Hi,
Well, let's check it against other versions. The ASV says:
35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 [And Philip said, If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.]
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
Note that the passage in question on your youtube vid is in block parentheticals. Do you know what this means?
It is good to find these differences but just condemning a translation because it is different isn't of much value. How do we know that the one we are using to base our condemnation on isn't the one that's incorrect? What we want is the truth and so when we find situations such as these, the question is, which one is the truth?
Unfortunately the producers of this vid didn't go far enough and answer the question of which one is the truth. They have just assumed that the KJV is the truth and any differences in the NIV make it suspect as a lying translation. I believe, that if we research the heart of the matter we find that today, with all of the extant copies of what we have as the nearest, reliable copies of the original documents, that many of the passages have been removed because they were actually added at some time to the copies.
For example:
If we read up on the method used to create the KJV of the Scriptures, we find that the Textus Receptus, or the 'received text', was the basis on which the KJV was translated. The received text is a very good translation, but let it be understood that it is also a translation. Here is what one scholar wrote about the foundational manuscript of the KJV:
Noted scholar Philip Schaff observed that the King James Version was derived principally from early editions of the Greek text compiled by Erasmus (1469-1536), who never used more than eight manuscripts (late in date), with some enhancement from the Complutensiam Polyglot (a 16th century version containing the Old Testament in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek).
Further improvements were made during the following century, which ultimately resulted in the Textus Receptus (i.e., the “Received Text”
. The Textus Receptus “ruled supreme” as the textual base for the Bible from the 16th century to the close of the 18th (
Theological Propaeduetic, New York: Charles Scribner, 1916, pp. 166-67). Much has changed, however, in the past two centuries.
Here's what another wrote about Erasmus' work:
Typographical errors (attributed to the rush to complete the work) abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the book of
Revelation and was forced to translate the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin
Vulgate in order to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate, or as quoted in the
Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late
Byzantine text, it differs in nearly two thousand readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "
Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace 1989). The edition was a sell-out commercial success and was reprinted in 1519, with most—though not all—the typographical errors corrected.
[6]
Note that the Textus Receptus was not much older than the KJV itself.
The NIV was based on what are believed to be older Greek manuscript copies of the original writings. It needs to be understood that there are very few discrepencies in the Old Testament between either of the translations. The Old Testament had already been codified by Jewish scribes before Jesus arrived. However, the New Testament had been rewritten and preserved as the Textus Receptus for many, many years and while it is believed to be a very correct 'translation', minus, of course, the errors noted above, the poring over some more recently found Greek documents since the translating of the KJV has shown that there are some places in the KJV that
may not have been in the original manuscripts. The NIV attempts to correct this, but in places where there is a difference, an explanation is given. If you will turn in your NIV Scriptures, if you have one, you will find at the bottom of the page that it is explained that some later manuscripts have the declaration of the Ethiopian eunich that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God. The NIV's position is that the attestation cannot be positively proven to have been in the original manuscripts and is therefore possibly added by someone at a later date to make the point that this declaration is foundational to being baptized.
However, if there is any question concerning the theology of what must be believed in baptism, there are plenty of places that attest that we must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that God raised him from the dead. The real issue here is whether it is true or not that the Eunich said these words to Phillip.
As to the issue that Zondervan publishing also publishes the Satanic bible, that is a bit misleading. Zondervan publishing is a strictly Christian publishing house. They were begun in 1930 and in 1973 obtained the rights to exclusive publication of the NIV translation of the bible. In 1988, Zondervan publishing was purchased by Harper Collins publishing and Harper Collins are the publishers of the Satanic bible. Harper Collins, in fact, publishes a lot of very distasteful books as regards Christian faith and belief and Zondervan has been, and continues to be, widely criticized for putting the desire for money to be made in becoming a part of Harper Collins before researching whether or not Harper Collins was a publishing house worthy of being trusted to print Christian works.
Unfortunately, the issue of what kinds of books do you guys print?, may never have come up in the corporate realm of the purchase of Zondervan. The Zondervan brothers probably saw this as a good stable platform with lots of money to keep the publishing works going and never even considered,or foresaw, that their good name would be tarnished in this way. Unfortunately, too, it's done and there isn't a whole lot that anyone can do short of going to Harper Collins and offering them a price that would entice them to sell the Zondervan division off. It should be noted that Harper Collins has allowed the Zondervan brand to remain under its own name as a way for Christians to continue to identify the brand as a Christian publishing house. However, some of the rumors running the mill now are that the 'new' translations of the NIV that are moving towards gender neutrality and a less condemning gospel have come about because of Harper Collins authority with the Zondervan brand.
I, for one, I'm troubled that the NIV is now being drug through the mud over these issues and even I refuse to make use of any of the newer translations of the NIV. I personally don't believe that if the Zondervan brothers were still the holders of the name and publishing authority of Zondervan publishing we would have these 'new' translations.
However, for believers, it is just more proof that satan will always and forever try to twist and torment God's word.
In Christ, Ted
