response to the "missing verses in NIV"

Interesting that this article does not note that of the 5,000+ manuscripts discovered, over 90% agree with those from which the KJV was translated. The article criticizes the KJV because the translators only had 6 Greek manuscripts. The footnote in my NIV in the middle of Mark 16 says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." Sounds like overwhwelming manuscript evidence in the light of 5,000+. 6 is not enough to be accurate, but 2 that change what had been accepted as God's Word for 1,800 years are accurate? Where is the intellectual honesty here?

Got to grant you the obscure words, though.
For example:
Acclamation vs. voice in II Chron.15:14
Alcove vs. little chamber in Ez. 40:13
Blunted vs. cut in pieces in Ps. 58:7
Colonnade vs. porch in I Kings 7:6
Fomenting vs. speaking in Is. 59:13
Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
and hundreds more. Of course, in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV.

 

I look up one at random:

Pastor Greg: "Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
... in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV."

While "red" is certainly simpler than
"porphyry", it is also incorrect.
Porphyry is a purplish stone.

And, if one uses the REAL King James
Verson (KJV), the one authorized version
actually authorized by King James,
one reads in the sidenote of
Easter 1:6:
Or, of perhpyre

Hello, can you spell KJBO deception?

This really upsets me.
Don't people bother to check the
REAL KJV of 1611 and not the
Modern Version (MV) KJV1769?

God bless

[ September 24, 2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]

 

I think you get this idea from naturalistic scholars from some sources where I found the facts.

NIV -- 5,000 MSS? Is that true?

Ok, let's see, how many MSS support the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge of these MSS, how percent of MSS agreeing with the KJV?

Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)

John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "

John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."

2 verses on NIV contradict the doctrine of Jesus. Therefore ask yourself, "Is NIV obscure?

Tell me, how would you solve some problems on these passages that you stated they added in the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge, why are these passages found in massive MSS where NIV negated?

Who beget God? Do you mean that God beget God? Do you deny Jesus is God's begotten Son?

 

No, actually it is more than that. 5000 is the closest easy rounding number. It is somewhere closer to 5500 I think. The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.

In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.

John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:

Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ. So are you prepared to stand by your attack on God's word? Or will you, having been shown the error of your way repent of your attack on God's word?

Ues a modern version, which is what I do.

Because they were copied from the wrong manuscripts. 1000 copies of an error does not mean it is right. No matter how many times the error is copied, it is still wrong. That is why some of these passages are found in a lot of manuscripts.

Knowing the meaning of monogenes would help here. The word means "unique" or "one of a kind." Jesus, the word, is the unique or only God. He is not some secondary God or created God. He is teh only God. This is the most powerful passage in Scripture to refute the JWs, but you cannot do it from a a KJV. You have to use a modern version to get this explicity testimony to the deity of Christ.

[ September 25, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

You are unbelievable to say that.

Again, you are unbelievable to say that.

Witness and record are not same meaning. No contradiction!

You use them because they are corrupted.

Did God errorly and wrongly preserve His Word in these MSS?

Strong's Concordance would not agree with you concerning "monogenes."

 

List those verses please;but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18;! Thessalonians 1:6,3:3,2:13;Hebrews 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Philippians 1:8;how do you account for that??

 

Probably because there is no such thing as the "NASV".

Maybe you mean the "New American Standard BIBLE in which case we will need your source and will have to do some homework.

 

Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.

Of course, this will mean nothing to a KJVO, but everyone else should recognize what a great witnessing tool the correct translation is when evangelizing JWs and Muslims.

 

Excluding the disputed passages referring to Jesus, every appearance of 'monogenes' in the NT is a reference to begotten offspring. Is this merely coincidence?

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Luke 7:12
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42
For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

When referring to the Father, monogenes is never used, but only with the Son. Another coincidence? Or perhaps Jesus is unique and one of the kind, but not so the Father? The NIV messed this one up big time. I thank God for my trustworthy King James Bible!

 

Strong defines monogenes:

"monogenes = only-born, i.e. sole:-- only (begotten, child)."

"mono = only."

"genes = beget, be born." GenEs is from the word, GennaO which mean to "be begotten."

