Why we should use the KJV Bible on the Internet.

[Johann]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: List of major textual variants in the New Testament
The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

The citations of manuscript authority use the designations popularized in the catalog of Caspar René Gregory, and used in such resources (which are also used in this remainder of this article) as Souter,[7] Nestle-Aland,[8] and the UBS Greek New Testament[9] (which gives particular attention to 'problem' verses such as these).[10] Some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions.[11]

The criterion for the editorial decision about excluding these passages was never religious doctrine or sentiment, but always whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was probably in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. The removal or relegation of these verses was done in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated (but not originated) by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, "Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into 'the sure word' of 'The Book of Life'."[12] A movement called King James Version Only (KJVO), which believes that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (1611) in English is the true word of God, has sharply criticized these translations for the omitted verses.[13][14]

In most instances another verse, elsewhere in the New Testament and remaining in modern versions, is very similar to the verse that was omitted because of its doubtful provenance. These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.


Contents
1 The sixteen omitted verses
1.1 (1) Matthew 17:21
1.2 (2) Matthew 18:11
1.3 (3) Matthew 23:14
1.4 (4) Mark 7:16
1.5 (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
1.6 (7) Mark 11:26
1.7 (8) Mark 15:28
1.8 (9) Luke 17:36
1.9 (10) John 5:3–4
1.10 (11) Acts 8:37
1.11 (12) Acts 15:34
1.12 (13) Acts 24:6–8
1.13 (14) Acts 28:29
1.14 (15) Romans 16:24
1.15 (16) 1 John 5:7–8
2 Some other omitted verses
2.1 Matthew 20:16 (b)
2.2 Mark 6:11 (b)
2.3 Luke 4:8 (b)
2.4 Luke 9:55–56
2.5 Luke 23:17
2.6 Acts 9:5–6
2.7 Acts 13:42
2.8 Acts 23:9 (b)
3 Not omitted but boxed
3.1 Mark 16:9–20
3.2 John 7:53–8:11
4 Other English translations
5 Versification differences
5.1 Romans 14 and 16
5.2 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.3 3 John 15
5.4 Revelation 12:18
6 See also
7 References


I’m sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.
The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
The NIV and ESV and other versions have also now removed 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones.

Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 18:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Mark 7:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:44Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:46Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Luke 17:36Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); John 5:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Acts 8:37Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
…you will not believe your eyes.
Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (King James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV or ESV
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV and many more versions are affected.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

 

[RLT63]

What's the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why? - Berean Patriot

What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?
What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?
Berean Patriot May 7, 2021 Faith Articles 83 Comments

This article won’t be a quick read because it’s an in-depth treatment of the topic, not a gloss. Deciding on the best Bible translation to use is a very important decision, and we’ll treat it as such. By the end of this article, you’ll have a thorough understanding of everything you need to make an informed decision.

• We’ll start by defining what makes a good Bible translation according to what God Himself said in the Bible. (Most people overlook this part, and God does give His opinion indirectly)
• Next, we’ll talk about the different translation “styles” and what they mean
• Third, we’ll take an in-depth look at the issue of gender in translation
• Fourth, we’ll discuss how you can tell a good translation from a bad one
• Lastly, I’ll do a short(ish) review of the most popular Bibles on the market

However, before we can answer the question of what Bible translation is best, there’s another question we must answer first.

Contents show
What Defines The “Best” Bible Translation?
This is the most important question that almost no one ever asks. Before we can decide what translation is best, we must first know what we mean by “best”. I once had a fellow tell me he was looking for the “least gender neutral Bible possible“. I also know people who wouldn’t read a non-gender neutral Bible. That’s what defines best for them.

The real question is: “what is a good criteria for determining the best translation?”

That question is best answered by another question:

“Why do we care what the Bible says?”

It’s a good question, and an honest one from many people, especially unbelievers. Hopefully, most Christians care what the Bible says because the Bible records what God has said.

That’s certainly why I care.

If we’re going to live a life that’s pleasing to God, we need to know what kind of life God said is pleasing to Him.

