Author	Thread: Some Verses Missing From the New International Version
Admin	Some Verses Missing From the New International Version Posted : 8 Oct, 2010 04:10 PM Some Verses Missing From the New International Version A guy posted on Facebook saying I John 5: 7 is missing from the NIV. I checked that out because I remember that the NIV, like most new Bible versions, follows the Westcott-Hort Greek text by reducing that verse to a very short more ambiguous statement than that in the King James and the Textus Receptus.. I used an online NIV here: Its: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5%3A+7&version=NIV 1 John 5: 7 in the NIV says "For there are three that testify." Lets check some of the other verses that may be missing from the NIV. Mark 11: 26 in the NIV says "'Mark 11:26' not found for version "New International Version" Matthew 17: 21 in NIV: "'Matthew 17:47' not found for version "New International Version" Matthew 18: 11 in NIV: "'Matthew 18:11' not found for version "New International Version" Matthew 23: 14 in NIV: 'Matthew 23:14' not found for version "New International Version" Mark 7: 16 in NIV: 'Mark 7:16' not found for version "New International Version" Mark 9: 44 in NIV: Mark 9:44' not found for version "New International Version" Mark 9: 46 in NIV: 'Mark 9:46' not found for version "New International Version" Mark 11: 26 in NIV: 'Mark 11:26' not found for version "New International Version" Mark 15: 28 in NIV: 'Mark 15:28' not found for version "New International Version" Luke 17: 36 in NIV: 'Luke 17:36' not found for version "New International Version" Luke 23: 17 in NIV: 'Luke 23:17' not found for version "New International Version" John 5: 4 in NIV: 'John 5:4' not found for version "New International Version" Acts 8: 37 in NIV: 'Acts 8:37' not found for version "New International Version" Acts 24: 7 in NIV: Acts 24:7' not found for version "New International Version" Acts 28: 29 in NIV: 'Acts 28:29' not found for version "New International Version" Romans 16: 24: 'Romans 16:24' not found for version "New International Version" The Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek text can be checked to see if these verses are missing - if anyone wants to take time to do so. There is also an online Sinaiticus Greek text with English translation - but its sluggish to use, at least on dial-up. Its at: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=37&chapter=14&lid=en&side=r&verse=10&zoomSlider=0 The Westcott-Hort Greek text - and the Textus Receptus - can be found at: http://www.unboundbible.com/ Here is an online Westcott-Hort Greek text: http://bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/greek_wh_utf8/41_011.htm OK Mark 11: 26 is not in the Westcott-Hort. Matthew 17: 21 is not in the Westcott-Hort. Matthew 18: 11 is not in the Westcott-Hort Matthew 23: 14 is not in the Westcott-Hort Mark 9: 44 is not in the Westcott-Hort Mark 11: 26 is not in the Westcott-Hort Mark 15: 28 is not in the Westcott-Hort Luke 17: 36 is not in the Westcott-Hort Luke 23: 17 is not in the Westcott-Hort John 5: 4 is not in the Westcott-Hort 1 John 5: 7 is in the Wescott-Hort, however: οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες So far, every verse I have checked that is missing from the NIV is also missing from the Westcott-Hort Greek text. The Sinaiticus could also be checked using the online site listed above to see if all or most of the verses missing from the NIV are also not in the Sinaiticus. Since the NIV was translated in large part out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text (though not always closely following it), and most other recent Bible versions used the same Westcott-Hort text, we may find that the verses missing from the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, and New Revised Standard. Most Christians do not notice that verses in the King James Version are missing from the NIV and other versions when reading the new Bible versions. Although its time consuming, it is worthwhile to look at the verses missing from the NIV and other recent translations following the Westcott-Hort text. If the same verses that are missing from the Westcott-Hort text are also missing from the Sinaiticus, this too may be a consideration in deciding if the Sinaiticus is to be considered as a text preserved by the Lord. � Post Reply
View Profile History	Some Verses Missing From the New International Version Posted : 8 Oct, 2010 07:27 PM Ahhhh now that is the question : Are the verses " missing" or were they "added" ? Post Reply
cowgirl1984 View Profile History	Some Verses Missing From the New International Version Posted : 8 Oct, 2010 09:34 PM I like a mix of translations because the different wording can give a multiple dimensional view of the meaning of the verse. I personally like NKJV, NASB, and NLT. I know that's not totally on topic, but yeah, hehe. I REALLY appreciate that list. I'm going to look that up. Ooooh... Good question sparrow. I think they're missing though. Not added. But I could be wrong. Post Reply
View Profile History	Some Verses Missing From the New International Version Posted : 9 Oct, 2010 01:54 AM The issue of whether the verses that are missing from the new Bible versions - and from the Westcott-Hort Greek text - were added to the Textus Receptus, or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Greek texts left them out depends on some scholarship. The Westcott-Hort Greek text is based largely upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts which are associated with Alexandria, Egypt and the Christian and gnostic theology going on there in the early Church period. But scholarship is not the only test of the authenticity of the verses in the King James Version which are not in the new Bible versions. In addition to the many omissions in the New Bible versions, the new versions also, for some verses, are abbreviated and present different emphasis upon doctrines than do the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. I John 5: 7 is one very clear example of a dfferent "spin" on the important doctrine of the trinity when the new versions are compared to the King James Version. If you believe in a supernatural God who is there and active now in all things, then you can see that God honored the KIng James Version by allowing it to have the fruit that it has had in the centuries since it appeared. The new Bible versions have not had such fruit and have been in existence during the recent period in which false doctrines and a luke warm attitude have increased among the church Christians in America and in other parts of the world. I believe the new versions are, in part, the cause of this falling away from the truth. Those who have the Holy Spirit can also have some discernment about whether the King James and Textus Receptus are more authentic than the new versions. But - many people think they are acting under the inspiration of the Spirit but are not doing so. There is evidence that Byzantine or Textus Receptus type verse wordings are found in early Greek papyri New Testament fragments. This also means that the verse wordings of the King James Verson are found in early versons of the New Testament on paper known as papyri. Papyri Evidence of Early Byzantine Greek Text Verse Wordings http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/textype.html ..."Byzantine Text The Byzantine text, otherwise also called the Syrian text (so Westcott and Hort), the Koine text (so von Soden), the Ecclesiastical text (so Lake), and the Antiochian text (so Ropes) is, on the whole, the latest of the several distinctive types of text of the New Testament. It is characterized chiefly by lucidity and completeness. The framers of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more divergent readings into one expanded reading (called conflation) , and to harmonize divergent parallel passages. This conflated text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to Constantinople, whence it was distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. It is best represented today by codex Alexandrinus (in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. Thus, except for an occasional manuscript that happen to preserve an earlier form of the text, during the period from about the sixth to seventh century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A.D. 1450-56), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was one of the most widely circulated and accepted." http://www.uv.es/~fores/programa/majorityvscritical.html Many Papyri fragments of the New Testament contain Byzantine readings, that is, the verse wordings are more similar to the Byzantine Greek text than to the Alexandarian text, used by Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text, and from which almost all recent New testrament versions were translated. "Harry Sturz discusses these "distinctively Byzantine" readings in his book, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism." "The most important of these discoveries was several Egyptian papyri. Sturz lists "150 distinctively Byzantine readings" found in these papyri. Included in his list are papyri numbers 13, 45, 46, 47, 49, 59, 66, 72, 74, and 75 (pp.61, 145-159)." "Sturz brings up another very important point about these papyri, "They attest the early existence of readings in the Eastern part of the Roman empire in which the Byzantine and the properly (i.e. geographically) Western witnesses agree and at the same time are opposed by the Alexandrian" (p.70). " What Sturz is saying is that many early Papyri Greek texts agree with the verse wordings of the Byzantine or Textus Receptus type Greek text more than with the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort type Greek text. "Sturz concludes, "In view of the above, it is concluded that the papyri supply valid evidence that distinctively Byzantine readings were not created in the fourth