The full word, "monogenEs" means "only begotten" that the KJV translated from the TR Greek.

 

You are unbelievable to say that.

Again, you are unbelievable to say that. </font>[/QUOTE]Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not. This is common knowledge to people who know what they are talking about. They may differ on where they come down about the reliability of these manuscripts, but they know these simple facts.

The Holy Spirit inspired John to use the same word. One is noun form (5:31 - marturia); the other is the verb form (8:14 - martureo). So John thought these two things were the same. It is only by some strange quirk of translation that you think they are different. On this point, you should stick with teh Holy Spirit; He was right when he wrote it.

This is a place where you have listened to false teachers and believed them without bothering to check what God actually said.

As for the KJV having verses with no manuscript support, here are some examples: Isa 13:15; Rev 17:8; Rev 16:5. There are some others but that will keep you busy for a while.

Why would I use something because it is corrupted?? That doesn't even make sense. You are charging me with deliberate corruption of God's word and that is highly offensive. You can differ with me without stooping to such levels.

You asked what a person should do with the added verses in teh KJV. I said use a modern version where these verses were not added.

No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts. No two of these manuscripts match. Therefore, by your own standard, you must charge God with wrongly preserving his word. (I don't think "errorly" is a word but perhaps someone can look it up.)

Strong's concordance is what you use when you cannot use other lexical resources. You would be better off using something better geared to the problem. Strong's gives a very simply gloss for words. It is not intended to be used as a definitive source. BAGD, the standard lexical work for NT Greek, say "only, unique." If you use your STrong's to look up the other 5 or so verses where monogenes is used, you will find that that the definition I give is exactly the right one, and there will be one usage that will completely refute your understanding.

 

I just did a quick comparison. All of these verses are essentially the same in the NASB and KJV. You are going to have to define more precisely what you think was included or omitted without mss support.... unless you are saying that both versions are wrong.

 

NASB
You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,

KJV
And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:

In case you are stumbling over "followers" vs. imitators:

Strong's Number: 3402 Browse Lexicon
Original Word
mimhthvß from (3401)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Mimetes 4:659,594
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mim-ay-tace' Noun Masculine

Definition
an imitator


King James Word Usage - Total: 7
follower 7

Once again, are the NASB and the KJV in error here or do they both have support?

 

Kind of reminds me of those archaic families who had consistent parents. When the mischievious boy who couldn't get his way with one "standard" ran to his "other standard", she would bust his behind and send him back to Dad

There you go again my friend. "Bankrupt, comic-book philosophy producing pharaseeism."

You said a mouthfull. . . of nothing.

Show me how I am a pharasee. "Get me a labrador and I'll retrieve it."

Lacy

 

I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?

Did God make any mistakes?

 

I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript? </font>[/QUOTE] Papyrus 72 is one out of many. Considering something does not mean that it gets selected. It means that different things are compared with the one that appears most likely to be original is selected.

Did God make any mistakes? </font>[/QUOTE]How would you answer this question? You would have us believe that no one had the perfect Word of God before 1611... or maybe that's 1769. So if God perfectly preserved His word in the way you demand that He did, why was the KJV (which was unlike every Bible produced before it) necessary? If it was always perfectly preserved then the KJV must obviously be a perversion of something that was already perfect.

God did not perfectly preserve the exact wording of the originals. That is so obvious only an idiot or the willfully ignorant could miss it. This fact is testified to by over 5000 Greek mss that all differ from one another.

God's Word, the substance of His communication in the originals, is perfectly preserved. This fact is also testified to by over 5000 Greek mss and the fact that the faithful translations we have today teach the same doctrines and message.

 

I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

Example:
1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?

Did God make any mistakes? </font>[/QUOTE]It takes a lot on a discussion board to make me lose my patience, but that was just petty and childish. There was nothing in the statement made to justify your response to it; consideration does not mean adoption. Editors can consider a manuscript, but that doesn't mean they'll adopt its reading. Many times the KJV editors put a variant reading from their manuscript collection into the margins--because they thought it likely to be the correct reading but not as likely as the one they chose to use in the body of their text. And if a reading they considered was deemed unlikely, they were under no obligation to even note it in the margin at all.