NIV and missing Bible verses

danbuter · Oct 21, 2018

Erasmus only had a few manuscripts to work from. He did his best (and even made his own version of the end of Revelation, because the manuscripts he had did not include it). The KJV was based upon his work.

straykat · Oct 21, 2018

JackRT said:
Wealth? The KJV was based on just ten not so ancient manuscripts whereas we have about ten thousand available today.

I barely even care about the KJV in this context. It's closer to our time than it is to the early Church. I'm talking about Byzantine texts vs Alexandrian. But the KJV's "Textus Receptus" is much closer to this Byzantine tradition - and it's differences aren't controversial with it. It amounts to copy errors and such, rather than complete theological differences, like the Alexandrian text has.

But the main thing I'm trying to alert people to is traditions/families of texts. "Age" is secondary.. yet people somehow put it on a pedestal as the only signifier. They should get acquainted with the actual world these text traditions came from first... and not just assign value to "age" in some vacuum. Alexandria was a hotbed of neo-Platonic ideas, Arian dissidents, a large tradition centering around the scholar Origen (a useful scholar, but very heretical), and proto-Islamic ideas. While the Byzantine is the Church the world is more familiar with.

In effect, what people are doing is being rebellious and siding with an outlier, and thumbing their noses at the traditions given to them. Maybe in America, being a rebel is "cool" and people equate it with Marlon Brando or something. But read any Epistle, and they suffer no one who is rebellious in the context of the Church. This love affair with modern people to always question and buck the system is immature, if not outright dangerous and divisive. It's done no good. None.

edit: When I said Origen is heretical, I mean things like... He taught that John's Gospel should be read that the "Word" (logos) was "a god". i.e. "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

hedrick · Oct 21, 2018

JackRT said:
A book of "orphan verses"?

I have an edition that has a separate section "additions to ..." I believe for Daniel and Esther, but don't quote me.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

Natsumi Lam said:
With this info...what is your open on the most accurate translation?

I really don't have an opinion on the most accurate but there are some I wouldn't use, such as The Message Bible, but I think that all of them mentioned in this thread are fine. It's nice to have more than one to make comparisons such as the KJV and the NIV.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

Natsumi Lam said:
Meaning is there a theme to which verses are not included or different. Ie the Trinity or Jesus' deliverances...

No

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

Anto9us said:
I dislike the way NIV is just SILENT about the "missing verses", whereas other modern versions will have margin footnotes that say "other manuscripts have blah - blah - blah" and allow the reader to decide, at least to KNOW that there were manuscript variants.

? To my knowledge any 'missing verses' are in the footnotes of the NIV.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

straykat said:
I barely even care about the KJV in this context. It's closer to our time than it is to the early Church. I'm talking about Byzantine texts vs Alexandrian. But the KJV's "Textus Receptus" is much closer to this Byzantine tradition - and it's differences aren't controversial with it. It amounts to copy errors and such, rather than complete theological differences, like the Alexandrian text has.

But the main thing I'm trying to alert people to is traditions/families of texts. "Age" is secondary.. yet people somehow put it on a pedestal as the only signifier. They should get acquainted with the actual world these text traditions came from first... and not just assign value to "age" in some vacuum. Alexandria was a hotbed of neo-Platonic ideas, Arian dissidents, a large tradition centering around the scholar Origen (a useful scholar, but very heretical), and proto-Islamic ideas. While the Byzantine is the Church the world is more familiar with.

In effect, what people are doing is being rebellious and siding with an outlier, and thumbing their noses at the traditions given to them. Maybe in America, being a rebel is "cool" and people equate it with Marlon Brando or something. But read any Epistle, and they suffer no one who is rebellious in the context of the Church. This love affair with modern people to always question and buck the system is immature, if not outright dangerous and divisive. It's done no good. None.

edit: When I said Origen is heretical, I mean things like... He taught that John's Gospel should be read that the "Word" (logos) was "a god". i.e. "In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

I'm talking about Byzantine texts vs Alexandrian. But the KJV's "Textus Receptus" is much closer to this Byzantine tradition - and it's differences aren't controversial with it. It amounts to copy errors and such, rather than complete theological differences, like the Alexandrian text has.

Please give a couple of examples of Bible verses that are theologically different between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. Thanks

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

hedrick said:
I have an edition that has a separate section "additions to ..." I believe for Daniel and Esther, but don't quote me.

Doesn't the Catholic Bible v the Protestant Bible have additional verses in Daniel and Esther?

Anto9us · Oct 22, 2018

Hank77 said:
? To my knowledge any 'missing verses' are in the footnotes of the NIV.

Many editions of NIV, and some have no "textual variants" in margin footnotes; I have seen them.

Anto9us · Oct 22, 2018

There are some deuterocanonical passages in both Esther and Daniel that were only in Greek, these are the "additions" -- in both Catholic and Orthodox bibles

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

Natsumi Lam said:
Hi Family,

It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.

Is this true?

Why would they be omitted?

Natsumi Lam

Anto9us said:
Many editions of NIV, and some have no "textual variants" in margin footnotes; I have seen them.

I was just doing some more reading and discovered the 2011 NIV edition. I would not recommend it as it is gender neutral in many verses that are very clear as to gender. Maybe they are still printing the 1984?, I'm not sure. My NIV New Testament is from the 70s.

straykat · Oct 22, 2018

Hank77 said:
Please give a couple of examples of Bible verses that are theologically different between the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. Thanks

Here's a more than a couple.

Matthew 17:21

Byz: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting
Alex: Verse omitted

Matthew 23:14

Byz: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Alex: Verse omitted

Luke 2:14
Byz: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
Alex: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

Luke 9:55-56
Byz: But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
Alex: But He turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.

