Feeling really sad after reading all the comments. People having a go at each other. People thinking they have all the answers. My advice... dig deeper.... check things out.... Pray about it.... Encourage each other. Love God... love others. How does this all look to unbelieving people? We can do so much better than this.
@Buddy Aces MXBC you speak true, we just can't take things lightly because someone calls themselves a scholar. Their PHD doesn't know more than Gods PHD. Some of this scholars think they know more than any of us. Specifically when Jesus crushed the so scholars and teachers of his time. Satan is a dirty bastard, an he has been trying to change scriptures for the longest. The truth if the matter is. That we don't need any more Bible revisions. We have plenty of bibles already. I don't care if we where living in the year 2050. Christians can't just be taking everything humans say. We are all liars. I understand some things can be correct, but I'm not going to be putting my faith in any scholars.
Good. You should feel sad. It's a horrible thing to see "scholars" playing a part in this mass apostasy because they defend Bibles that cast shade on the true authority and inerrancy of the Holy Bible.
It reminds me of when Paul was in prison and someone came to him to tell him how they were preaching a false Jesus, and Paul said "better to preach Jesus than not to preach him at all"..
So sad to see my apparent brothers and sister’s in Christ tearing each other apart in these comments. This is not a representation of God’s heart. If you feel that KJV only is best for you, that’s great - but don’t discourage young new believers from reading a translation that they can better comprehend.
Not going to lie, saw a post on another youtube video which led me down a rabbit hole which ultimately let me to this video and now I am sitting here thinking.....have I been doing this wrong???? As a former Catholic, who wasn't really encouraged to study the word but more memorize/recite, and now a Christian I have been trying to study and learn the word and although overwhelming at times it has been so insightful. A friend had gifted me a Life Application Study Bible NIV and it has been helpful but then earlier tonight I realized verses had been removed it scared me. So thank you for posting what you did, it makes me feel better but still sitting here scratching my head thinking, "now what? what do I believe?" SIGH
Unfortunately nobody sees the truth of the niv. 1. Footnotes denotes the authenticity of the text. 2. The niv calls the Lord the devil in Isaiah 14:12. You can check it and compare with Revelation 22:16 and Hebrews 13:8. 3. It lies to you in Mark 1:2. 4. Hosea 11:12 says But Judah is unruly against God, while the KJV says Yet Judah ruleth with God. Conclusion. It is not discouragement to tell someone the truth.
Tony Barron You are not telling anyone the truth. Isaiah 14:12 is referring to Satan and makes no connection between him and God. It is you who are lying about these verses. I checked it out.
@@study2037 Ask an Orthodox Lutheran Pastor that Studies the Original languages which is the Inspired WORD of God. 1Cor4:1 “Let men account of us as Servants of Christ, and stewards of the Mysteries of God.” “The Office of The Called Servants.”
@@tonybarron6377Unfortunately another KJV Idolater lying about the NIV. Nowhere does the NIV say Jesus is the devil. The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an it four times denying his deity. The NIV corrects this.
" translators don't leave out verses for theological reasons. " This is laughable. Such a broad brush. I watched the first 2 minutes of this video and had to stop because there were that many things wrong that could be taken to task. Wescott and Hort ='s Nestle Aland 27th edition which is the basis for most modern English versions. That's the thing to learn about...and it's not good. Also, 1 John 5:7...ESV footnote ??? Not even there ??? How??? My point is not whether the verse should be included or not, but how do you not footnote the biggest textual criticism issue of all ? That's just for starters.
Don you have it there. Wescott and Hort were trying to create a new version that would destroy old ideas. Just because some text is older doesn't make it better.
If you do enough research on the differences in the texts of various versions of the Bible, you will find that those differences are not so cut and dry. The translators who translated the KJV and the ones who translated the NIV used different sets of manuscripts. The KJV translators didn't have as many manuscripts that they have now. There are variations in the wording of the text but none of which changes the overall meaning. Anyone can nit pic at these differences when comparing other translations of the Bible to KJV but this is an error within itself due to the fact that the KJV is a translated version from copies of manuscripts just as every other English translation is. I would also point out that if you want to point to these differences as a corruption then consider the differences and variations of the four gospels. Not all the gospels agree on every detail. This however is no error. These are simply showing that even through different eyes and different perspective views and memories of the authors, they still told the same overall account of Jesus's life, death and resurrection. Those differences only strengthen the validity and reliability of the Bible. People act like a modern, simplified version that still gets the message across, is somehow a corrupt version just because it doesn't get as detailed as another translation. This is why you don't limit yourself to just one translation. What one version lacks in one aspect, another can pick up the slack in understanding. There is no such thing as a perfect English translation of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts that form the Bible, and that includes the beloved KJV.
@@joesteele3159 I know you mean well, but I'm afraid you're just on the surface. I hate to sound all conspiracy theorist, but there really are some really big issues with the "older" manuscripts that are a bit more nefarious than is on the surface of just translation from one language to another. Wescott and Hort and many others were deliberately trying to get rid of many of the ideas that the Textus Receptus put forth. They weren't even Christian people yet they are the "fathers" of the modern translations so to speak. Good thing is, we have a lot of their letters still in record so if you do enough research... you'll be able to see a massive, major corruption.
@@CrossroadToCountry I think all of us are just on the surface. There is so much information floating around that support each side of the debate and seek to debunk the other side that it's truely next to impossible to discern who is giving the correct knowledge. I've been a KJV guy all my life. I love how it words the scriptures and puts the word of God in a powerful way. But I also can appreciate the limitations when it comes to it. I might have a good understanding of the words in the KJV but some people do not. I've known a few people personally who tried to get into Bible reading with the KJV and later gave up because they weren't grasping it. That was back when I was extremely hostile to the NIV and other translations because of things I had heard and so I would discourage them from reading other translations. Looking back now I want to kick myself for doing that. Those same people have completely stopped even trying to understand the word of God and I might be personally responsible for them never receiving salvation because of my actions. I've read several things about Westcott and Hort. They may have very well been very corrupt themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean their work is corrupt. God is awesome in ways we can't imagine and can use even the most wicked people to carry out His work. When I study the Bible; I read and compare the passages that I'm reading with several translations to see how they differ from one another. I have yet to find any theological or doctrinal changes. Wording is of course different in many places but it's essentially saying the same thing and the overall message and doctrines are not hindered. We shouldn't be basing the accuracy or the legitimacy of one translation off of another. The KJV is simply a translation just as the modern versions are. We don't have the original manuscripts but we do have very reliable ones that we can use to compare the English text to. If you know of a doctrine that has been completely altered by the NIV or NASB or equivalents to those then I would be interested in seeing those as I might have missed something. I'm far from perfect and mistakes are a very real possibility when it comes to my studies.
