Hi Family,
It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.
Is this true?
Why would they be omitted?
Natsumi Lam
It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.
Is this true?
Why would they be omitted?
Natsumi Lam
It's "missing verses" just like any modern translation like NASB or ESV is "missing verses". They're not missing. They're simply translations based on manuscripts different than KJV which don't have those verses.Hi Family,
It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.
Is this true?
Why would they be omitted?
Natsumi Lam
I would actually favor moving it out to a separate book. I consider it canonical, but it's certainly not part of John.ohn 7:53 - 8:11
With this info...what is your open on the most accurate translation?Hey
This is a question that comes up fairly often. I think this article may be of help to you.
I always remember that even in the very oldest MSS there are slight differences between them such as the Syriac compared to the Arabic. Bible scholars look at all the oldest MSS they can.
It's not just the NIV but ESV, NASB, etc.
The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.
Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?
Do you believe there is an omission theme?It seems the KJV, and those Bibles written with it as a model, included some things the translators of the NIV could locate nowhere else.
I don't even know what "an omission theme" is.
I have no idea. In fact, the only way I am ever aware of differences is when someone spends months and months searching for something, anything, they can point to in order to either super sacralize the KJV, or defame some other version.Meaning is there a theme to which verses are not included or different. Ie the Trinity or Jesus' deliverances...
I have no idea. In fact, the only way I am ever aware of differences is when someone spends months and months searching for something, anything, they can point to in order to either super sacralize the KJV, or defame some other version.
And I don't know if those things ferreted-out fit into any particular category, or not.
The idea that God only preserved his word in a handful of manuscripts that got discovered in the 19th century is pretty sad to me. Manuscripts opposed to a wealth of manuscripts that the Church (of all stripes) had been comfortable with for millenia.
Did you ever research why James I (King James) had the English printing of the Swiss/French Geneva Bible outlawed and banned in England...… then had his own version translated to replace it? There really was a very personal and strong reason of self-interest to the king.I would say it's not about the KJV. We gotta step out of this Western/English bubble, because it's relatively recent and means little to the bulk of history. It's about a whole majority of manuscripts that span the whole history of the Church, that applied to every language it was transmitted to... not merely English in the 17th century. And further, this really centers on how you think of Church authority.. or give implicit value to "dating" in and of itself. If you don't think the Holy Spirit is real or that God never built a Church, then sure... it's all a mess and the majority of manuscripts mean nothing. But if you do, the idea that it's all been a mistake for 2000 years is absurd.
And you don't have to ferret out anything. Some of the differences are blatant.
I would actually favor moving it out to a separate book. I consider it canonical, but it's certainly not part of John.