Deleted Bible Verses

T

tjguitarz

New Member
Why are there verses deleted from my ESV or NIV?

Example: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16... and others.
 
here is a great quote on this topic from a Pastor I like:

Textual criticism is a huge area, and needs much more then my thoughts on it, it is also highly divisive so we need to be careful. Also bear in mind that I am speaking New testament only at the moment!

The original autographs, ie the original texts, as recorded by the Apostles, Gospel writers etc are lost, what we have are many copies of them, some complete manuscripts of Books, or the entire new testament, some just fragments of passages, some are very, very old.

Simply put the ESV, NIV and others are based on a different group of manuscripts (Critical text) to the NKJV, AV (received text and majority text) and two different theories of which is the best text.

The critical text is thought to be the best because the key manuscripts are the oldest, whereas the majority text proponents will say that the vast majority of manuscripts support their tradition as best.

The CT and the RT differ in many places, one such difference is the number of texts that are to be found in RT that are not in the CT, hence the' omissions' in some versions of the bible. Interestingly the NIV and ESV does not 'omit' every text that is not to be found in the CT, if it did we would loose the last few verses of Marks gospel.

Actually though the amazing thing about studying this, is that we realize that no matter, or minor doctrine is effected or lost whichever textual group you prefer, meaning that God has truly preserved his word from error over the centuries. the other amazing thing is the just how few differences there actually are. We are talking about manuscripts copied out by hand over many centuries, in a huge area of the world - the similarities are amazing, no other book has been preserved as the bible has been.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
UH..no. If you read the verses that are deleted with them back in it does have an affect on the context of the books.
 
Actually the reason the NIV and ESV exclude those verses is that both translations of Scriptures used by the NIV & ESV are later dated manuscripts then used by the KJV for example.
In those copies used by the the NIV & ESV those verses are excluded, however most good NIV Bibles include a footnote denoting that these verses have been left out.

Basically what Ewok said..
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's still online but there was a very revealing interview with some of the the folks involved with the NIV where they stated the reasons for the deletions were that they as a majority felt the deleted verses aren't relative and not needed. The deletions were simply a decision by the council not based on manuscripts but their own feelings. There's also over 64,000 individual words deleted from the NIV on top of the entire verse deletions.

http://www.google.com/search?q=niv+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://tracts4god.googlepages.com/bibleversions

http://www.geocities.com/cobblestoneministries/whythekingjamesbible.html

If i can find that interview i'll post it pot haste..:)
 
Last edited:
Well calling them deletions is actually a point of view isn't it? Many renown scholars would call them additions that the other texts made.

Either one group of manuscripts has additions or the other has deletions.

Neither one can be proven so its a matter of which theory of interpretation you are going with.
 
I agree with the unnamed Pastor that Ewoks quoted.

Having studied the topic in some detail in both a public university with antiquity scholars and in a seminary with Biblical Scholars, I speak with a bit of hands on research.

It is my personal belief that the additions came after the original manuscript was written. The person who wrote the book did not place it in his or her first writing. The way the study of ancient documents goes one attempts to get as close to the original as possible. Therefore if you find a text that predates another it becomes a standard. This is true not just in biblical criticism but also in the works of Plato, Buddah, Mao, Shakesphere, and many many others.

Based on this belief, while I enjoy what the additional stories or verses (the chapter and verse numbers are later additions as well). I do not base theology on them.

I also am willing to be wrong if thru the study of the ancient documents something else is discovered. I also recognize many people have different beliefs about these additions. I find it an area where there is some freedom under guide lines. I will not allow it to be an issue that keeps me from fellowship with another believer.

Just my thoughts.
 
the NIV isn't based on ancient documents..that's the huge issue. It based on documents younger than the ones used for the kjv. It's not additions the kjv has..it's deletions the niv did.
 
Just use the NASB, its the most accurate translation I've found in modern english. A good study Bible like the Ryrie Study Bible also helps.

I hate to say it because some of you will linch me, but the NIV borders on a transliteration rather than a word for word translation. It is highly inaccurate, get an Interlinear Bible you will see. I don't own a NIV, nor would I buy one. In church the pastor is always correcting it and refering to other translations like the NASB and ESV.

