Posted on 10/25/2014 9:29:35 PM PDT by do the dhue
Yes
In this corner we have the reigning champion KJV!
and in this corner we have the challenger NIV...
Mixed Manuscript Arts! MMA
No holds barred...
Anyone know why NIV omitted (polite phrase) these verses?
care to share?
You’re Bad! ; )
Thanks for the help!
bump
How about being a tad more literate... it’s hard to have a meaningful conversation about bible renditions with someone who won’t even try to be literate.
For example a check to BibleGateway shows that Luke 22:44 is still in footnotes — certainly not “removed from footnotes,” or did you mean to say it was “removed to the footnotes”?
If you aren’t going to be accurate in the language you use, why should we expect you care about the pinpoint accuracy of the bible text either? It would be wasted on you.
There are reasonable answers to virtually all such questions. There is no single extant authoritative manuscript of the New Testament. However, “lower criticism” which is not based on interpretation but based on textual evidence, narrows down the acceptable possibilities, and none affect any major church doctrine or come within even a light year of affecting salvational doctrine.
If your salvation depends on getting every single letter right... bub you are not saved! Your salvation should depend on Christ.
IT would seem that those verses contain reference to liberals or leftists and things they should not do.
Had to go.
Can’t help you here. I’m still trying to find out why the KJV got John 3:3 wrong.
I recommend the New American Standard Version. It is one of the most literal translations.
I copied the entire page that I read on the link provided. I am just wondering if anybody is aware of older manuscripts maybe not having all versus, therefore they have been omitted.
My salvation completely relies upon what my Savior did for me on the Cross.
No need to be rude my brother.
It was not because they were called versus, but it has to do with the manuscript family, and the premise that older extant MSS must be considered more accurate than earlier ones which the KJV and some others were translated from, even though the later ones now extant may be copies of ever earlier mss. And i have read that the extant earlier ones have the greatest discrepancies btwn them.
But to take the Truth to heart is more important.
I use a Comparative Study Bible. It has KJV, NASB, Amplified, and NIV. They are all good, it’s just that the NIV has total versus missing at times.
Why do you ask?
And I still love you as my brother and as instructed.
You don’t have to share, if you don’t want to.
Thanks!
Thank you for your response.
Another way to phrase the question, but with different assumptions: Does anyone know why the KJV added these verses to the original text?
NASB is generally pretty good and recent refinements have improved the rendition and removed some of the dustiness. It still tends to be a bit wooden in places, but that is an unavoidable artifact of attempting to render Greek or Hebrew in English. It has the same manuscript issues as the NIV, both being based on eclectic texts.
For wordier paraphrases, the Amplified Bible is very good. But lest we get lost in the letters here, Scripture in general is pretty robust across languages and variant renderings. That is what you would expect from a plan driven by God and not by men.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.