Why is it very hard for somebody to understand that NIV or other bible translation did not include verses which are not in the older manuscript? but rather put it as a footnote? What is so hateful about that? Is adding words which are not in older manuscript is good and omitting the words which are not really included is evil? The first bible that I had read is KJV, and I had seen some italicized words and it was noted that those italicized words were not in the original manuscript but added for the sake of grammar and that was understandable.
The verse is speaking of more than one person. We can't read it self centered as if it only pertains to you or me. It pertains to all believers. If there are 50 people who become believers in Christ, #1 believes and is saved. #2 believes and is saved. #3 believes and is saved and so on. Is it safe to say that if I look out at the crowd, there are 50 people BEING saved today? The word of God is spirit. It's not a legal document to be poured over and picked at from a legalistic viewpoint. But if we must act like we are practitioners of the law, lets do so righteously and fairly. The word of God says not to take away OR add to the word. Yes? It doesn't say it's ok to add words as long as they don't change what we think the verse means (italics in many versions, including kjv). Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, not reading the kjv bible or any one other specific version. And all of the versions I have read over the years make clear that Jesus is Lord and is the only way to salvation. We need to stop being legalistic and straining at gnats, but swallowing flies for no other reason than to feel like we have proven our point (we need to look inside ourselves). We run the risk of damaging others faith. But since it seems I'm just arguing as well, I'm done. sorry for being long winded.
@@vidvuer1 actually what you said makes sense. Expecially the part about how we can damage others faith. What your saying is true. We Christians need to stop quarrling about stupid things. Some things need to be said but in the end, the real question is do you believe that Jesus is the only way to the father? Did you live your life accordingly. Thanks for the input!!
The passage also has patristic citations. It is found in the Diatessaron of the second century. Tertullian (200 AD) notes that an "angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida." [3] The passage is also cited by Ambrose (397 AD), Didymus (398 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD) and Cyril (444 AD), demonstrating that both Greek and Latin fathers accepted the reading as genuine. If oldest is best it is cited by Tertullian second century.
@@MSA-uj7cp Well, we don’t have the “earliest” and church fathers citing the verse earlier than “our earliest” testifies that they had an earlier manuscript with the reading. The earliest we have are still 250 years+ after the original and verse 4 is what eventually was copied and recopied.
Very well said Bill. That was the clearest and most concise explanation of this topic I've come across. Thank you for all of your hard work and time, it's a massive blessing. I'm currently going through GRU (and after that will be re-attempting BBG) and it's just great to learn all of this from an experienced professional who has made it accessible to people like me. Thanks again, and God bless.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
@@ceciliatomas3834 I have NIV I’ve heard there’s many missing verses and mistranslations in that version Your gonna need to be specific on the books and verses that are missing so I know which version to get and correct to errors.
Bill Mounce would definitely agree with you! His whole argument is that some sentences in the late Greek copies had information accidentally added in to them by fallible human scribes. These mistakes were then incorporated into our older translation, like the KJV, ASV, etc, and were not what John, Mark, or Peter originally intended. So, those sentences, NOT in the original, which were added later, should be removed. Because we only want God’s Word! Just like Martin Luther when he moved the Apocrypha to the back of the Bible, which was later dropped all together, because that was also not God’s Word either, so these erroneous verses were moved to the footnotes to restore a more accurate rendering of God’s Word. Hope that helps. Take care :)
Just getting rid of the verses that were not there, as testified to in the earliest manuscripts. What he didn't add, was you can see the additions in the margins, which were moved into the text by the next generation of manuscript copiers in the 10th & 11th centuries. I've seen the pictures in various scholarly books about manuscript development and accuracy. You need to learn a bit more about textual criticism and manuscript discoveries!
@@deerugz2152 Hi Dee, and thanks for your comment. I agree with you that God does not make mistakes, people do. As for your first point, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Anyway, have a good day :)
Billl Mounce apparently is not paying attention to the comments responding to this video he made, so I ask again (in January 2021): Regarding John 5:4 - (1) What do you with Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, and (2) Why did you avoid mentioning Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, in this video? And some new questions have arisen during Dr. Mounce's silence: (3) Did the NIV's translators' theological views influence their decision to reject every Greek manuscript in the world except one in Mark 1:41? (4) Did the NIV's translators' theological views influence their decision not to include a footnote at Matthew 27:49, where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain a glaring error? (5) If one grants Dr. Mounce's claim ( c. 3:40 ) that early versions are "more reliable," why is the early Old Latin version's tesimony rejected, almost routinely, in the NIV's base-text? (6) Why should anyone regard Dr. Mounce's proposal that marginal readings were pulled into the text be regarded as nothing but an unrealistic fantasy in light of the research of James Royse?
What he doesn't bother to tell you is that Bibles were translated from different texts. One came out of Alexandria Egypt the other out of Antioch. I know of the church at Antioch I also know the Egypt was a picture of sin and worldliness. That is not the only difference in the Bible's but if you have a Bible that's missing verses he might want to get a real Bible
I don't think it's any coincidence that sin has gone rampant ever since these newfangled Bibles started being used widely. The churches have gotten extremely weak and worldly. It's not likely that the majority of the people going to church or even saved. Christianity is the number one religion in the world which is completely contradictory to what the Bible says. Straight is the gate now is the way and few there be that find it. Maybe they need to remember you must repent you must be born again. But what we have today are a bunch of mealy mouth preachers who will not preach God's word straight you know like Joel Osteen the man who would not say that Jesus was the only way to heaven when asked by Larry King...... Well I will say it Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the father but by him. If a preacher can't say that when it's directly coming from God's word then he's not a preacher he's a false prophet and this world is full of false prophets these days
@@martinbaker7032 Cult is a very serious allegation. I would not go that far. KJV was just one of the most popular earlier English versions. All of us have used it at one time in our faith if one is older than 30 years in the faith. I do not think it is really a cult
@@ubyy1 he's also not telling you that pre-electronic age communication writings are more accurate. During the electronic age, nothing is trustworthy. I'm curious to see if he answers my question about the translators using electronic communication or not when translating the 2011 version of the NIV. If they did, it explains the decisions they made. If you want authenticity, you need to look to the pre electronic communication age. The 1984 version should be safe.
There is nothing easier or accurate by doing this to the word of God, just leave it how it was, if you could understand before then why won't you be able to understand now? And there is no shortcuts in reading the bible, this is really annoying, cause I just bought a NIV Bible and as I was going through Matthew 17:21 it doesn't show the verse but it shows in the footnotes "Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29" and that's really frustrating cause I wanted to read it in Matthew 17:21 not in Mark....