This next bit will seem painfully obvious, but it’s also absolutely essential. Speech – the act of saying something – is accomplished using words. Yes this is obvious, but most people don’t stop to consider this. God designed us to use words to communicate with each other. Likewise – knowing that we have this limitation because He gave it to us – God uses words to communicate with us in the Bible.

And God is very particular about His words.

Deuteronomy 4:2

2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you

And few will forget the warning at the end of Revelation, which is in the same vein.

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Remember this: adding or removing words from what God has written inspires His wrath. I would argue that changing what He has written is both adding and removing. That is, to change a word means to remove the original word and then add back a different word in it’s place. Therefore, adding and removing is bad, but changing might be even worse because technically you’re both adding and subtracting.

God is very clear that we shouldn’t add or subtract – which includes changing – the words that He inspired.

I’ve been emphasizing words on purpose.

If you scroll back and read those verses again, you’ll see that God didn’t say “don’t change what I said“. Obviously that idea is there, but that’s not what God actually said. God said not to change His words.

Check those verses again.

God clearly says we shouldn’t add or take away from His words.

That’s important.

Based on what God Himself said, I would define the best Bible translation as the one that changes God’s words the least in the translation process.

Obviously, it needs to be readable too, but if we want to align our priorities with God’s priorities, then we must look at what God values first and foremost. God clearly places a high value on His words. As such, the best Bible translation should also.

 

[RLT63]

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

I'm not a King James only advocate I provided the above links to show verses that have been omitted from modern versions.

 

[RLT63]

Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Textual Criticism 101 - Berean Patriot

There are three major competing Greek sources to use for translating the New Testament: the Critical Text, the Majority Text, and the Textus Receptus. The science of assembling these manuscripts is called “Textual Criticism”, and you can consider this a complete Textual Criticism 101 article...

www.bereanpatriot.com

 

[RLT63]

I like the NKJV, the NASB95 and the Net Bible Full Notes Edition. The NET is available online for free. It has the most extensive notes I've ever seen.

 

[RLT63]

So how did we end up with changes and verses being deleted out of the Bible? Let’s review quickly:

At the end of the 3rd century, Lucian of Antioch compiled a Greek text that achieved considerable popularity and became the dominant text throughout Christendom. It was produced prior to the Diocletain persecution (~303), during which many copies of the New Testament were confiscated and destroyed. (This was not the first persecution and the earliest copies of the New Testament were rounded up and destroyed going all the way back to around 70 AD.)


After Constantine came to power, the Lucian text was propagated by bishops going out from the Antiochan School throughout the eastern world, and it soon became the standard text of the Eastern Church, forming the basis of the Byzantine text. (Today the majority of surviving copies of the New Testament in Greek are Byzantine text type.)


From the 6th to the 14th century, the great majority of New Testament manuscripts were produced in Byzantium, in Greek. It was in 1525 that Erasmus, using five or six Byzantine manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 13th centuries, compiled the first Greek text to be produced on a printing press, subsequently known as Textus Receptus ("Received Text").


The translators of the King James Version had over 5,000 manuscripts available to them, but they leaned most heavily on the major Byzantine manuscripts, particularly Textus Receptus because it agreed with the majority of manuscripts. The King James Version was published in 1611 and for 270 years was the accepted Bible of record.

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were Anglican churchmen who had contempt for the Textus Receptus and began a work in 1853 that resulted, after 28 years, in a Greek New Testament based on the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts, particularly two documents; The Codex Vaticanus and The Codex Sinaiticus.

They had some rules for their method of translation, foremost was that the oldest manuscripts are closest to the originals. This seems reasonable until you investigate what the oldest manuscripts are.


They said that shorter is better. If you’re looking at manuscripts and one has less words than the other, they preferred the shorter version because they said it was more likely that something was added than that something was omitted. That’s pure speculation, but that’s how they did it.


They said that the more difficult a reading was, the closer it was to the original, because they said copyists had tried to make the scriptures easier to read over the years.


