge, the 'idea' of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many." (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
      Oct. 17th - Hort: "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results." (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
      1867 Oct. 17th - Hort: "I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles." (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
      1890 Mar. 4th - Westcott: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did - yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere."
    • By KiwiChristian
      Seven Tests to Determine the True New Testament Text
      (Antiquity, Number, Variety, Continuity, Credibility, Context, Internal Evidence)
      Dean Burgon gives these seven tests to indicate which readings are correct.
      1. Antiquity. We may allow only those witnesses who 'spoke' before 400 AD. These are:

      i) Over 70 Church Fathers. iii) Early Papyri.
      ii) Aleph, B, and some Uncials. iv) Earliest Versions.
      For example: Ever since 1881, ‘vinegar’ in Matthew 27:34 has been despised by Westcott and Hort and others as a ‘late Byzantine’ reading. ‘They gave him vinegar...’
      Question: What is the verdict of antiquity?
      Answer: (a) For "wine": Aleph, B, Latin, Coptic versions, Apocryphal Acts, Gospel of
      Nicodemus, Marcarius Magnes. (7 witnesses) eg: NIV, GNB, RSV, NWT.
      (b) For "vinegar": Gospel of Peter, Acta Philippi, Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Celsus,Origen, pseudo-Tatian, Athanaseus, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraclea, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ephraem Syrus, Lactantius, Titus of Bostra, Syriac version. (18 witnesses). "Vinegar", the KJV reading has much more support.
      2. Number of Witnesses. A reading found in a majority of independent witnesses,
      should be the original.
      The fewer witnesses, the less likely it is to be genuine;
      The more witnesses, the more likely it is to be the original reading;
      Unanimous witnesses, means it is certainly the original reading.
      3. Variety of Witnesses, is the agreement of independent witnesses.
      Variety means that the reading is found in:
      i) many geographical areas, and by
      ii) different kinds of witnesses - eg: Greek manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, Lectionaries.

      A good variety of witnesses are from: different countries, speaking different languages, who never met, and who never colluded. This is not true of Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus.
      The vast majority of uncials and cursives have KJV type readings and have good variety:
      i) They cover at least 1000 years (350-1550 AD).
      ii) Belong to so many countries such as Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Palestine,iii) Exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar sympathies.
      Variety helps us to evaluate the independence of witnesses. If the witnesses which share a common reading come from only one area, such as Egypt, then their independence is doubted. It is quite unreasonable that an original reading should survive in only one location.
      Witnesses supporting a reading in one limited area cannot be the original, as is the case with Aleph, B, and some papyri.
      To illustrate: Many of the most ancient manuscripts come from Egypt. This is due to the hot, dry climate of Egypt favouring manuscript preservation more than the wet Mediterranean climate. Moisture is bad for manuscripts. The Egyptian texts are not an exact representation of texts in other parts of the world. To sample the flora and fauna of Egypt does not guarantee to be the same flora and fauna of Greece, Turkey or Italy, etc.
      Variety + Number = Validity. Variety means independence of witnesses. Lack of
      variety (as is the case for Aleph, B, papyri of Egypt) imply dependence. This is a strong reason to reject modern versions based on Egyptian manuscripts. Burgon said, ‘Generally, the testimony of 2, 4, 6 or more witnesses from many regions, is far weightier than the same number of witnesses from one locality, between which there probably exists some collusion or sympathy’. Hence, many witnesses only from Egypt is a weak case for NIV.
      4. Continuity. A reading to be a serious candidate for the original, should be found
      throughout the ages of transmission, from beginning to end. A reading is invented if it died out in the 5th century, or if it is not found before the 12th century. Where a reading has variety (or agreement of independent witnesses), it almost always has continuity over time.
      The majority of manuscripts are independent witnesses, and must be counted. Westcott and Hort reject this absolutely, accounting for the Majority text by an assumed Lucian recension or revision of the New Testament text around 300 AD. Since there is no evidence that this Lucian recension ever happened, continuity is valid. Hence, number, variety and continuity, form a three-strand rope of textual criticism that is not easily broken. These 3 arguments strongly oppose B, Aleph, NIV and modern versions.
      5. Credibility of Witnesses or weight, judged by the manuscripts ‘own performance’.
      If manuscripts go wrong continually, their character and credibility must be low. The oldest manuscripts can be objectively, statistically shown to be habitually wrong, witnesses of very low character, and with many mistakes. Their credibility is near zero.

      If you read Sir Herman Hoskier's book Codex B and its Allies carefully, you will lose all respect for B, Aleph, etc and modern versions based on them.
      Since modern Greek critical texts are based on B, Aleph, some papyri, etc, it is clear that modern scholars have severely ignored 'credibility of witnesses' as an objective criterion.

      If considered seriously, 'credibility' will overthrow the modern text type and the NIV.
      6. Context is the behaviour (degree of corruption) of a manuscript in the immediate
      vicinity of the problem. If in a certain manuscript, the context is clearly in a very corrupt state, then it is self-evident that this manuscript has very low credibility.
      For example, Westcott and Hort in Luke 22-24, made 16 omissions from the Received Text based solely on Codex D. In Luke 22:19,20; 24:3,6,9,12,36,40,52 W&H's sole authority for changing the Textus Receptus was a single Greek Codex Beza (D), the most depraved of all.

      Codex D in Luke 22,23,24 omits 354 words, adds 173 words, substitutes 146 words,
      transposes 243 words, totalling 916 changes. In 8 places they omitted material from the Bible on the sole authority of D (Burgon, p.77,78).
      With the scribe on a wild omitting spree, how can any value be given to Codex D here, much less prefer it above the united voice of every other witness?
      Modern scholars and versions have completely ignored this Context test
      7. Internal Evidence, concerns readings which are grammatically, logically,
      geographically, or scientifically impossible, such as in Luke 19:37; 23:45 (impossible 3 hour eclipse of the sun at full moon in Aleph, B, and RV); 24:13; Mark 6:22; II Corinthians 3:3.
       
      Conclusion: So then, how are we to identify the original wording?

      1. We must gather the evidence: Greek manuscripts, Lectionaries, Fathers, and Versions.
      2. We must evaluate the evidence to see which readings enjoy the earliest, widest, most numerous, most credible, and most varied attestation.
      3. The independent, credible witnesses must then be counted.
      4. This is how we arrive at the Received Text of the KJV.
    • By KiwiChristian
      "Then cometh the devil and taketh away the word....." Luke 8:12
      “Ye shall not ADD unto the WORD which I command you, neither shall ye DIMINISH ought from it,…” Deuteronomy 4:2.
       
      "Our Father which art in heaven
      hallowed be thy name.
      Thy kingdom come.
      Thy will be done,
      as in heaven so in earth.
      Give us day by day our daily bread
      And forgive us our sins;
      for we also forgive everyone
      that is indebted to us.
      And lead us not into temptation;
      but deliver us from evil."
       
      Compare this prayer that i would guess MOST Christians know with the one in the NIV:
      "OMIT Father OMIT ,
      hallowed be your name.
      Your kingdom come,
      OMIT .
      Give us each day our daily bread.
      Forgive us our sins
      for we also forgive everyone
      who sins against us.
      And lead us not into temptation
      OMIT ."
×