You know, coming out of a "King James only" environment myself, I think I finally understand what makes these people tick-fear. It's too difficult for most of them to grapple with languages and meaning themselves. Instead, they rely on some dogmatic principle that denies scholarly and Spirit filled approaches. The KJV is a very good translation. I still read it but it is just that--a translation. Until you become proficient in koine Greek and biblical Hebrew or understand something about linguistics, I suggest you keep your traps shut and your minds open.
i think the biggest thing though, is the fact Christ specifically is mentioned a lot in KJV but left out in many verses in NIV which is unacceptable. Christ must always be recognized
I clearly have a problem with doors and gates in the NIV..nkjv or kjv Jesus said "I am the door"....NIV says "I am the gate"!?...I have learned that gates and doors have different meanings..gates=Law and door=Jesus/Grace....the NIV is watered down and has twisted the words of Jesus!! SMH!!!
Order the 1611 KJV sis. You will find that this book is our history. Job is black (Job 30:30), King of Solomon (1:5) and so many others. Also try Stephen Darby and IUIC on youtube. Peace and Blessings.
@@AishaIsrael_Benjamite Thank you very much I currently have the NIV adventure Bible and I’ve heard there are so many mistranslations and verses not inspired by god in it. Does KJV stand for King James Version? I’m familiar with it I haven’t read it at all though I’ll also check out Steven Darby on TH-cam Although I’m very young I’m 14 (2nd term of freshman year in high school) Oh and where can I order it? And from which author is it published by I want to make sure I don’t get the wrong KJV.
@@AishaIsrael_Benjamite *sigh* You’re part of the black Hebrew movement right? Look, I’m not trying to be mean nor do you read scripture not only in context but the actual words. I apologize if I misunderstand you but Job isn’t black, in fact I don’t believe the Bible says his skin color because…who cares, but the same misreading is scripture used here is the same that make some believe Jesus was black. Job is suffering and he say’s his skin is turning black, you know, because the onslaught of torment satan was allowed to cast? You can tell he isn’t black by the fact that it mentions his skin turning black or in the KJV version being black upon him due to the affliction visited on him…why would he describe his skin turning black due to rot? Why would that be unusual if he was already black? Why would the Bible mention Ethiopians as dark skinned or different if their own people looked similar? I don’t care either way what color biblical characters are but for the love of God please read the Bible correctly. A good example of contextual reading that can help is in Song of Solomon 1:5, it isn’t the king being described but his female bride…unless you’re trying to claim he was homosexual.
@@Broomful Stephan Darby is an illiterate idiot and heretic. Don’t follow him, but you should listen to him with a critical mind to truly understand. The man was the biggest name in the racist group called black Hebrews, he convinced many blacks that the Jews in Israel aren’t true Jews and only blacks are the real Jews. He convinced them that Jesus was black through either misread, misunderstood, or out of context scripture. The guys an idiot but we should know thy enemy. Remember 2 things, skin color doesn’t matter to God, or to anyone important in life, and read more than one translation of the Bible to get the fullest picture of scripture. You can’t rush discernment.
Not only that verse but Acts 8:37 is also missing in NIV. It's a common excuse saying that missing text like Acts 8:37 were simply not present in the original text and so the Codex Laudianus didn't have them but simply changed the numbering because scribes later added the missing verse. This however doesn't hold water as the Codex Laudianus was used to form the Minority Text. However the Codex Laudianus plainly states that it DID contain the missing text of Acts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Laudianus
Regarding John 5:4 - (1) What do you with Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, and (2) Why did you avoid mentioning Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, in this video?
James Snapp which is essential since Tertullian lived BEFORE the “oldest” manuscripts that this man cites as his authority for removing this pericope of scripture. The Patrisric writings get these guys every time, LOL.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
Well, I have an 1984 edition of the NIV where in 2 Sam 21 verse 19 has Elhanan killing Goliath. In the 2011 edition has Elhanan killing the bother of Goliath. So my old 1984 edition is out of date. So is this not adding scripture to the text? One would have to ask the question why the Holy Spirit allowed the "correct" and older texts to be lost for centuries and allow the "faulty" more modern texts to flourish. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11 [KJV]) That is why the Sinaiticus text was in the desert, no water, no life.
1) Why not mention the name of "B" which is Codex Vaticanus? 2) Erasmus knew about Codex Vaticanus, but he did not have personal access to it and he did not make accessing it a priority. Apparently he didn't realize how old it was and he did not particularly trust it Those are both points that make me curious about why you would ignore these facts.
Bill, you’re wrong. Without the contributions of Dr. David H. Stern and Phillip Goble, you wouldn’t know the NT is a Jewish story. Sabbath is there 67 times, but your team ignores it. Bias? You bet!
I have a NIV Bible and just last night I was going over scriptures with a sister in Christ who has a KJV Bible and she helped me to see that there are verses missing in the NIV Bible, I couldn't even find the verses in the footnotes, needless to say I ordered a NKJV Bible but my NIV Bible has helped me tremendously in understanding the text
Actually the NKJV is as corrupt as the NIV. See Gail Riplinger NKJV or the videos by Sam Gip as to how these people deceive people.. Especially good are the videos by David W Daniels..from Chick Tracts. He worked on Bible translation committees and found the Jesuits are involved in nearly ALL translations all over the globe. He blows all this man's lies to smitherines! He totally proves Sinaiticus is a fake written in the 17th century it is filled with deletions additions erasures leaves ripped out and others put in pages treated with lemon juice to make them look old. So it IS NOT the oldest and certainly NOT the best or most reliable! It shows the hands of at least five different correctors tampering with the text!
@@anthonyeusebius5834 The NKJV is not "just as corrupt"....it is still based the textus receptus, just like the KJV. It is nowhere near as "corrupted" as the NIV, which is blatantly corrupted.
soon people will put even more into the Bible, it will say gay marriage is okay, it is slowly working itself in there, need to stick with the 1611 KJV there's no changes needed.
This is a breath of fresh air! I’m tired of hearing the older manuscripts are corrupted. I started out KJV only until college when I experienced the NIV for the first time. I wasn’t a scholar so I didn’t know the differences. And now as a middle aged adult I wanted a more word for word translation and chose the ESV as my new bible. And now I’m researching the history of the Bible and textual criticism. I’m glad I came across your video!