They said if there was a mistake, the mistake was closer to the original because it was probably corrected in later texts. That’s how you get mistakes like Mark 1:2.


And they said that the majority means nothing. So if you have over 5,000 documents and they are in agreement 90% of the time and you have 2 documents that are older than all the rest, where there is a difference you ignore the majority and use the 2 oldest documents as your source. That’s what they did. They preferred the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus over the majority. Let’s look at these documents.
Continued

 

[RLT63]

The Codex Vaticanus gets its name from the place where it is stored the Vatican library. It is regarded as the oldest and rarest existing Greek copy of the Bible. It has been dated to around 350 AD. It’s over 90% intact which is incredible for a manuscript its age. The reason it’s rare is because it wasn’t copied. People realized there was a problem with it and they didn’t copy it. That’s also why it’s in good shape. It wasn’t handled and worn by people copying it.

It’s one of four uncial manuscripts dating before the year 1,000 and it is considered the most significant. It’s curious that it’s given the position of most important when the actual quality of the manuscript leaves much to be desired.


Dean Burgon describes the quality of Vaticanus as follows:

“Codex Vaticanus comes to us without a history, without recommendation of any kind except that of antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription on every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.”


The New Westminister Dictionary of the Bible concurs:

“It should be noted however that there is no prominent Biblical manuscript in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammer and omission as in Vaticanus.”


So the Vaticanus scribe wasn’t top tier. Some scholars would say he wasn’t even middle of the pack. In the 10th or 11th century at least 2 scribes made corrections to Vaticanus so that means it’s not entirely a 4th century version, some of it is from the 10th or 11th century. One of the correctors even left a note for the other corrector.


Someone corrected Hebrews 1:3 but the other corrector objected and wrote “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!” Apparently the note writer regarded the document as a museum piece to be protected and preserved and not as a copy of scripture to be used as such.

The Codex Vaticanus is a mediocre document at best. It’s held in such high regard simply because it is old.

Codex Sinaiticus takes its name from where it was found, St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It was found by a man named Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf. He was going through documents that were going to be burned when he found Sinaiticus. So it was found in the trash.



Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. The Codex Sinaiticus website says the following;

No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.


They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life – said the following:On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.


Tischendorf also that said he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” He goes on to say:

The New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.



By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts ever found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts that have been found.


Yet Westcott and Hort preferred these 2 manuscripts and the critical text used for today’s versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts and mostly agree with Westcott and Hort’s work.


Both men were strongly influenced by those who denied the deity of Jesus Christ and embraced the prevalent Gnostic heresies of the period. There are over 3,000 contradictions in the four gospels alone between these manuscripts. They deviated from the traditional Greek text in 8,413 places.

They conspired to influence the committee that produced The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881 revision), and, thus, their work has been a major influence in most modern translations, dethroning the Textus Receptus.

Detractors of the traditional King James Version regard the Westcott and Hort as a more academically acceptable literary source for guidance than the venerated Textus Receptus. They argue that the disputed passages were added later as scribal errors or amendments.

Defenders of the Textus Receptus attack Westcott and Hort (and the Alexandrian manuscripts) as having removed these many passages, noting that these disputed passages underscore the deity of Christ, His atonement, His resurrection, and other key doctrines. They note that Alexandria was a major headquarters for the Gnostics, heretical sects that had begun to emerge even while John was still alive.

(It is also evident that Westcott and Hort were not believers and opposed taking the Bible literally concerning the Atonement & Salvation, they didn’t believe in Hell and the most damning evidence against them is their own words. If you read their personal writings you wouldn't dream of letting them lead your Sunday School class!)


Most modern versions of the Bible are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they are the oldest. The experts say the Majority Text (the Byzantine type) are corrupted and these verses missing from the Alexandrian texts were added later to the Byzantine texts (the Majority). They say the Byzantine texts should not even be considered. But the evidence is that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt.

There remains a persistent bias against the Byzantine Text type in Critical Text advocates. Here’s Dan Wallace – arguably the most respected New Testament textual critic alive today – talking about one of our oldest manuscripts, the Codex Alexandrius.

