Bible Study Why Bible Verses Are Missing In The New Versions

[D46]

Lewis, here is a link to help with that. "Hard" words are in most bibles. They just don't read like a regular book...even the NIV I detest.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

 

[Khristeeanos]

D46, I would be interested in hearing the specifics of how you came to hold the position that you do on the Bible version topic.

Did you always hold this position?
How were you first introduced to this position?

Please answer these questions (probably be best to open a new thread to keep this one on topic) only if you feel comfortable and at your convience.

 

[Free]

I have a NIV and a NASB and neither of them have a footnote as to what happened with "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. They both omit that phrase altogether without any further explaination...not even a footnote mention.

That's funny because I have an NIV study Bible that has a footnote that states: "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood."

How many people who deligently search the scriptures read footnotes every five minutes?

If you're not reading the footnotes you are not searching the Scriptures diligently.

Why should we have to read footnotes to see what could have been/should have been in the text.

One should read the footnotes to make note of what other manuscripts say. It is an alternate reading and a serious student of the Bible would do well to learn all they can.

People read the text and most will never know if a particular verse has been omitted or changed at all.

Are you suggesting that people should be kept ignorant of variant readings of texts? You want people to search diligently but at the same time want information witheld that is necessary for diligence.

Why does everyone line up in opposition against the King James bible? Why not attack each other...NIV vs NASB, etc. That's easy enough-satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Matthew 12:26) His desire is to discredit the word of God, not himself, so;he attacks only one book God's book-the KJ bible.

This is a terribly fallacious argument.

It the KJ be not the word of God, why is it the standard all others use for comparison? Are they afraid of it?

:roll: It may have been a great translation in its time and it has been around for nearly 400 years, so why not use it for comparison? It would be error to conclude that it is therefore the best.

 

[D46]

D46, I would be interested in hearing the specifics of how you came to hold the position that you do on the Bible version topic.

I'd be more than happy to...perhaps this evening.

 

[Lewis]

Lewis, here is a link to help with that. "Hard" words are in most bibles

I took the time to learn, about thos words, because the King James Bible is the first one that I picked up, to read, and I am stuck on that version, and do not wish to move from it. It will always be my primary Bible.

 

[D46]

That's funny because I have an NIV study Bible that has a footnote that states: "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood."

I wasn't going to post anymore here about this but rather, start a new thread at Bonsai's request, and; intend on doing so hopefully soon. However, I feel compelled to answer just a few of the comments. It all depends on what version of the NIV/NASB one has as to whether something is in the text or not. My 1985 version of the NASB(last copywrite) doesn't have it. Perhaps because of the Nestle/Aland Text is just the 23 Edition and you may have the 27th Edition. They just keep changing it! Not all are alike. The 1979 version of the NIV I have (a gift, wouldn't have bought it myself) doesn't have it either.

One should read the footnotes to make note of what other manuscripts say. It is an alternate reading and a serious student of the Bible would do well to learn all they can.

I have many KJ bibles that don't have footnotes due to their age but they have center margin references and none show an "alternate" reading to another version. I'm not interested in another version or what those other mss have to say because I know what they are and where they came from.

Are you suggesting that people should be kept ignorant of variant readings of texts? You want people to search diligently but at the same time want information witheld that is necessary for diligence.

People would do well to stick with the Masoretic and the Received Text for assurance they're not reading a corrupt version of God's word. That's only found in the King James bible. I just dont need another rendering of something that's already purified and blessed. But, I'll continue this later. I aim to prove these versions wrong and perverted in no uncertain terms of doubt left...to all that have an open spirit and don't know their background.

 

[Free]

They just keep changing it! Not all are alike.

So then wouldn't it be fair to say that they are being consistent by updating the texts as new evidence comes to light?

I'm not interested in another version or what those other mss have to say because I know what they are and where they came from.

And that says it all, doesn't it?

People would do well to stick with the Masoretic and the Received Text for assurance they're not reading a corrupt version of God's word. That's only found in the King James bible.

:roll:

I just dont need another rendering of something that's already purified and blessed.

What do you mean "purified and blessed"? By whom? Do you think that other things, such as water, can be purified and blessed by whomever it is that purifies and blesses the KJV?