Stay away from the ESV PLEASE LOOK AT THESE VERSES IN THE ESV COMPARED TO THE KJV HERE ARE THE VERSES, 1 JOHN 5:7 ACTS 4:27 ISAIAH 14:12 DANIEL 3:25 (THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ONE YET, IT CALLS JESUS THE SIN OF "gods"???? Read these please and respond soon please stay away from that wicked Bible.
Dr. James White just did a weekend seminar on the Textual Reliability of the New Testament and King James Onlyism at a local church in St. Charles, MO. The sessions are on TH-cam. Search for Covenant of Grace Church James White.
@@trapjuiceproductions8084 Daniel 3:25 were the words of Nebuchadnezzar. Read the text before and after. He knew he was looking at the one true God and his words expressed in such a way as to compare Him the only gods he knew of. Many in the OT do that.
TrapJuice Productions, in my ESV Dan 3:25, it doesn't say "sin of the gods." It's Nebuchadnezzar not knowing that the 4th person is either God or an angel and it says, "...like a son of the gods" because he doesn't yet know about the one true God of Israel. But in verse 28 (ESV) it states, "Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants.'"
Unfortunately, there are no perfect translations. Translators are men. They are not infallible. The only infallible texts are the ones the writers wrote. We don't have them. Our translations come from copies of copies. It is good to use multiple translations when doing bible study. KJV should be one of them. But other modern ones too. The main one I use is ESV, but I refer to multiple translations when doing a study. Thanks, Bill for the clear concise discussion about the matter.
For God's sake I just want to own a Bible to read n come closer to God. But reading all the comments I'm so confused I'm not educated or highly intellectual like u people i don't know which version is added or subtracted. For me i find kjv English hard to read n understand because I'm non English person i can only understand simple version of English eg; I can't understand poems but i can understand children's stories. So please anybody suggest me a good Bible to buy thank you!
I still don't get your reasoning behind, because it's earlier it's more reliable? How does being older be more reliable? Especially when there are fewer manuscripts? The Catholic church is not a trustworthy institution so why would we rely on a manuscript from that church. These are the things that make people not trust modern versions. And just telling people, "Oh just trust us", does not help. It will never help. Therefore, make modern versions with the TR as well .
exactly. Latin "Lucifer'(morning star/pl Venus) is an insertion for "Hesophorus". Hades(hell).....Leviathon(crocodile)....Goliath(cyclop "titan")....Zeu+s ~ Diu, Deo,Deus moses~Asclepius.....Eresh~Ceres....Cybele~ Bella donna.....its all Greek Mythology. @GALLI...... like @Attis....transfigured into @Cybele...at @Hilaria (easter Dies Sanguinis). what makes this reliable? >> statues in stone, Pigna at Vatican in bronze, yellow frocks. biblical?.....Matthew 19;12....GALATIONS....Greek Temples in Galla tia....phila-delphia ch 7. *in the 4th Crusade 1204.Latin Venetians, sacked greek east roman Byzantine Constantinople. The texts, went to the new capital..."Italian Rome". The Renaisance(knowledge) , was the ottomon 'Fall' in 1453....other Greek and Arabic/Assyr books.....entered Europe. @CASTRATO.......did they get to italy Rome in 204BC?...or Byzantine choirs in 1100s?.. or did it start with Origen,St Amun,Eusebius 300AD ?......Aristotle in Lyceum 350BC? i feel the lady priestess "gallas" singers of Temples & Ziggurats etc......were replaced by these lady-boy (transgender-transvestite) infiltraitors. The "Vestal Virgins", by a full eunech ....of course pre-pubescent, saves the 'soprano angelic boy voice'....and makes fem features. this is what the old manuscripts lead me to find..."early desert fathers"(eunechs)@ORIGEN.
All I know is that the Alexandria is where allegorization kind of started, which lead to Catholicism. While in no way do I suspect that the translators are doing anything to tamper with the word of God, it is possible that the scribes were. That being said this argument does not apply to the verse cited here. Nor does it apply to the trinity verse 1 John 5:7.
@@maxxiong Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
There no doubt in any true believers mind who has any discernment that the Byzantine line are the correct and accurate line of texts which puts almost all new translations as corrupted.
Why would you put a scripture in the footnotes? The NIV is known as the never improved version in the new ignorant version. And reads on the 9th grade level where the King James Bible reads on the 6th grade level.. apparently you need some more scriptural schooling 🤔
Older doesn't necessarily mean more reliable or correct. The source of the texts is what's important. People were corrupting and misinterpreting scripture from the beginning, as we see in Paul's letters to the first churches. If you assume that God's plan is to offer the gift of salvation to everyone, wouldn't the Holy Spirit write the correct version that He knew was to be the first book printed and used to spread the Gospel throughout the world? Surely God wouldn't mislead everyone. Modern scholars, impressed with the age of the scraps of versions they recently discovered could.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
What I find very disturbing is that since all these new translations have come into the churchis that every one brings their own translation and the pastor has his translation and reads scripture, it's hard to follow along because it's different than my KJV. Also the young people are in charge of the music and contemporary rock music is the singing time. No more hymns. The piano and organ have been removed. The ministerial has given in to the young people's demands. Many Christians carry a lot of baggage. One good pastor told me that these new Bible translations are written just for the making of money. And I will add also that today's music in the church is written just for money. You can find this on you tube. It's heart breaking to see and hear what is happening in today's church.
I will add and say that in today's Church there is a lot of jumping in the isles, dancing in the pews, falling about with fits of laughter - it's all about the beat. But this is a million miles from the true joy of the Christian. What the Church needs is good sound teaching. We know that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I agree with you on the music but new translations are not made for money instead they are made to be more accurate. The King James Version is not based on original texts that the author wrote instead it is based on texts that were available at the time which had been heavily changed. For this reason, the KJV is a bit inaccurate. If you think the KJV speaks to you the most or you grew up with it and prefer it then read it but don't say the new and more accurate ones are made for money because that is not true.
Thanks for this video.The topic on 17 verses in NIV in comparison to the KJV.As a former KJVOnly I can understand why this question was asked.My question why use KJV as standard why not the original Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New testament because these are nearest to the original.I'm glad I was enlightened into believing that different manuscripts are used and not question even the testimony of the users of modern Bible versions.