“Codex Alexandrius is a very interesting manuscript in that in the Gospels, it’s a Byzantine text largely, which means it agrees with the majority of manuscripts most of the time. While as, in the rest of the New Testament, it is largely Alexandrian. These are the two most competing textual forms, textual families, text types if you want to call them that, that we have for our New Testament manuscripts. So when you get outside the Gospels, Alexandrius becomes very important manuscript.” – Dan Wallace

Source: YouTube. (Only 1:35 long, starting at about 0:53)



Please notice the casual dismissal of the Byzantine text type by one of the most respected textual critics of our age. I’m honestly not sure why it’s dismissed so easily. Codex Alexandrius is the third oldest (nearly) complete manuscript, dating from the early 400s. Why dismiss the Gospels just because they are a different text type?


We have 5000+ manuscripts of the New Testament, though many are smaller fragments. In the last ~140 years since the Westcott & Hort 1881 Critical Text, we’ve discovered Papyri from the 300s, 200s, and even a few from the 100s. Despite this, the Critical Text of the New Testament remains virtually unchanged from ~140 years ago. Because they prefer the Alexandrian text types.

The following is regarding the Alexandrian text type manuscripts.

However, the antiquity of these manuscripts is no indication of reliability because a prominent church father in Alexandria testified that manuscripts were already corrupt by the third century. Origen, the Alexandrian church father in the early third century, said:

“…the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please.”

( From Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152). (Bruce Metzger was one of the editors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament that is the basis for modern translations.)


Origen is of course speaking of the manuscripts of his location, Alexandria, Egypt. By an Alexandrian Church father’s own admission, manuscripts in Alexandria by 200 AD were already corrupt. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, though not in Alexandria, made a similar admission on the state of corruption among New Testament manuscripts. Daniel B. Wallace says, “Revelation was copied less often than any other book of the NT, and yet Irenaeus admits that it was already corrupted — within just a few decades of the writing of the Apocalypse.

There’s an argument to be made that the Alexandrian Text type was corrupted very early.

So the same argument they use against The Majority Text can be used against the Alexandrian Texts.

 

[RLT63]

I'm really enjoying the NET Bible Full Notes Edition and accessing it online when I'm on my PC.

 

[Robert Gwin]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: List of major textual variants in the New Testament
The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

The citations of manuscript authority use the designations popularized in the catalog of Caspar René Gregory, and used in such resources (which are also used in this remainder of this article) as Souter,[7] Nestle-Aland,[8] and the UBS Greek New Testament[9] (which gives particular attention to 'problem' verses such as these).[10] Some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions.[11]

The criterion for the editorial decision about excluding these passages was never religious doctrine or sentiment, but always whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was probably in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. The removal or relegation of these verses was done in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated (but not originated) by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, "Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into 'the sure word' of 'The Book of Life'."[12] A movement called King James Version Only (KJVO), which believes that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (1611) in English is the true word of God, has sharply criticized these translations for the omitted verses.[13][14]

In most instances another verse, elsewhere in the New Testament and remaining in modern versions, is very similar to the verse that was omitted because of its doubtful provenance. These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.


Contents
1 The sixteen omitted verses
1.1 (1) Matthew 17:21
1.2 (2) Matthew 18:11
1.3 (3) Matthew 23:14
1.4 (4) Mark 7:16
1.5 (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
1.6 (7) Mark 11:26
1.7 (8) Mark 15:28
1.8 (9) Luke 17:36
1.9 (10) John 5:3–4
1.10 (11) Acts 8:37
1.11 (12) Acts 15:34
1.12 (13) Acts 24:6–8
1.13 (14) Acts 28:29
1.14 (15) Romans 16:24
1.15 (16) 1 John 5:7–8
2 Some other omitted verses
2.1 Matthew 20:16 (b)
2.2 Mark 6:11 (b)
2.3 Luke 4:8 (b)
2.4 Luke 9:55–56
2.5 Luke 23:17
2.6 Acts 9:5–6
2.7 Acts 13:42
2.8 Acts 23:9 (b)
3 Not omitted but boxed
3.1 Mark 16:9–20
3.2 John 7:53–8:11
4 Other English translations
5 Versification differences
5.1 Romans 14 and 16
5.2 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.3 3 John 15
5.4 Revelation 12:18
6 See also
7 References


I’m sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.
The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
The NIV and ESV and other versions have also now removed 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones.

Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 18:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Mark 7:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:44Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:46Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Luke 17:36Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); John 5:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Acts 8:37Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
…you will not believe your eyes.
Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (King James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV or ESV
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV and many more versions are affected.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

Sometimes certain versions add verses that are not in the oldest manuscripts. An example is John 8:1-12. Although most of the additions harmonize with other passages, one who is a translator need to make sure that they are not adding to, or subtracting from the original passages. No doubt words must be added for understanding as one today simply cannot make heads or tails of the original, or at least what we believe was contained in the original. One reason to use the KJV is that many people actually think because of it's old English that it actually is the Bible, so they respect it, and if one can make a point with it, perhaps that point will stick with them and move their heart to serve God.

 

[RLT63]

Sometimes certain versions add verses that are not in the oldest manuscripts. An example is John 8:1-12. Although most of the additions harmonize with other passages, one who is a translator need to make sure that they are not adding to, or subtracting from the original passages. No doubt words must be added for understanding as one today simply cannot make heads or tails of the original, or at least what we believe was contained in the original. One reason to use the KJV is that many people actually think because of it's old English that it actually is the Bible, so they respect it, and if one can make a point with it, perhaps that point will stick with them and move their heart to serve God.

But are the oldest manuscripts really the best?

 

[Pearl]

Why should we use KJV on the internet? There is no should about it, we each have a choice of so many good translations today that are easier to read and understand. To say we 'should' use the KJV is legalistic. I used to know a site comparing the KJV and the NIV ,and the KJV was proved to be wanting. But just as I would not criticise anther's preference I don't expect anybody to criticise mine either. This can be such a big issues on some sites that have been banned for using the NIV - and that's just not a good Christian attitude.

 

[Deborah_]

The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…

Neither "Jehovah" nor "Calvary" nor "Holy Ghost" should be in a modern Bible. They are accidents of translation, not in the original text. "Jehovah" should really be YHWH, "Calvary" (a Latin word) is better rendered "Place of the Skull", and "Holy Ghost" should always be "Holy Spirit".

And if I want to quote e.g. Mark 16: 9-20 or John 5:3,4 or I John 5:7,8 I can easily do so using the NIV translation of these supposedly "missing" verses, all of which are printed in every edition of the NIV that I've ever used.

 

[RLT63]

Neither "Jehovah" nor "Calvary" nor "Holy Ghost" should be in a modern Bible. They are accidents of translation, not in the original text. "Jehovah" should really be YHWH, "Calvary" (a Latin word) is better rendered "Place of the Skull", and "Holy Ghost" should always be "Holy Spirit".

And if I want to quote e.g. Mark 16: 9-20 or John 5:3,4 or I John 5:7,8 I can easily do so using the NIV translation of these supposedly "missing" verses, all of which are printed in every edition of the NIV that I've ever used.

I think you'll find John 5:4 is missing. Here are the notes from The NET on John 5:4
tc The majority of later mss (C Θ Ψ 078 ƒ M) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (A D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (P א B C* T co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations. You'll find there are many verses in the KJV and the NKJV that are omitted in the NIV and other modern translations. I like the NET Full Notes Edition because it has notes to explain why the decision was made to exclude these verses. I like the NKJV the NASB95 and the NET

 

[farouk]

But are the oldest manuscripts really the best?

@RLT63 Even among themselves, Alexandrinus and Tischendorf, etc disagree at lot.

I think it's good to regard the text as preserved within the whole of the textual evidence.

