A SERIOUS OMISSION IN THE NEW BIBLES

[DougE]

They don’t have to. Only local pride would make it something where the focus becomes needed to be voiced. I was going to previously regale you with how someone from New York (Me being from there originally) talk when asked about where they are from. Individuals from NYC will say when asked; "New York", while individuals that are from other parts of the state "Upstate New York". They feel the need to differentiate from being associated with NYC! lol Guess where I'm from? (Reread my opening to this story.) Though not the same as what we are talking about here, the similarities are the same and in truth changed nothing to the import of what was being communicated. Maybe, to you and some others, but it should not lead one to attribute a falseness to it all. Different yes, but not unheard of. Oh, and it was not removed/changed...

I still think when Judea was used it represented Palestine. It would include Galilee, but not identify it specifically
The real issue comes down to manuscript. The TR has Gailee and the MGNT has Judea

Here is the other thing look at this verse *********** [Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea." ********* He KEPT ON PREACHING in Judea. In the whole chapter he was preaching in Galilee, so to say in Judea is an error. Other translations say kept on as well

 

[DougE]

For them to have removed it, the manuscript they used would have needed to have had it.

You are missing it
These are modern translators and had the KJV Bible. That is what they were correcting They took verses from the KJV and if it wasnt in their manuscripts they said the verse shouldnt have been there because it was added. They removed verses or made changes to verses from the KJV utilizing their older manuscripts and REWROTE the KJV.
They kept the verse number from the removed verse.
Really what they did was made a NEW KJV
They werent correcting manuscripts they were revising the KJV

 

[Christ4Ever]

I still think when Judea was used it represented Palestine. It would include Galilee, but not identify it specifically
The real issue comes down to manuscript. The TR has Gailee and the MGNT has Judea

Here is the other thing look at this verse *********** [Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea." ********* He KEPT ON PREACHING in Judea. In the whole chapter he was preaching in Galilee, so to say in Judea is an error. Other translations say kept on as well

You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.

For them to have removed it, the manuscript they used would have needed to have had it.

You are missing it
These are modern translators and had the KJV Bible. That is what they were correcting They took verses from the KJV and if it wasnt in their manuscripts they said the verse shouldnt have been there because it was added. They removed verses or made changes to verses from the KJV utilizing their older manuscripts and REWROTE the KJV.
They kept the verse number from the removed verse.
Really what they did was made a NEW KJV
They werent correcting manuscripts they were revising the KJV

I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV? I mean besides trying to use the English that is used today instead of the English that is used in the KJV? As well as manuscripts unavailable to the translators of the KJV, I'm sure you see that as a correction, I do not.

You’re being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that there wasn’t a sinister ulterior motive behind the creation of not only the NIV, but also other modern translations—translations based on manuscripts the KJV translators didn’t have access to. So, because they are not actually the same in English as read, you come to a conclusion there must be an error somewhere. This is why context must also be a consideration. If what is written changes the context of the whole, then I'd agree with you. It does not.

Here's an article I came across from Christianity Today, that you might find interesting. By the way it doesn't talk about manuscripts! Not in any specific way...lol

Should We Fight Over the KJV vs the NIV Bible?

The King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) are two of the most widely read and respected translations of the Bible within the English-speaking world. But which one should you choose?

www.christianity.com

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[DougE]

You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself

There are two manuscripts and one of them is in error
It has to be decided which one is

 

[DougE]

I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV?

The translators have proved it by saying "Footnote: Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The ESV related footnote for Matthew 17:20 states:
Some manuscripts insert verse 21: But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting"

They were in essence saying the KJV translated from bad manuscripts that created verses that shouldn't be in the Bible because they weren't in their manuscripts. They were saying the KJV had verses that were added to the manuscripts they were using

 

[DougE]

You’re being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that there wasn’t a sinister ulterior motive behind the creation of not only the NIV, but also other modern translations

I haven't said anything about being sinister or ascribing motives

 

[DougE]

So, because they are not actually the same in English as read, you come to a conclusion there must be an error somewhere

Never said or thought any such thing
My choice of Bibles is based on underlying texts and how changes affect doctrine

 

[DougE]

This is why context must also be a consideration. If what is written changes the context of the whole, then I'd agree with you. It does not.

Changing a verse does not have to change other surrounding or remote verses. What was being conveyed by a single verse can be altered without affecting the other verses

 

[DougE]

Here's an article I came across from Christianity Today, that you might find interesting. By the way it doesn't talk about manuscripts! Not in any specific way...lol

Here are my comments

The modern Bibles didnt just change old english to modern, they removed verses and words

I just use the NIV because its 1st on the list of Bibles. I am referring to all the bibles that make these changes

Not good idea to pick a Bible because you like it or love it

 

[Christ4Ever]

You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself

There are two manuscripts and one of them is in error
It has to be decided which one is

Probably a lot more, but again I won't say error. Especially since the context was not changed. Otherwise, a misplaced period, or any punctuation would be considered an error. How far are you willing to go without the original autographs to go by...