The NIV and ESV are my main Bibles and I find them extremely good but it is hard to have a totally accurate translation from ie Hebrew, so I always check the original Hebrew, it’s not saying the translation is wrong just that you get deeper from the original Hebrew and of course the Greek
@@DS-uo5ie That is because the Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan killed Goliath. The ESV remains faithful to the Hebrew text despite this being a likely copying error by the scribes. Pay attention to the footnote in the ESV for 2 Samuel 21:19. It points to 1 Chronicles 20:5 where it says Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath. The NIV does not translate 2 Samuel 21:19 as accurately as the ESV and modifies the verse from the Hebrew text. The NIV does this in other locations as well. The NIV modifies 1 Kings 4:26. ESV, NKJV, etc says Solomon had 40,000 horses for 12,000 horsemen. This is what the Hebrew text says. The NIV changes this verse to say 4,000 stalls for horses and 12,000 horses. The NIV makes this change from the Hebrew text to match 2 Chronicles 9:25. The other translations like ESV, NKJV, etc do not try to cover up these discrepancies the Hebrew text.
I’m amazed at how much I misunderstood the KJV until I started reading the NIV. My question is, with all the newly discovered biblical documents found since the KJV was written, were any ADDED that were not in the current KJV?
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book. REVELATION 22: 18 & 19 We all know that there is a verse 4, and that it has been omitted. I started my Christian walk reading the NIV, until I was following along with Pastor Hagee, and realized the verse was missing. It was not in the footnotes. I call these Bibles NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, Berean and any other New Version Bible, they are all new age Bibles. GOD new men were going to add to HIS WORDS, and take from HIS WORDS, that is why Revelation 22: 18 & 19 are in the BIBLE. Most of the verses missing from these new age bibles are JESUS’S WORDS. Who would want to delete JESUS’S WORDS? The devil, that’s who.
Why would they have originally skipped verse four in the first originals? Sounds to me like it always belonged there but was eventually unveiled and fixed and now they’re trying to remove it again.
They didn't skip it. They simply didn't write it. Had it not been included in the Greek text used by Robert Stephanus when he numbered the verses, we would never know that it even existed as no number would have been designated.
Thank you sir, for these great videos (as well as your books and translation work!) I must question one crucial statement you make here. You say, in all the years you have participated in bible translation you have NEVER seen anyone suggest a translation due to their personal theology. I offer a few cases for you to consider. First, 1 Peter 4:6 in the NIV. Even Dr. Kenneth Barker, in his own book about the NIV, admits the word "now" was added because it didn't make sense (to evangelical protestant theology?) to imagine the souls of the dead requiring any preaching. If the verse, according to most translations, indicates the gospel was preached "even to those who ARE dead," how is inserting "now" justified? Is it any different from Luther's infamous insertion of "alone" or "only" in Romans 3:28 to bolster sola fide? Likewise, in Psalm 138:2, Dr. Barker indicates "...since either rendering is possible, we chose ours on theological grounds." Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for you, Dr. Barker and the NIV. I just find it hard to imagine that renderings are never chosen based on the theology of the individual translators. Thanks so much and God bless you. (Edited to add second example and give proper title to Dr. Barker)
to be precise I believe Bill was saying that no whole verses are added or subtracted for theological reasons. What you're talking about I think is translating a sentence that is already there in a way that makes the authors intention clear, which I think you have a point with.
I use the 1984 niv version which has seemed to prove very dependable, but the 2011 niv version has many changes that does can change the meaning of scripture. Very concerning. Not particularly adding or taking away verses, but the words chosen and phrasing tend to change the actual meanings. If you want specifics, Preacherman Sage has a TH-cam channel and does a great job with some comparisons.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? -----. PLEASE READ TO THE END If you continue to read the NIV after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be United by TRUTH, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY. Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION, Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 19 AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15 JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? -----. PLEASE READ TO THE END If you continue to read the NIV after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be United by TRUTH, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY. Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION, Revelation 22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 19 AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15 JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
'If we shouldn't subtract from God's word, then it would be equally as bad to add to His word as well" (paraphrase) Very interesting take on the decision to exclude these verses and one that I would guess not many had considered. I know I hadn't.
Walter Relief that is what makes this argument so ludicrous. The omission of “through his blood” in Colossians affects doctrine i.e. the blood atonement. The omission of 1 John 5:7 affects the trinity of the Godhead. It could not be more disingenuous for this man to say that these omissions (they are clearly not additions) do not affect doctrine. He is lying to his audience.
Well first of all, the Ethiopian Eunuch was a grown man, and Catholics teach that an adult must believe to be baptized, so that verse doesn’t go against them at all...
Corey R Revelation 22:18 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”
exactly dude you are right and that is exactly what the KJV does it adds things that where not in the original transcripts written by the original authors.
Act 8: 37, the phrase of believing Jesus as Son of God is omitted. How many theological or doctrins are GONE without this fundamental verse? Why leaving it out?
The simplest of questions that i would be grateful if answered is why the original scripts skipped verse 4? It makes wise or chronological order that the verses should be in that order. But why then do the original scripts skip that position that all of us expect to be filled? Why are all other Bible scripture, except the 16 or 17 in the New Testament in order? And determine the importance of these missing verses in these scriptures? And further, I believe, unless proven otherwise, that the King James Version is older than the NIV and others which miss these verses. Why are these older versions complete and the later missing verses?
well...iesus collegium Oxford 1500s...deer~hart....sacred heart.. Lawerence & the Habiru.. Prometheus David........Galli = Cybele ineOracle........iheshu+s , replaced /hid Attis...... PIGNA= seed of Attis tree= xmas trees........easter was the Hilaria....Dies Sanguinis....... @CASTRATO......do your emeritus ever mention this little mystery? (Matthew 19;12).
Whaaaaat? so an average person reading who don't care to really read the footnote and or is unaware can just continue to skip read the actual script!? NIV is there to confuse people only God can open ones understanding. This preacher is well versed in what he's saying but he is misled!! Stick to kjv or nkjv!!
You must be kidding me to say this man is well versed to deceive That just tells me truth goes right over your head. And your arrogance is so high you take what he said as deceiving??
Thank you for clearing this up for me. I’m in a discussion with a Pentecostal pastor who uses the King James and he said to me in a comment reply that the footnotes take away from the Authority of Scripture, is this true or is he just blowing smoke?
No. The footnotes just convey the reality of the manuscript data. Truth doesn't take away from the Bible's authority. You can trust many good modern versions. ESV, NASB, CSB... even NIV 2011. NKJV is a fine translation, but I'm of the view that the TR is an inferior manuscript tradition. It's still the Bible and God's Word, but less accurate in communicating what the authors wrote.
"discussion with a Pentecostal pastor" reveals that you're not Pentecostal. Always take footnotes with a grain of salt. Some are good and some are BAD! James says if any lack wisdom, let them ask of God. Do your best to rely on the Lord for understanding of Scripture as much as possible.
I have a 1611 KJV Reprint and it has Marginal notes, variant readings, and a preface from the translators that speaks directly to the translation issue
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I appreciate it. However, what are the other 16 verses that differ between the Alexandrian Text and the Textus Receptus?
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
In 1986, I had an opportunity to stay for two & a half days at St Catherine’s Monastery, at the base of the God trodden mount of Sinai (yes I slept one night on the summit of Sinai where Moshe stayed), and I had a chance to spend an afternoon in their inner library, toured where (even now) mountains of manuscripts, papers, are stacked into the alcoves. It’s only in this last 7 years I’ve become more fully aware of Codex Sinaiticus. In the debate over “Received Text v Majority Text”, I come down in the camp of MT, inerrancy & all. I don’t even engage people who argue or debate “KJV Only”. It’s just a waste of time. Besides, who knows that by pulling up a weed, I might accidentally pull up a healthy stalk of wheat?
I agree, there seems to be no benefit in debating the KJO crowd. If you do, you’re written off as an intentional conspirator. Also, are you referring to the so called Mount Sinai located in Egypt, the Egypt Moses and Israel left? I’ve come to believe the real Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia and known as Jabal al-Lawz.
Papacy has been deviating from actual translation for centuries for theological reasons. People of the Catholic faith are being deceived. Research the history of christianity
Well their 10 commandments are different to the original, they remove the one about making idols and break a later one (about wanting your neighbour's house/property etc) into 2 instead....a deliberate changing of the original Hebrew OT! No excuse for that!
@@TheStrataminor The early Christians taught by John used the Catholic Old Testament & it was only in 1600's that it was changed that too depending on the people who tried their best to disprove that Jesus is the Messiah. Say's much about the reformation. Search for the truth my friend if you really dare too. Don't listen to any one word. Go see how the Christians taught by the Apostle John and the likes were far from being Bible only Christians. Seek & You shall find the Truth. You may want to check out #JourneyHomeEWTN (ex-pastor's who seeked the truth of Jesus Christ & found it in the Church founded by Him.) Don't be surprised if you end up a heretic, in the eyes of the early Christian Church. Just a heads up.
This may be true of hard copies of NIV or ESV but it is absolutely not true of these translations on most (perhaps all!) of the most popular Bible apps! This is confusing and problematic since most newer Christians use Bible apps like You Version and Bible Gateway which I have on my devices! The verses are completely missing on these apps - with absolutely No Explanation! This can be unsettling to new Christians especially. It is one thing to put the “questionable verses” in italics or brackets but I think it is completely irresponsible to bypass these verses in total! Also this becomes problematic when you search classic commentaries like Spurgeon and Matthew Henry etc. one has to conclude that many whole sermons and study commentary notes are now rendered meaningless!
Job 13:15 1599 Geneva Bible Lo, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, and I will reprove my ways in his sight Job 13:15 King James Version Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him You would have to listen to Jesus Christ himself through his Holy Spirit to get stronger truth than the Geneva bible
Did you guys know that every word that is italicized in the NKJV and KJV was added by the translators? They added to God's word, so does that make the KJV and the NKJV corrupt? I wouldn't say so. I think God can use any translation He wants to teach and rebuke those who truly belong to Him.
Your full of it Billy boy. Perhaps you can explain why the 84 NIV 2 Samual 21:19 has Elhanan killing Goliath, but the 2011 has Elhanan killing the “bother”of Goliath? By your own admission we should discard the 2011 edition because it has added words not found in the original.
Bill, wasn't it the Elzeviers in Leiden who coined the notion of 'Textus Receptus' in their prefatory advertisment, and not Th. Beza? I thought it originated in their 1633 edition, and not in any of Beza's earlier editions.
I found out about verses that are clear blasphemy in the NIV. If it is translated to be easier to be understood and comprehend, why have they completely changed words? Daniel 3:25 Changes from "The Son of God" to "sons of gods" in the NIV. Isaiah 14:12 Hosea 11:12 Just to name a few, Also Placing a very important verse in Matthew 17:21 Fasting and Prayer in the footnotes? You must use your discernment, what this man is saying in the video is totally contradictory to the reality of what has been changed in the Bible. Use the Discernment through the Holy Spirit. Amen.
@@agnostic_man6943 the NASB is the most literal version of the Bible out there. However it can be fairly difficult to understand. The CSB is my preferred translation because it is very literal and very easy to understand
The NASB and the HCSB put the “missing” verses in brackets and have a footnotes indicating that many of the manuscripts never had those verses to begin with
2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as MANY, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Just because a version or manuscript is closer to the time of writing does not mean it is correct. Paul says that MANY were corrupting God's word even in his day (while the NT was STILL BEING WRITTEN) Imagine this: Paul writes Romans and sends it to Rome. In Rome a 2 copies are made: 1 is 100% correct, the other is filled with mistakes. The one with mistakes is not used because it's wrong, the one that's correct is used until it's worn out. The end result is that the corrupted Romans survives longer and is older and the correct Romans copied from the worn out manuscript is younger. Thus to say that older is better is flawed
I appreciate your work and do find it useful. I would like your treatment of 1 Corinthians 2:13 et seq. : which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. I am interested in the use in the English of "spiritual thoughts" and "spiritual words" as there is an alternate reading that is completely different in footnotes.
great explanation about the missing verses that were omitted in modern translations. How about the added phrases that were not in earlier manuscripts but were not omitted in modern translations i.e. the Son of God clause in Mark 1:1? Why was that not omitted if earlier mss don't have that either?
What about the NWT (New World Translation) the bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses? When translating the bible they omitted and added to it, something the bible clearly says not to do but the omitted scriptures were left in the foot notes, but their translations was clearly altered to fit their doctrine. Isn't that for theological reasons?
Yes they edited God’s Word for their own purposes. I would recommend not getting into it with this group because they deny very many important things that the Word of God teaches such as the divinity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and possibly much more. God bless you sister!
you are leaving out the earliest the colx recievitext so your hole study is wrong. there are many changes the the 3rd and 4th cen. versions most around the deity of JESUS
You don't really know that as you are not a Greek or Hebrew expert....I suspect that Dr Mounce would know what he is talking about...KJV blurs a lot with it's overtly old English that misses nuances....but in the end, NIV or whatever tells enough, that Jesus died on the cross,,,,etc....so the other details are minor points anyway
hey, man with all respect you sound like a very self-centered person. I don't think you did any research for this comment. It is a fact that the NIV is more accurate. KJV was made in a rush based on a view manuscripts that had been changed over the last century. However, the NIV is based on original transcripts that the author of the book for example Matthew actually wrote.
@@weirdflex8158 that’s incorrect. The modern textual critics have lied about the KJV. Any bible that uses the critical text has been corrupted by words being removed and meanings changed in hundreds of places.