 

[RLT63]

@RLT63 Even among themselves, Alexandrinus and Tischendorf, etc disagree at lot.

I think it's good to regard the text as preserved within the whole of the textual evidence.

See posts #6 and #7

 

[farouk]

See posts #6 and #7

I think there is a lot to be said indeed for the Byzantine text........

 

[Robert Gwin]

But are the oldest manuscripts really the best?

Of course, the Bible was completed by 100 CE, no new inspired writings have been written, and the original does not exist. We have several early copies to examine to refine for errors to have an accurate rendering. Keep in mind, the KJV was translated from them as well.

 

[dev553344]

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: List of major textual variants in the New Testament
The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

The citations of manuscript authority use the designations popularized in the catalog of Caspar René Gregory, and used in such resources (which are also used in this remainder of this article) as Souter,[7] Nestle-Aland,[8] and the UBS Greek New Testament[9] (which gives particular attention to 'problem' verses such as these).[10] Some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions.[11]

The criterion for the editorial decision about excluding these passages was never religious doctrine or sentiment, but always whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was probably in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. The removal or relegation of these verses was done in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated (but not originated) by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, "Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into 'the sure word' of 'The Book of Life'."[12] A movement called King James Version Only (KJVO), which believes that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (1611) in English is the true word of God, has sharply criticized these translations for the omitted verses.[13][14]

In most instances another verse, elsewhere in the New Testament and remaining in modern versions, is very similar to the verse that was omitted because of its doubtful provenance. These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.


Contents
1 The sixteen omitted verses
1.1 (1) Matthew 17:21
1.2 (2) Matthew 18:11
1.3 (3) Matthew 23:14
1.4 (4) Mark 7:16
1.5 (5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46
1.6 (7) Mark 11:26
1.7 (8) Mark 15:28
1.8 (9) Luke 17:36
1.9 (10) John 5:3–4
1.10 (11) Acts 8:37
1.11 (12) Acts 15:34
1.12 (13) Acts 24:6–8
1.13 (14) Acts 28:29
1.14 (15) Romans 16:24
1.15 (16) 1 John 5:7–8
2 Some other omitted verses
2.1 Matthew 20:16 (b)
2.2 Mark 6:11 (b)
2.3 Luke 4:8 (b)
2.4 Luke 9:55–56
2.5 Luke 23:17
2.6 Acts 9:5–6
2.7 Acts 13:42
2.8 Acts 23:9 (b)
3 Not omitted but boxed
3.1 Mark 16:9–20
3.2 John 7:53–8:11
4 Other English translations
5 Versification differences
5.1 Romans 14 and 16
5.2 2 Corinthians 13:14
5.3 3 John 15
5.4 Revelation 12:18
6 See also
7 References


I’m sure you know that NIV was published by Zondervan but is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of Gay Sex.
The NIV has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and omnipotent to name but a few…
The NIV and ESV and other versions have also now removed 45 complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on our devices and phones.

Try and find these scriptures in NIV or ESV on your computer, phone or device right now if you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 18:11Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Mark 7:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:44Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 9:46Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Luke 17:36Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 23:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); John 5:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available); Acts 8:37Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)
…you will not believe your eyes.
Let’s not forget what the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) (King James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV or ESV
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All these changes occur when they ask you to update the app. On your phone or laptop etc. Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the Bible as we know it; NIV and many more versions are affected.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations - Wikipedia

The KJV has some incorrect translations. The NKJV is better probably.

 

[RLT63]

Of course, the Bible was completed by 100 CE, no new inspired writings have been written, and the original does not exist. We have several early copies to examine to refine for errors to have an accurate rendering. Keep in mind, the KJV was translated from them as well.

The KJV was not translated from the earliest texts. See posts # 6 and #7

 

[RLT63]

The KJV has some incorrect translations. The NKJV is better probably.

I like the NKJV. The books Differences in Bible Versions and Editing God both recommend the NKJV. Differences Between Bible Versions.
Editing God: Textual Criticism and Modern Bibles Analyzed - Kindle edition by Fortner, Michael D.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.