century but were already in existence before the end of the second century and that, because of this, Byzantine readings merit serious consideration" (p.69)." "Aland says all but one of the these early papyri, "... are from Egypt where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries." Meanwhile, in Asia Minor and Greece (eastern areas), "... the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period" (pp.59,67)." The writer of this site then says "So it is not surprising many early papyri have been found which reflect the Alexandrian text since this text existed in Egypt. But even some of these Egyptian papyri, as mentioned above, contain Byzantine and even Western readings." http://www.bibleviews.com/authority-6.html "King James Version The KJV is based on a Greek text (Robert Stephanus's third edition published in 1550) known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus [TR]). This text is a Byzantine type; that is, it represents a family of manuscripts that are mostly associated with the Constantinople area of modern Turkey. This text represents the majority of the existing Greek manuscripts." ‎"The Greek manuscript basis for the Textus Receptus (i.e. TR} is younger than the other text types. This does not necessarily mean the text itself is younger. " "Another reason the KJV is held in high honor is because it is based ...on the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (a Latin term translated Received Text). All major translations since 1881, except the New King James Version, are based on the Alexandrian Greek text first published in 1881-82." "Westcott and Hort considered the Alexandrian text-type to be those early Non-Western and Pre-Syrian uncial manuscripts that preserved the text used by Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, and a few other Alexandrian Fathers, and the two Egyptian Versions used in Lower Egypt. They considered its chief representative to be the Vaticanus manuscript." "There are only a few papyri earlier than the fourth-century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and these have been discovered after Westcott and Hort's time." This site quotes Sturz as saying "Papyrus-supported longer Byzantine readings show their early age. The Byzantine text also has readings shorter than the Alexandrian text. "Instead of finding (as was anticipated) the greater number of papyrus-confirmed variants in K where the Byzantine reading was the shortest, the greater proportion was of longer papyrus-supported Byzantine readings. This underscores the danger of making it a rule 'to prefer the shorter reading . . . .' long readings are old and short readings are old. Both are attested by manuscript evidence that places them deep in the second century. The criteria for judging between them must be something other than their respective lengths." Westcott and Hort claimed that a criteria for selecting a Greek text was its shortness, that is, shorter verse wordings, they claimed, meant the text was older and therefore more 'authentic." "The papyri discovered since the 1890's are the Oxyrhynchus papyri in 1896ff., Chester Beatty papyri in 1930-31, and Bodmer papyri in 1956ff. They represent a 600 percent increase,[86] and 31 are pre-300 a.d.[87] The more important ones (P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75--these are equivalent to one-third B text and represent every New Testament book except 1 and 2 Timothy)[88] represent a several thousand percent increase as far as their importance." "The finding of many early papyri New Testament texts in the twentieth century has shown that the Byzantine, the text behind the Textus Receptus, has very early support." "Zuntz also found P46 to be a witness to the existence of Byzantine readings in the second century." That is, in the second century A.D. there were Byzantine type verse wordings in existence as shown by a few Papyri from that period. This does not necessarily mean that the Byzantine wordings, probably originating in Antioch, Syria, did not exist in ever earlier times. "Zuntz concludes his study of the epistle's text by stating that after around 150 b.c. the oldest papyri "rather suddenly . . . give a text which substantially agrees with that of the extant Byzantine manuscripts."[95] Thus Zuntz acknowledges that the Byzantine readings "are far older than the manuscripts which attest them." The writer of this site then points out that "When one considers that there are only a minority of the various text-types that vary, they all must have a common ancestor. Thus those who reject the Byzantine text do not have an easy task to prove their position. Their position is much more difficult than Hort thought." "Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR. (Textus Receptus) Price, who does not support the TR, when writing about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort 'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the earliest fathers."[117] Post Reply