I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV?

The translators have proved it by saying "Footnote: Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The ESV related footnote for Matthew 17:20 states:
Some manuscripts insert verse 21: But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting"

They were in essence saying the KJV translated from bad manuscripts that created verses that shouldn't be in the Bible because they weren't in their manuscripts. They were saying the KJV had verses that were added to the manuscripts they were using

No that's how you interpret their use of footnote. I noted my reasoning already as a possibility...which you excluded above.

You’re being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that there wasn’t a sinister ulterior motive behind the creation of not only the NIV, but also other modern translations

I haven't said anything about being sinister or ascribing motives

Sure you have. Your constant use of the word "error" suggests an underlying motive exists, even if it’s just human error by the scribe who copied from the original autograph or copy. You just haven't been bold enough to put those thoughts out there except to state in error...

So, because they are not actually the same in English as read, you come to a conclusion there must be an error somewhere

Never said or thought any such thing
My choice of Bibles is based on underlying texts and how changes affect doctrine

Well, since contextually nothing has changed, and the original autographs are not available to you; how do you go about determining that? For one who doesn't want to deal with manuscripts, to justify your positions, you're going to have to. In truth I don't have to, since I use parallel Bibles, and seek context, and even more importantly prayer and the Holy Spirit for understanding.

This is why context must also be a consideration. If what is written changes the context of the whole, then I'd agree with you. It does not.

Changing a verse does not have to change other surrounding or remote verses. What was being conveyed by a single verse can be altered without affecting the other verses

Correct. If you're looking for perfection in the Word; you'll only find it through prayer and the Holy Spirit. Not in the paper you hold in your hands. This makes it clear why God in His infinite wisdom did not allow for the originals to exists any longer than necessary to ensure the Words continuance. People might have begun to venerate it, making God secondary to the object. Just as some do with creation, which simply proclaims the glory of God but is not God (Psalm 19:1), they end up worshiping it and treating it as if it were god (Gaia). Sad commentary of how far humanity has fallen.

Here's an article I came across from Christianity Today, that you might find interesting. By the way it doesn't talk about manuscripts! Not in any specific way...lol

Here are my comments

The modern Bibles didnt just change old english to modern, they removed verses and words

I just use the NIV because its 1st on the list of Bibles. I am referring to all the bibles that make these changes

Not good idea to pick a Bible because you like it or love it

So, you only care because it happened to come up first... alright. I suppose one reason is as good as another, as long as you stick with it and apply it to your life through Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/

 

[DougE]

the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators.

I see that what you are saying would mean the KJV translators didnt have all the preserved Word of God because they didnt have the recently discovered manuscripts.
This has implication for us today then as well.
We cant say we have it either because they keep finding more manuscripts or excerpts

 

[DougE]

You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.



I'm not missing anything. Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV? I mean besides trying to use the English that is used today instead of the English that is used in the KJV? As well as manuscripts unavailable to the translators of the KJV, I'm sure you see that as a correction, I do not.

You’re being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that there wasn’t a sinister ulterior motive behind the creation of not only the NIV, but also other modern translations—translations based on manuscripts the KJV translators didn’t have access to. So, because they are not actually the same in English as read, you come to a conclusion there must be an error somewhere. This is why context must also be a consideration. If what is written changes the context of the whole, then I'd agree with you. It does not.

Here's an article I came across from Christianity Today, that you might find interesting. By the way it doesn't talk about manuscripts! Not in any specific way...lol

Should We Fight Over the KJV vs the NIV Bible?

The King James Version (KJV) and the New International Version (NIV) are two of the most widely read and respected translations of the Bible within the English-speaking world. But which one should you choose?

www.christianity.com

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

Where is your proof that those who translated, the NIV were attempting to correct the KJV? I

Let's go back to this

Maybe it would be better to say that they deemed the KJV was outdated and they needed to produce a more relevant and updated Bible because of newly discovered manuscripts
Whenever they found a verse/verses that weren't in their manuscripts they concluded it was added or at least shouldn't be included in the Bible.

 

[DougE]

You say it’s an error, but the truth is you don’t know. It could just as easily have been the other way around because the KJV did not use manuscripts that were available to the modern translators. Saying that it’s an error is actually an error in itself.

There are two manuscripts and one of them is in error
It has to be decided which one is

Probably a lot more, but again I won't say error. Especially since the context was not changed. Otherwise, a misplaced period, or any punctuation would be considered an error. How far are you willing to go without the original autographs to go by...

It doesnt matter about context
In this case one manuscript said Gailee
The other manuscript said Judea
It doesnt matter what could be meant by Judea the verse should be either Galilee or Judea
One of these manuscripts is right and one is wrong PERIOD

 

[DougE]

If you're looking for perfection in the Word; you'll only find it through prayer and the Holy Spirit. Not in the paper you hold in your hands.

[Psalm 138:2 KJV] "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

 

[DougE]

So, you only care because it happened to come up first.

I selected the NIV because it was 1st in the list of all the Bible translations to copy