@@TheStrataminor people who have the Holy Ghost know it. You’re playing God. Looks like none of you new version people are saved. Can’t be - trying to drag people from Gods true word, and completely leaving the Holy Ghost out/ but adding your unimportant opinion-when the Bible that existed and was being read before you were born, will be doing the same when the worms are eating your corpse. You’re not important. You don’t even have power over your next breath. Leave people alone
Not true Sir. It leaves out several verses...including one of the most important verses in the bible...which literally changes the meaning of the gospel message...which is the core our witness to the lost. Example, in Acts 8:36...the Eunuch asks, "here is water, what doth hinders me to be baptize?", What is should say in Acts 8:37, is very important, Philip cautions the Eunuch saying, "You can proceed...if you believe with all your heart". Notice, he says, believing the Gospel is first...another wards, trusting and believing the gospel and trusting Christ. This is omitted, and then jumps to...they came out of the water. As a result, occults, and false religions and denominations, such as Church of Christ can then base the omission, and have the authority to say, "you see, there is no requirement to believe the gospel...all I have to do is be baptized...this is what saved the Eunuch, water baptism". Naturally, we know from scripture, this is false and a "works" or perverted" Gospel. The Eunuch this confesses "Christ", and His Lord and Savior, which is required in multiple scriptures in the bible including Romans 10:9-13. "if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe that he hath raised him from the dead, though shalt be saved". Notice it backs up and is consistent with the verse in Acts 8:37. The Eunuch even states, "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God". Finally, 8:37, is missing. Further, a "footnote" does not mean it is part of scripture...which is "why" it is below...and refer to as a "note"...nice "double talk"...very slick...but, doesn't meet the mustard. You are in error sir...repent and stop peddling a false Gospel and taking away from the Word of God. You are even too blinded and ignorant to realize that they are "minor changes" and is giving the authority for people to remove important scriptures. Your own testimony said it all..."you were paid" you false prophet from the devil...you make these translations. Your judgement will be thorough and in measure! The bible's words, not mind. Greedy of Gain...you stand...."accursed" preaching another Gospel and another Jesus as Paul warned. Exposed!
I would like to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Hermen Eutics. I encourage you to pay attention to what he says. He is open to reason, impartial and sincere, full of mercy and good fruits and he sows a harvest of peace in righteousness.
Also it niv says "I am the gate"!?!?....kjv or nkjv Jesus said "I am the door"....gates and doors have different meanings...gates = Law and door = Jesus/Grace
Of course, what the maker of this video does not tell you is that the majority of uncials such is E, F, G, H, I, J, K, etc., through W, and all other cursives, over 200 of them, follow the King James text and that of the TR. In addition, the old Syriac, the Peshitta,the majority of all Latin manuscripts also contain the verse. Each of these are older than any of the Greek manuscripts that he cites. Finally, the patristic writings of Tertulllian, Chrysostom Augustine and Jerome, which are all older than any of the Greek manuscripts he cites, also reference the verse. These church fathers could hardly reference a verse that was not in their Bibles. So basically, this guy is full of hot air. He is justifying omissions of passages that clearly belong in the Bible and if you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you should continue to use a King James Bible. It is the only English Bible that has all the verses in it.
So does William Tyndale’s New Testament, which the KJV copied heavily from (80% of the KJV is copied from Tyndale's version). to say the KJV is the only English bible that "has all the verses in it" is utter rubbish.
@@acurisur and how accessible is the Tyndale NT to the average English speaker at say, Barnes & Noble. IT’S NOT. Therefore, the KJV is the only ACCESSIBLE English translation with all of the verses it it.
@@DrHoweThD The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus which is full of errors. The translators who worked on the KJV weren't even KJV only themselves. They also added verses that were not present in earlier Greek and Hebrew translations. "Many consider the King James Version of the Bible to be the crown of English Bibles. Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Greek text used in preparing the KJV was the Textus Receptus. Both Luther and Tyndale translated the Scriptures into their vernacular languages using the same basic Greek text. Luther used the second edition of the Erasmus New Testament, and Tyndale utilized the third edition." www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html
One thing that I would preface all of this with before making these explanations is to explain to people that "verses" are a recent invention that didn't exist for the majority of the Bible's history. They didn't "take verses out" because not one of the greek manuscripts has the verse divisions that English bibles have today
So if a very very old manuscript was found that dates back to 20 years after the death of Christ, then that version would take precedence. That would be the expectation except that such a manuscript based upon the existence of others, would have been determined to be incomplete. I am confident that we have enough resources to be sure that the editions of the bible that we are reading today are complete. I do greatly respect the work that the NET BIBLE team has done in their passionate, exhaustive, and thorough translation of each verse and discussion of any verse that had to be omitted from the text. Translators notes galore are there to indicate what happened and why.
Okay so NIV is the most reliable right now, but how do we know which verses in the NIV are also additions that we just don’t know about? How can we know what is from god and what is not? Why did he leave us like this? Why did he allow people to corrupt his words? Can anyone help answer my questions
I fear for you on judgement day... And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19 The Holy Spirit did NOT use foot notes for ‘theological’ reasons. You’d better FEAR GOD and repent!
dude, are you kidding me? these verses are not in the original transcripts meaning the author did not write them! The verse which you pointed out says not to add to Gods word which is exactly what the authors of the Kjv did Im confused by your comment.
Normally, I have a HEAP of respect for Dr Mounce. His respect for the sloppy Sinaiticus, and his neglect (or ignorance) of the Early Church Fathers, shows a flaw that opens massive room for error.
Justin Martyr and Cyprian quote Acts 8:37 which cannot be found in the sloppy Sinaiticus or sloppy Vaticanus: two complete New Testament mss from the 4th century. These mss differ from each other 3000 times in the Gospels alone! Justin Martyr wrote 190 years BEFORE the Sinaiticus, and Cyprian wrote 160 years before it. If Acts 8:37 was in the Bible in the 2nd century, and not in the 4th century, then reappears in the 7th century, then you would have to CONCLUDE that the Bibles we find in the 4th century DO NOT REFLECT the Bibles typical in the 4th century! Why did these two sloppy mss survive? Was it because NOBODY thought they were worth READING, and nobody thought they were worth COPYING (this is how mss wear out and perish).
I respect Mounce, but NT textual criticism is not as simple as he makes it. The oldest Mss are all found in Egypt where the weather preserved them. One cannot simply dismiss an alternative reading like the end of John 3:13 “who is in heaven” because it is not found in early papyrus. There is so much bias with many NT textual critics, either they only embrace the critical text or the Byzantine text. We need a more eclectic approach.
