? about missing verses in the NIV Bibles?

BibleChooser has an excellent answer!

Actually, I've seen the web site that you reference, and I was actually thinking of it as I was reading your post. While they do point out some differences between the King James Version and the NIV, their conclusions are not based on fact (e.g., the modern Bibles are satanic, translators deceived by Satan are changing God's word, etc., etc., etc.). You have to be careful of sources such as that web site where truth is mixed with conjuncture, speculation, and emotion-based arguments. Actually, referring to God's word as satanic may be a sin in and of itself if you think about it.

The English language has indeed changed over the past 400 years. The KJV was translated in modern English, yes, but was early modern English, and through the years some words have changed meaning, spellings, and so on. When the Holy Spirit gifted the Apostles on the day of Pentecost to speak the good news of Jesus Christ to foreigners, do you think that they were speaking in archaic variations of their languages, or do you think that they spoke in the contemporary dialects of the time so that the people could understand the Gospel fully? This is where Christianity is really different from other faiths.

While there are transliterations of the Tanakh and Qur'an, there is an emphasis with both religions for followers to learn Hebrew and Arabic, respectively. That there is no common language for Christianity is an argument against the faith. Unlike other beliefs where followers are expected to come to God, prove themselves worthy for God's blessings, and be "good enough", we see in the Bible God coming to people! We don't earn or deserve our salvation as a reward for accomplishment. Rather, God loved us when we were unrepentant sinners, and we are saved no because of our merit (for which there is none) but rather out of God's grace (meaning that we don't deserve it, and can't earn it), out of his love for the world, which we receive through faith in Christ. Just as God brought the good news to people on the day of Pentecost, the good news of Jesus Christ to people in our contemporary languages. The KJV is a translation, and it is not - nor was ever intended to be - the only translation available to believers... a "Tower of Babel", if you will, for God's word.

Most translations have several scholars. Their identities and credentials are known and public, so that we can see who they are and whether or not there is grounds for bias. Watchtower's NWT is different. There were not separate committees of scholars verifying each others work. There were only five. In fact, Watchtower kept their identities hidden until they were discovered some years later. None of them were scholars at all. The NWT is unique in that it is a deliberate, systematic altering of scripture to conform to a theology rather than the other way around. And in that, Watchtower's NWT is nothing like any other translation at all, be it modern or otherwise.

Having said all of that, one note I would like to point out that is I have a dear fondness for the KJV. It is the translation that I grew up with, and I can read and understand it just fine because I grew up with it. The translators of the KJV were very brilliant and accomplished scholars, gifted by God without a doubt. And, no other work in English (including the works of Shakespeare) has had the impact that the KJV has had in shaping the English language (e.g., consider all of the idioms that come from the Bible such as "sour grapes", "by the skin of his teeth", "hand writing on the wall", and many, many others). While the KJV does contain some passages that do not appear in any source manuscript (including the Byzantine manuscripts), the KJV Bible still points the way to the cross today just as it did 400 years ago.

Utilizing a variety of Bible translations can certainly help one to have a fuller and richer understanding of God's word. But, if you don't hear the voice of the Savior in your heart and communion of the Holy Spirit when using other translations, then quite simply... don't use them :-) By all means, do talk with your pastor!

Peace be with you.

1) I feel that modern Bibles are watered down; is that good?

It is only good if it is an accurate feeling. If it is a baseless feeling or - worse - a feeling that is contrary to the truth, then it is not a good thing.

2) The New International Version deletes over 64,000 words

The New International Version (NIV) is a new translation of the original language Scriptures. How - logically - can it "delete words"?

If scholar A translates a foreign language sentence as,

"Bill did ask Jill for some food"

and scholar B translates the very same sentence as

"Bill asked Jill for food"

is it your contention that scholar B deleted words? Scholar B was not using scholar's A translation; he was using the original language text. He did not delete any words; his translation never had more words than are displayed.

The same is true of the NIV.

3) Most of the modern Bibles line up very closely with the NIV--and so does the New World Translation--the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Clearly you have not read the New World Translation.