John 6:69
Byz: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Alex: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

straykat said:
Matthew 17:21

Byz: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting
Alex: Verse omitted

NASB - It's in brackets
21[“But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”]

straykat said:
Matthew 23:14
Byz: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Alex: Verse omitted

NASB - It's in brackets

14[“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

straykat said:
Luke 2:14
Byz: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
Alex: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

Theologically different? Wouldn't you agree that God's goodness is His favor towards men?

straykat said:
Luke 9:55-56
Byz: But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
Alex: But He turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.

NASB - It's in brackets.
55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

straykat said:
John 6:69
Byz: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Alex: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.

This one is somewhat different. The Christ/Christos means 'anointed', so You are the 'anointed' or the 'Holy' One. 'Son of the living' God rather than 'Holy One of God.'
So in this scripture we are not told that the Holy One is the Son of God.

straykat said:
Rom 10:15
Byz: And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
Alex: And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring glad tidings of good things!”

NASB - Good News rather than Gospel of peace. 'preach the gospel' and 'bring good tidings' is the same word in the Greek, euaggelizō. So we lose 'of peace' in that verse.
15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

straykat said:
1 Cor 11:24
Byz: and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Alex: and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

In this one we lose the second 'broken'. I do think that the broken bread and broken body makes it clearer though.

Which one/s of those verses speak a different theology or speak a different gospel, a different doctrine, or different Lord? I don't see anything Gnostic, etc.

Natsumi Lam · Oct 22, 2018

straykat said:
Here's a more than a couple.

Matthew 17:21

Byz: However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting
Alex: Verse omitted

Matthew 23:14

Byz: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Alex: Verse omitted

Luke 2:14
Byz: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”
Alex: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

Luke 9:55-56
Byz: But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.” And they went to another village.
Alex: But He turned and rebuked them. And they went to another village.

John 6:69
Byz: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Alex: Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Holy One of God.

It seems that the understanding of the difference is important.

straykat · Oct 22, 2018

Hank77 said:
NASB - It's in brackets
21[“But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”]

NASB - It's in brackets

14[“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

Theologically different? Wouldn't you agree that God's goodness is His favor towards men?

NASB - It's in brackets.
55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

This one is somewhat different. The Christ/Christos means 'anointed', so You are the 'anointed' or the 'Holy' One. 'Son of the living' God rather than 'Holy One of God.'
So in this scripture we are not told that the Holy One is the Son of God.

NASB - Good News rather than Gospel of peace. 'preach the gospel' and 'bring good tidings' is the same word in the Greek, euaggelizō. So we lose 'of peace' in that verse.
15How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

In this one we lose the second 'broken'. I do think that the broken bread and broken body makes it clearer though.

Which one/s of those verses speak a different theology or speak a different gospel, a different doctrine, or different Lord? I don't see anything Gnostic, etc.

"Goodwill towards men" in Luke 1:24 is all inclusive. The angel is telling everyone to rejoice that the world is about to change. The Alexandrian is conditional.

"Conditions" were a big thing in Alexandria too btw. Starting with Neo-Platonic circles, but seeping into Gnostic Christian circles (which is essentially Neo Platonism with a Christian flavor). This is why we have junk fake gospels where Jesus takes some disciples to the side and gives them special knowledge (gnosis) and shuts others out. Like Thomas or Mary Magdalene. The Gnostic view was all based on Pythagorean social hierarchy and mystery cults. This IS NOT GOOD NEWS. This is ultimately a worldview that endorsed slavery and elites. I could see why they would manipulate the gospels to reflect their satanic viewpoints.

JackRT · Oct 22, 2018

Hank77 said:
Which one/s of those verses speak a different theology or speak a different gospel, a different doctrine, or different Lord? I don't see anything Gnostic, etc.

The word "Gnostic" is much used in a pejorative sort of way but in my studying I find the Gospel of John to be more Gnostic than the Gospel of Thomas.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

straykat said:
"Goodwill towards men" in Luke 1:24 is all inclusive. The angel is telling everyone to rejoice that the world is about to change. The Alexandrian is conditional.

"Conditions" were a big thing in Alexandria too btw. Starting with Neo-Platonic circles, but seeping into Gnostic Christian circles (which is essentially Neo Platonism with a Christian flavor). This is why we have junk fake gospels where Jesus takes some disciples to the side and gives them special knowledge (gnosis) and shuts others out. Like Thomas or Mary Magdalene. The Gnostic view was all based on Pythagorean social hierarchy and mystery cults. This IS NOT GOOD NEWS. This is ultimately a worldview that endorsed slavery and elites. I could see why they would manipulate the gospels to reflect their satanic viewpoints.

You didn't list Luke 1:24. I think you mean Luke 2:14.
You and I read that verse differently so maybe if we read it in context you will see why I don't read it the way you do.

NASB -
. 10But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; 11for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12“This will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 13And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,

14“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”

So I read that as all men, inclusive, just as verse 10 is 'all people' inclusive. The 'good news' cannot switch from all people to only some people.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

Natsumi Lam said:
It seems that the understanding of the difference is important.

It's more so important to read verses in context rather than by themselves.

Hank77 · Oct 22, 2018

JackRT said:
The word "Gnostic" is much used in a pejorative sort of way but in my studying I find the Gospel of John to be more Gnostic than the Gospel of Thomas.

John speaks out against the Gnostics in I John, maybe in 2, and in 3.
I have never read the Gospel of Thomas so I wouldn't know.

JackRT · Oct 22, 2018

Hank77 said:
It's more so important to read verses in context rather than by themselves.

So many have claimed that "the Bible is self explanatory". Nothing could be further from the truth. Knowing the context of history, of culture, of belief, of practice can change our entire understanding of the Bible.

NIV and missing Bible verses

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Preparer of the Bride

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads