"But by the grace of God I am what I am! 1 Corin. 15:10"

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Bible verses that NIV deleted

Pin It I am not really sure how I cam across this but I never knew...  I can't believe that verses have actually been removed in the NIV Bible.  Guess I need to pull out my King James version if I want to read them all.  This is just amazing...  :( 
Here's the link  Jesus Is Lord

Everyone please check out the comment left by 
James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html
He helped make me understand this a little better!

WHOLE Bible verses deleted in the NIV
The following WHOLE verses have been removed in the NIV--whether in the text or footnotes...over 40 IN ALL!!!
Matthew 12:47 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 17:21 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

Matthew 18:11 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

Matthew 21:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Matthew 23:14 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

Mark 7:16 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

Mark 9:44 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 9:46 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Mark 11:26 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

Mark 15:28 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) -- There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah's Witness "Bible" also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

Luke 17:36 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

Luke 22:44 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 22:43 -- removed in the footnotes

Luke 23:17 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)"

John 5:4 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

John 7:53-8:11 -- removed in the footnotes

Acts 8:37 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. It's deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 15:34 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

Acts 24:7 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

Acts 28:29 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

Romans 16:24 -- COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. What are you NIV readers missing?
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"]. In the NIV it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading--
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...? Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you. People are wresting and perverting the scriptures to their own destruction.

Don't forget to check out the comment by
James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html

5 comments:

James E. Snapp, Jr. said...

Hi Nicole,

I’m pretty sure you got this information from the Jesus-Is-Lord website. This may illustrate the truth of Proverbs 18:17; the first person to make a case seems right, until someone tests his claims.

The statement that whole verses are “deleted” in the NIV is true, if the KJV is taken as the standard New Testament text. But the people who made the NIV did not regard the KJV as the standard NT; they did not translate the KJV; they translated Greek manuscripts (= MSS) much older than the KJV.

The King James Version is based on the “Textus Receptus,” a compilation of Greek MSS (and other sources) made in the 1500’s. The Greek MSS upon which the Textus Receptus was based are essentially what was translated in the KJV.

The NIV is based on a different compilation of Greek MSS, including MSS that are much older than the ones that were the main sources of the Textus Receptus. The NIV’s text depends especially on the contents of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two important MSS from the 300’s.

The differences you’ve listed between the KJV and the NIV are echoes of differences between those two text-compilations: the Textus Receptus has these verses and phrases, and the “Alexandrian” Text, supported by Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and by some incomplete papyrus manuscripts that are even older, do not have them.

To the researchers who compiled the Greek text upon which the NIV is based, the NIV does not “remove” verses from the Bible. They believe that the Textus Receptus contains verses that were added to the Bible by copyists who sometimes inserted bits of one Gospel into another Gospel. If you carefully sift through the list, I think you will find that most of these “removed” verses exist in a parallel-passage in one of the other Gospels. You will also find that in some of the cases where the claim is that a verse is “removed in the footnotes,” the NIV’s footnote simply says that the verse is not in some early MSS.

The NIV does make a major error in its treatment of Mark 16:9-20.

The last part of I John 5:7 is not in the NIV because the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” is not in the ancient Greek MSS of First John. It’s not in most copies of First John. It's a doctrinally attractive phrase, because it clearly enunciates the Trinity, but the real question is, “Is this an original part of the text, or not?”, and it looks like this phrase began not as part of the text of First John, but as a quotation from a Latin-writing church-leader named Cyprian, who worked in the mid-200’s. Someone put Cyprian’s interpretation of the first part of the verse in the margin of a Latin copy of First John, and later someone else, using that copy as his master-copy, made a copy and inserted Cyprian’s comment into the text. It became a very widespread feature in Latin copies.

Eventually, this Latin addition affected the text of a few Greek MSS, since sometimes copies were made in which Greek and Latin texts were used side-by-side. But those Greek copies were few, and late. One of those copies, though, was used in the 1500’s as the Textus Receptus was being compiled, and that is why the phrase is in the KJV. (There’s a story that says that it was inserted because of a “rash promise,” but that is not true; at first the compiler Erasmus could not find a Greek copy that contained it, but later, when one was shown to him – a very, very late copy – he included it.) It’s not a deletion in the KJV; it’s a non-original insertion in the KJV.

All this might raise more questions than it resolves, but I hope that, at least, the reasons for most of the NIV’s “deletions” will be apparent. They are not casually ripping out verses from the Bible; they are trying to present an English text based on what they consider to be the most accurate compilation of the inspired Greek text of the New Testament.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html

Nicole said...

Thank you so much for helping me understand why it was done like this. I had never really noticed in NIV what was missing before but most are in the footnotes saying something about it.
I am so glad you commented here and helped clear it up! Always very helpful especially from a Minister that know what is going on! :o) Thanks again!!! I will make a note so others will make sure to read your comment.
Have a great day!

Nicole said...

I just went and checked my newest Bible I got about a month or so ago, it's the Mom's Devotional Bible NIV and it has all of them in there, if not in the footnotes then they are listed after with a note. A lot of the ones they say are deleted are in mine!

Anonymous said...

@James E. Snapp, Jr.

Actually you are wrong, while the Textus Receptus does not have a original manuscript it is not the younger text.

First of all to understand why the Textus Receptus was not used since 1881 you have to understand who Wescott and Hort was.

The Textus Receptus is the trusted manuscript.

You should also search and find out why the Niv's text was found in that cave. It is because they contained the name of G-d and it is not allowed to destroy it with G-d's name on it, they could not burn it so they had to hide it.

You also admit that the according to yourself, the Word of G-d makes a error, well there are no errors in the World of G-d, the Word of G-d is free and not copyrighted. Ask yourself, how can G-d's word be copyrighted by man?

Before you reply, why dont you watch this video first

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAr5FdNqnfI

@Nicole, search the answers, dont stop because you will find the truth.

Nicole said...

I haven't watched the link yet because my 3 year old doesn't give me that hour to watch it. lol Hopefully after she goes to bed I will get a chance.
I didn't really mean to get things started I was just posting a link that I had found and checked in my NIV Bible and did notice that there are some missing but mine usually has it in the footnotes about that.
Thanks for posting the link!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...