It is true that most modern Bibles are very similar to the NIV. It is not because they copy from it. It is, rather, because most modern Bibles are translated from critical editions of the original language Scriptures by appropriately-accredited scholars who have the advantage of study that has been undertaken on the Biblical languages by scholars around the world *for 400 years*. In other words, the knowledge of modern Biblical language scholars is **400 years in advance** of the knowledge of the Biblical language scholars in the time of King James.

4) Seems like the KJV is the only one that has all the verses

This is a common - and understandable - "seeming". However, it is not really an accurate one.

Example:Acts 8:36-38. When the now-standard verse numbers were added to the Bible by Estienne (his 1551 Greek Bible)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_o...

verse 37 was included in his copy of the Bible. Naturally, he numbered it "37" (following "36"). Since that time, it has been discovered that ALL of the oldest Greek manuscripts do NOT include verse 37. Now: if you were a Bible translator, and you KNEW that verse 37 did not appear in any of the older manuscripts, what would you do? Would you include it anyway just because the King James Version did? Would you include it anyway just because without it there is no verse 37? Or would you - KNOWING that it was not written by the original author - place it in the footnote because it is NOT part of he original text?

Wouldn't it be deceptive to readers if you allowed it to remain inserted among the authentic verses written by the author of Acts? What Bible is more true to the original - the one that includes a verse not written by the author of Acts, or the one that omits that verse, meaning that there is a "missing" verse number (but NOT, in truth, a missing verse) in Acts chapter 8?

5) I say because that was the first translation in 1611.

Not true, as you have noted yourself. In fact, the King James Version was (depending on how you count) roughly the 7th complete English Bible translation made. It was not the first in any particular.

- Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_basic.html

Congratulations on asking a very important question. This one took my years to answer.

Reasons abound as to why any of the translations would leave things out or add things in. Perhaps, some are genuinely trying to do their best as the case of the Wescott & Hort. Or perhaps, their motives are more sinister, as possibly the case of the NIV.

What I mean: Westcott & Hort translated from a corrupt copy and therefore had little hope in their attempt to accurately translate. The main sources of their translation are traced back to two copies by Marcion in 120-160 AD, which do not agree with each other and are known to disagree with older fragments of commentary which quote scripture. One source for the Westcott & Hort was found in a dumpsters outside the Vatican.

What I mean by NIV is multifaceted. First, the NIV is copyrighted in the US. In order to obtain a copyright, a portion of the original must be altered enough in order for it to be considered an 'original text'. I don't know about you, but I don't want my Word of God being altered. Also interestingly, Rupert Murdoch owns the copyright to the NIV. He also owns Penthouse magazine, so ask yourself, "Who do I want to be getting my copy of the Word of God from?" FWIW, most modern translations use the Westcott & Hort version as their source.

For me as an English speaking/reading person, I use the KJV. For truly understanding God's heart on matters though, I use the Textus Receptus (NT only) and the "Theological dictionary of the New Testament" by G.Freidrich.

For the Old Testament, I generally go with an Interlinear Bible and the "Commentary on the Old Testament" by Keil & Delitzsch to help with some of the jargon of the day.

BTW, the only non-copyrighted Bible in America today is the Dollar Store Bible. Only the cover design is copyrighted. None of the contents.

Why do you assume some Bibles have removed passages? If you do some research, you might find instead that some Bibles have ADDED passages. If you read those footnotes, you will usually find the disputed text as well as the reason why it is not verified as authentic.

While you're at it, check out 1 John 5:7,8 from several independent sources and see if you think something was removed or taken away.

The modern KJV is NOT the version that they had in 1611, nor was it the first in English.

Matt 6:15(KJV) But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matt 6:15(NIV) But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Apparently,what is taken out is only statements that are 'contradictory' and that that would hamper Church teaching,removing such would make the Bible smoother reading in line with church teaching.

I think the N.I.V. is great actually, it put them into footnotes so many are not deleted just moved. Anyway just as some texts have deleted the truth others have added their own falsities. Some things in certain Bibles are actually additions that shouldn't be there as they are late in date.

NASB

ESV

NIV ARE EXCELLENT

BUT KJV IS TRASH.. YOU MUST BE BAPTIST