The ESV is a more accurate translation than the NIV, but I don't like the fact that they don't capitolize the personal pronouns refering to God, I think it is very disrespectful imho.

In order to be a good translation all manuscripts need to be looked at, not just one group or another. Scripture is God breathed, as far as i'm concerned any translation that is not word for word including all verses should be approached with caution.

Rev 22:18 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;
Rev 22:19 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.

Call me a stale literalist if you wish, but those are my 2 cents.
 
Hescominsoon said:
the NIV isn't based on ancient documents..that's the huge issue. It based on documents younger than the ones used for the kjv. It's not additions the kjv has..it's deletions the niv did.
Click to expand...

This is not an accurate statement....

The KJV was based off mostly Latin texted that were available in the time it was written.

The NIV is based off what is referred to as the UBS (united bible society) text of Greek manuscript some dated as early as 100 to 200 AD.

Please don't cloud the discussion with items that are simply one website's opinion and not that of the body of scholars or the community of faith.

NIV editors describe what they did.

Discussion of Greek textual criticism thru out history

UBS Website

The KJV is a good Bible.

The NIV is a good Bible.

The French version of the Bible is a wonderful translation from what I have been told.

I hear the Chinese one is a little rough but they are working on it.

I hope this helps keep things in perspective.
 
Captain_Tea said:
In order to be a good translation all manuscripts need to be looked at, not just one group or another. Scripture is God breathed, as far as i'm concerned any translation that is not word for word including all verses should be approached with caution.
Click to expand...

I won't lynch you...

I will tell you have I have an interlinear and can read both lines :eek:

The issue i have with word for word is quite simple. In Greek word order is different than in English. English is noun-verb-clause for the most part. In Greek order does not work like that. So you could write in greek- red went fast car and be good based on word endings. that does not read so well in english. In some sense all translations have to work out word order.

The other issue is that one can and actually has to in Greek classes, write an entire paragraph on one greek verb. It is very often difficult to translate one word for one word.

I prefer thought for thought translation. What is the context of the section of scripture based on who the person receiving the text was and then how does that fit into my context today.

God uses whatever translation he sees fit. They are all God breathed.

Again I hear that French version really rocks...

To bad I don't know French...
 
You also have to factor in that English has fewer words for things (particularly when you factor in that the parts of the dictionary in use is shrinking). Hebrew has a TON of words to describe "God", and multiple words that literally mean "love" but are of varying levels of depth.
 
Actually Icthus the KJV and the NASB use the same manuscripts both Hebrew & Greek, although there was some Latin text used for comparison. They used a more literal rendering of the original texts whereas the ESV & NIV use a liberal translation of the verses. To go back to your statement of Latin being used in the KJV is true in part. Jerome translated scripture from the original Hebrew & Greek texts and compiled the Latin Vulgate around the 5h century which was used as a reference point for the KJV. Portions of the New & Old Testament in most prominents translations of the Bible use the Latin Vulgate as a reference point including the KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, and many others.

I personally have no issues with any translation of the Scripture except those which blatantly misinterept Scripture which there are quite a few out there. As far as my personal preference I use the KJV of the New Open Bible for my personal study and the NASB is a close second because I feel from the evidences through my seminary classes that these two translations are the most accurate in relating to the original texts. I personally don't use or like the NIV or ESV because they omit those verses, however I do not think any less of my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who do use those translations as a point of fact I have several good Pastor friends who use other translations and I am fully confident in their knowledge of Scripture. Most contemporary Christian laymen/women have very little knowledge of the original texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or whatever the case may be and therefore do not consider picking up an NIV, KJV or any other translation.

The debate over translations is nothing new it has been around since the very first man sat down to pen the Scriptures. Case in point Jerome was considered a heretic for even attempting to translate the Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate, many other were outsed from the Church because of this mute point, Wycliffe for example was also considered a heretic by the "church" for his translation.

In summation this thread could essentially go on for years, decades or even centuries with no clear "winner" in the debate. Ultimately we will have our answers one day as we stand before the Lord, but until that time let us freely discuss the importance of Scripture in the live of every Christian and realize that we serve the same Lord and Savior.

Amen.

Side note: I think everyone should learn a little Greek and Hebrew and study the originals texts of the Bible as it would really give us a better overall understanding of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top