The problem is that some of these new versions are not just a 'different translation', they basically have done editing to actually change or take out whatever they disagree with or doesnt fit with a doctrine they hold or someones traditions. Some have taken out whole chapters out or like the Mormons have done away and written their own... and eventually you get to a point which the proffessor brings up where 'You cannot prove the Trinity in the NIV...'

So its not just a 'different translation'....

In the new RSV/ NIV the following is missing so its message or meaning it gave has just been wiped out:

Matt 17:21
Matt 18:11
Matt 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24

Also, look at Rev 1:11, which I have always memorized as: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." That phrase is also missing from the NRSV.

The Textus Receptus (the vast majority of copies from original, and what the King James is based on) has been attacked with changes, amendments, deletions, and to diminish Gods truth but yet it still stands. Here is some background on the Textus Receptus:


"...Textus Receptus

Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind...."

http://www.bkdesign.ca/translations/part1-3.html

Even if the mention of the Trinity is missing in the KJV, the RSV, or the NIV Study Bible for instance, I don't mind...I know that the Trinity is true...and not reading about it in the NIV won't make me change my mind...

I owe a French Thompson Bible and a NIV Study Bible...I have compared them. Everything that is missing in the NIV, any verse at all IS included in the Thompson Bible...I do not worry about that and it doesn't threat my faith in Jesus whatsoever...

I used to have a link to an article about the NIV Bible...it said that the NIV Bible was the worse one...

My version of the NIV has 5.7 in it. "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement."


These three are parallel. There is no indication of divinity in any of them.



I think your concern is a bit over stated here, too. The context is pretty clear.

The question is not whether the NIV matches the KJV, but rather, are the texts on which each is based better or worse (assuming we can tell). It isn't sufficient to say that a newer translation is different than what we learned in Sunday school, but whether the underlying texts are more appropriate.

In any case, your three examples above are somewhat peripheral to the Faith, even if your supposed import was correct.

Would you be kind enough to tell us what critical theological point we would lose if these verses never existed?


Other than a name for a poster, what do we miss here?


What does this have to do with anything?

The "Majority'' text is a misnomer.. just because someone copied the same source text (that was predominant in eastern europe) does not mean its more reliable.. its like copying the same mistake over and over and over again and then saying that it isn't a mistake because there are more copies of it.

To call the minority text is also a misnomer as is nothing more then defaming something to try and bolster your point.

The bottom line is scholarship here.. what we now call textual critisizm.

You also seem to forget the tremendous bias that was imposed upon the translators of the KJV to prop up the Anglican church and its then existing doctrine so the head of the church (the king of england) could use the text to justify the murder of those that disagreed with him.

There are other problems with the KJV.. the original contained the apocriphal books that were later dropped and since it's original publishing run in 1611 its been edited numerous times to correct mistakes... and the english language tone was more important then discerning what the original greek had to say.

If I was to pick a translation based off the textus recepticus it would undoubtedly be the Geneva bible because it has much less bias and much less blood on its hands.

But currently, the English Standard Version is the one that I feel is the most closest to the original greek from a scholarly view point and tends to have less bias.

Dear Hobie,

It's been a while since I've studied the different Greek texts - but to tell you the truth, I really question whether some of the facts you have posted are actually true - especially your assertion that the TR is somehow superior to other greek texts.


I'm not sure quite what you mean by that - but since we don't have the actual original copies of the books of the Bible - it's kind of hard to prove it's from the original.  If you mean that more Bibles were printed in reference to the TR...that probably had more to do with the textus receptus being produced about the same time as the printing press.


Huh?  Did the early churches even know what the Textus Receptus was since it was developed by Erasmus in the 15th century... originally from a composite of 6 copies of the greek text of dubious quality.  Erasmus was even missing part of Revelation so he had to use the Vulgate.


Have anything to back that up?  Even if it were true it's not majority but quality that matters.  I don't think they had Codex Sinaiticus or any of the other early uncials at the  time the TR was developed. 


Again, how do you prove that?  Most scholars go back to the earliest texts to see what is more reliable.  If you find a page of scripture on parchment that dates to the 2nd century - it usually trumps the 10th century copy.


Have anything to back this assertion up?  The Peshitta and Old Latin Vulgate were  translations of the original texts and most scholars doubt that they are better... especially with the criticisms that they suffered from some of the early Christian writers.


I agree with that - I don't think the TR is a bad Greek text,  the question is whether it is a superior Greek text.


Huh?  Where do you get this?  How are the other Greek texts of the Bible tainted?  It cost a arm and a leg - and probably a lifetime of salary to even print a Greek text of the Bible before the printing press - that doesn't seem like an act of unbelief.  Since the Enlightenment and Atheism seemed to spring up right after the KJV was printed - do I blame the KJV for that?


Sure it does - again it's not a bad greek text - but is it the best greek text?  Especially since it doesn't take into account some of the finds that have been made since then of even earlier greek texts... some dating back as early as the 2nd and 3rd century.



Since Erasmus was a Catholic I think this is a pretty silly claim.  Read the Douay Rheims Bible - except for the additional books from the septuagint  I don't think you will find too much difference between it and the KJV.

I was just asking you to flesh it out.  You were making assertions that I don't think can be backed up.

Here is something I took from the NIV website that you might find interesting.  You might want to read some of the history of Biblical development to get a better idea how scholars make the decisions that they do when coming up with translations.

Just why does the KJV have verses that the newer translations don't have?

The words are in the footnotes, with the note that they occur in later manuscripts. They are entirely absent from the early Greek manuscripts and papyri. So why are these words found in the KJV?

The talented KJV translators worked from 1604 to 1611 and they did a fine job with the very limited resources available to them back then. They had basically twelve ancient manuscripts which the subcommittees shared. Since that time, however, many hundreds of additional manuscripts have been found, and many of them are far older than those available to the KJV team. And of course, more ancient means closer to the originals, closer to the first inspired manuscripts which came from the mind of God to the original authors. Therefore they are also more trustworthy and reliable.

The important fact here is that in these far older manuscripts some of the words and phrases found in later manuscripts are absent. Clearly they were added somewhere along the way. How did this happen?

During the terrible persecution of the Christians under Nero, Decius, and Diocletian, all copies of the Scriptures were ordered to be destroyed. Of course, some did survive and then when Emperor Constantine became a Christian in 312, he ordered that hundreds of copies of the Scriptures should be made. And pious scribes and copyists set to work with great fervor. Occasionally they would add a word or phrase in the margin, and then the next copyist would come along and suppose that these words belonged in the text, and he would insert them. So the later manuscripts got to be a bit longer and contain material not found in the earliest and best manuscripts. And that’s why translators today take those words and phrases out of the text, because they are not found in the earliest and most trustworthy manuscripts and codices.

In conclusion, you may be sure that in the NIV you will find all of the inspired text but not the words added by men, however much we might like to have those additional words. Translators must give us the very best and genuine text without any human additions. The highest criterion of the NIV team is accuracy in transmitting the inspired text.