I aim to prove these versions wrong and perverted in no uncertain terms of doubt left

You've proved nothing yet. Not sure how long I'll stick around as someone divides the Church over something that just isn't there.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

People would do well to stick with the Masoretic and the Received Text for assurance they're not reading a corrupt version of God's word. That's only found in the King James bible. I just dont need another rendering of something that's already purified and blessed. But, I'll continue this later. I aim to prove these versions wrong and perverted in no uncertain terms of doubt left...to all that have an open spirit and don't know their background.

This is where you are completely contradictory. The Masoretic Text is the Old Covenant partner of the critical text, and the Septuagint is the counterpart of the Received text. The Masoretic text was compiled by Christ- and Christian-rejecting Jewish scholars in the 5th/6th centuries. In the compilation, they exised and alternatively reconstructed verses- which is exactly the complaint of the KJVers against the critical NT texts.
Selah

Not to mention that the OT text of the people who preserved the Byzantine texts from which the TR was drawn was and is the Septuagint.

So on one side you're pro scholarship and revision, on the other side you suspect the motives of those who conduct same.

Bottom line is that much, if not most of the OT quotes in our NT books are from the Septuagint.

 

[BJGrolle]

I didn't know that there were verses missing from the newer translations.

I have a NKJV, which I don't reference often. I prefer the Bibles with study notes. I also have 3 NIV Bibles, each with different types of study notes. I use e-Sword quite often. I'll usually copy-and-paste my quotes from either God's Word (which our church also uses for Bible study class) or the Good News Bible.

I looked at the verses listed as missing from the OP. This I can't figure out: what was wrong with 1 John 5:7? Why would it have been taken out, other than it might not have been included in old manuscripts?

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV-1611)

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV)

So, what happened to the inerrent Word of God? Is that dependent upon the abilities of men to compile an accurate Bible to begin with? What kind of a Bible do we finish up with in the end ...one that DID contain errors that are now corrected or one that STILL possibly contains the errors of men? How can we be sure?

Very good questions! Considering this, how are we, as believers, supposed to answer unbelievers when they question the Word of God as being the Word of God, and not just a made-up fairy tale (as I have unfortunately seen the Bible referred as by unbelievers)? :smt102

 

[Vic C.]

I didn't know that there were verses missing from the newer translations.

I have a NKJV, which I don't reference often. I prefer the Bibles with study notes. I also have 3 NIV Bibles, each with different types of study notes. I use e-Sword quite often. I'll usually copy-and-paste my quotes from either God's Word (which our church also uses for Bible study class) or the Good News Bible.

Hi Brenda, I try to stay away from the translations that paraphrase; they are fun to read but just don't make for good study Bibles. I do like the NKJV, MKJV and the LITV & YLT though.

I looked at the verses listed as missing from the OP. This I can't figure out: what was wrong with 1 John 5:7? Why would it have been taken out, other than it might not have been included in old manuscripts?

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV-1611)

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV)

This is a post of mine from back in March...

If you are interested in researching this, it is known as the "Johannine comma". That's the best place to start. click here --> Search

There are arguments for and against the verse in that search. Discernment is needed. :angel:

 

[BJGrolle]

Thank you for that link, Vic. That helps me to understand it better.

 

[Vic C.]

Thank you for that link, Vic. That helps me to understand it better.

No problem... is your head spinning yet? LOL ;-)

 

[BJGrolle]

:

Not quite. I was researching something yesterday that was making my head spin though. When I get more time, maybe over the weekend, I'll start a new topic on it.

 

[follower of Christ]

So, what happened to the inerrent Word of God?

Two words.

Masoretic
Byzantine

 

[follower of Christ]

In my KJ Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass away.

And the KJ is over 400 yrs old.

And we have people just now finding fault with it.
Right when the bible says that they will not endure sound doctrine, but change it into fables.

I am so thankful that my God is big enough to have kept His word for me to have.

What did God do for NON english speaking folks ?

He kept His word, directly in the Masoretic and Byzantine texts.
That the KJV uses these is fine, but that doesnt make the KJV any more a perfect translation that the others that are based on those texts.

As for the KJV being perfect, I have one thing to point out......the Johannine Comma.

 

[PHIL121]

The extra words of 1 John 5:7-8 were most likely added to give support for the Trinity doctrine.

Not that they were really needed.