The power of prayer and fasting?

[IndyEllis]

How come Matthew 17:21 is deleted from my NIV?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2017:21&version=31

http://bible.cc/matthew/17-21.htm

 

[calidog]

NIV does that to several verses.
I don't really trust it.

Try NKJV

 

[IndyEllis]

Why does the NIV's Committee for Bible Translation do that?

And who gave them authority to delete verses?

Isn't fasting important?

Did Jesus say or not say this here in Mt 17:21?

 

[WashedClean]

The reason they probably don't include it is because some early manuscripts did not include that passage. I have several different Bible translations, and there are often footnotes in some that say "some early transcripts do not include...."

Don't think of it as deleting, but as not including. I would rather have it included with a footnote though.

As far as fasting goes, of course it is important! This isn't the only place that Jesus mentions fasting though.

Hope this helps

 

[IndyEllis]

The reason they probably don't include it is because some early manuscripts did not include that passage. I have several different Bible translations, and there are often footnotes in some that say "some early transcripts do not include...."

Don't think of it as deleting, but as not including.

So you're saying the manuscript upon which the KVJ and other versions are based then added, or what you euphemistically describe as "included" it?

Doesn't this beg the question as to whether or not Jesus actually did say this?

And then what's one to do with...

Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. ~ Deuteronomy 4:2

 

[Key]

It is included... in the foot notes...

God Bless

Key

 

[Speculative]

Hi IndyEllis,

Let me see if I can take a stab at this one.

The claim to Biblical inerrancy applies to the original written manuscripts, not to the copies or translations that we have today. With very few exceptions, most Bible scholars will readily admit that variations have crept into the various families of source texts upon which our translations are based.

The more conservative scholars trust that the documents are very faithful to the originals, but few would claim that they are 100% faithful.

When Bible translators consider a passage such as Matthew 17:20-21, they find some texts including v21 and some which do not. At this point they have to make a decision as to whether to include it in their translation based upon the age of the documents considered and the perceived reliability of the documents. Often there is intense debate amongst them as to how to deal with these verses.

In this case, it appears that the NIV translators felt that the most reliable documents did not contain v21. However, I applaud them for including it as a footnote so that the reader knows that it was included in at least some of the documents.

I'd like to also note that whether or not this verse is included in the translation has little bearing on the power of prayer and fasting. The Bible discusses this issue in many other places, and this passage is consistent with the Bible's overall teaching regardless whether or not v21 is included.

Well, that's my take on it anyway. Have a great day

 

[IndyEllis]

Rather than debating, why don't the translators just ask God?

 

[ebia]

Rather than debating, why don't the translators just ask God?

No doubt they did pray for guidance. However, God rarely answers that sort of factual question with a the kind of yes/no answer you suggest.

The verse in question is of dubious authenticity, being absent in most early manuscripts.

 

[IndyEllis]

No doubt they did pray for guidance. However, God rarely answers that sort of factual question with a the kind of yes/no answer you suggest.

Why not?

This is the Word of God we're talking about here, no? If there's anything to keep the story straight on isn't it this?

 

[dvd_holc]

Well, the last NIV versions have certain things in italics that don't show up in certain manuscripts. Also, there are few spots where NIV also leaves out some stuff compared to KJV. There is a book that covers all this: The King James Only Controversy by James R. White. You should know that NIV is not a word for word direct translation...it is a translation of phrases into modern equaliants. It is more like a interpretative bible as being more easily readable...

 

[ebia]

Why not?

For some reason he seems to prefer to work with fallible human being rather than override our fallibility. Presumably because, in the long run, that's how to best transform us (which is the purpose of the exercise, after all).

This is the Word of God we're talking about here, no?

The Word of God is Christ. I can live with 'word' (lower case) but I don't overly like the term because it leads to so much confusion.

If there's anything to keep the story straight on isn't it this?

It's important that what we learn is reliable. The bible is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's not vital that we know whether or not those words are actually part of Matthew or not because it doesn't change anything either way. Especially since they are contained within Mark anyway.

 

[StTherese]

Why not?

This is the Word of God we're talking about here, no? If there's anything to keep the story straight on isn't it this?

That is why Christ instituted the Church. The Church is the authority by which we are guided into Truth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps her from error.

 

[IndyEllis]

That is why Christ instituted the Church. The Church is the authority by which we are guided into Truth. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps her from error.

Which church?

 

[IndyEllis]

For some reason he seems to prefer to work with fallible human being rather than override our fallibility. Presumably because, in the long run, that's how to best transform us (which is the purpose of the exercise, after all).

Then why isn't everybody getting transformed?

The Word of God is Christ. I can live with 'word' (lower case) but I don't overly like the term because it leads to so much confusion.

Isn't the word actualy logos. And doesn't it also mean mind and logic?

It's important that what we learn is reliable. The bible is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's not vital that we know whether or not those words are actually part of Matthew or not because it doesn't change anything either way. Especially since they are contained within Mark anyway.

So what's this end you're suggesting? Are you suggesting we draw conclusions from all this? Judge for ourselves?

 

[ebia]

Then why isn't everybody getting transformed?

Those who accept Christ, or those who do not?

Isn't the word actualy logos. And doesn't it also mean mind and logic?

Something along those lines. My understanding is that "ideas" would be closer than "mind and logic", but I'm not a scholar of ancient Greek.

So what's this end you're suggesting?

The redemption of creation through the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[StTherese]

Which church?

Well, obviously the one that He built upon "rock" and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against.

Christ never intended to start "churches", but only a Church. Today we have so many different denominations that were started by different men who felt that their personal interpretations were correct or that the Holy Spirit lead them to those interpretations. That can not be correct since the Holy Spirit would not deceive and lead one away from Truth.

Ever heard of apostolic succession?

 

[Godslilgurlalways]

How come Matthew 17:21 is deleted from my NIV?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2017:21&version=31

http://bible.cc/matthew/17-21.htm

That's a great question They actually have it included in the footnotes.Surprised they didn't make it an orginal verse yet.When I was researching it, I found out it was b/c it wasn't included with the orginal work