Pastor Brian - actually _many_ would say codex sinaiticus is a forgery. Sadly, I doubt that you will get a response from Mr. Nounce. Thank you for your comment!
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
Nonsense. The climate in the area of Alexandria was better for preserving the manuscripts. The chances of errors in the Majority Text being greater is because the more times a copy is made, the more likely for errors to creep in. If we used today's Bible as an example of why more copies does not make something better and/or more accurate look at the NIV. The NIV is 40% of all Bibles out there sold. By far more NIV Bible copies are sold than other translations. Since it has the most copies, it must be the most accurate, right? This example should show how foolish it is to claim having higher number of copies means greater accuracy.
danbuter the problem with that is most readers do not pay attention or know what the brackets mean. Most readers do not pay attention to these devices and just assume there is no issue.
Notia Bizniz Plus, square brackets clearly can have various meanings. The committee that Metzger frequently refers to in the book cited by Dr. Mounce in this very video sometimes voted for square brackets when it came to certain variants. These variants are likely, but not certain. John 5:4 is very, very, very unlikely, therefore square brackets according to that usage is not appropriate here.
I personally would prefer that in brackets rather than taken out. I know it's difficult as point mentioned above that just readers won't realise why it's in brackets. But now I know.. Definitely would prefer it.
Feeling really sad after reading all the comments. People having a go at each other. People thinking they have all the answers.
My advice... dig deeper.... check things out.... Pray about it.... Encourage each other. Love God... love others. How does this all look to unbelieving people? We can do so much better than this.
Amen
@Buddy Aces MXBC you speak true, we just can't take things lightly because someone calls themselves a scholar. Their PHD doesn't know more than Gods PHD. Some of this scholars think they know more than any of us. Specifically when Jesus crushed the so scholars and teachers of his time. Satan is a dirty bastard, an he has been trying to change scriptures for the longest. The truth if the matter is. That we don't need any more Bible revisions. We have plenty of bibles already. I don't care if we where living in the year 2050. Christians can't just be taking everything humans say. We are all liars. I understand some things can be correct, but I'm not going to be putting my faith in any scholars.
Good. You should feel sad. It's a horrible thing to see "scholars" playing a part in this mass apostasy because they defend Bibles that cast shade on the true authority and inerrancy of the Holy Bible.
It reminds me of when Paul was in prison and someone came to him to tell him how they were preaching a false Jesus, and Paul said "better to preach Jesus than not to preach him at all"..
So sad to see my apparent brothers and sister’s in Christ tearing each other apart in these comments. This is not a representation of God’s heart. If you feel that KJV only is best for you, that’s great - but don’t discourage young new believers from reading a translation that they can better comprehend.
Not going to lie, saw a post on another youtube video which led me down a rabbit hole which ultimately let me to this video and now I am sitting here thinking.....have I been doing this wrong???? As a former Catholic, who wasn't really encouraged to study the word but more memorize/recite, and now a Christian I have been trying to study and learn the word and although overwhelming at times it has been so insightful. A friend had gifted me a Life Application Study Bible NIV and it has been helpful but then earlier tonight I realized verses had been removed it scared me. So thank you for posting what you did, it makes me feel better but still sitting here scratching my head thinking, "now what? what do I believe?" SIGH
Unfortunately nobody sees the truth of the niv.
1. Footnotes denotes the authenticity of the text.
2. The niv calls the Lord the devil in Isaiah 14:12. You can check it and compare with Revelation 22:16 and Hebrews 13:8.
3. It lies to you in Mark 1:2.
4. Hosea 11:12 says But Judah is unruly against God, while the KJV says Yet Judah ruleth with God.
Conclusion. It is not discouragement to tell someone the truth.
Tony Barron You are not telling anyone the truth. Isaiah 14:12 is referring to Satan and makes no connection between him and God. It is you who are lying about these verses. I checked it out.
@@study2037 Ask an Orthodox Lutheran Pastor that Studies the Original languages which is the Inspired WORD of God. 1Cor4:1 “Let men account of us as Servants of Christ, and stewards of the Mysteries of God.”
“The Office of The Called Servants.”
@@tonybarron6377Unfortunately another KJV Idolater lying about the NIV. Nowhere does the NIV say Jesus is the devil. The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an it four times denying his deity. The NIV corrects this.
" translators don't leave out verses for theological reasons. "
This is laughable. Such a broad brush. I watched the first 2 minutes of this video and had to stop because there were that many things wrong that could be taken to task.
Wescott and Hort ='s Nestle Aland 27th edition which is the basis for most modern English versions. That's the thing to learn about...and it's not good.
Also, 1 John 5:7...ESV footnote ??? Not even there ??? How??? My point is not whether the verse should be included or not, but how do you not footnote the biggest textual criticism issue of all ?
That's just for starters.
Don you have it there. Wescott and Hort were trying to create a new version that would destroy old ideas. Just because some text is older doesn't make it better.
If you do enough research on the differences in the texts of various versions of the Bible, you will find that those differences are not so cut and dry. The translators who translated the KJV and the ones who translated the NIV used different sets of manuscripts. The KJV translators didn't have as many manuscripts that they have now. There are variations in the wording of the text but none of which changes the overall meaning. Anyone can nit pic at these differences when comparing other translations of the Bible to KJV but this is an error within itself due to the fact that the KJV is a translated version from copies of manuscripts just as every other English translation is. I would also point out that if you want to point to these differences as a corruption then consider the differences and variations of the four gospels. Not all the gospels agree on every detail. This however is no error. These are simply showing that even through different eyes and different perspective views and memories of the authors, they still told the same overall account of Jesus's life, death and resurrection. Those differences only strengthen the validity and reliability of the Bible. People act like a modern, simplified version that still gets the message across, is somehow a corrupt version just because it doesn't get as detailed as another translation. This is why you don't limit yourself to just one translation. What one version lacks in one aspect, another can pick up the slack in understanding. There is no such thing as a perfect English translation of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts that form the Bible, and that includes the beloved KJV.
@@joesteele3159 I know you mean well, but I'm afraid you're just on the surface. I hate to sound all conspiracy theorist, but there really are some really big issues with the "older" manuscripts that are a bit more nefarious than is on the surface of just translation from one language to another. Wescott and Hort and many others were deliberately trying to get rid of many of the ideas that the Textus Receptus put forth. They weren't even Christian people yet they are the "fathers" of the modern translations so to speak. Good thing is, we have a lot of their letters still in record so if you do enough research... you'll be able to see a massive, major corruption.
@@CrossroadToCountry I think all of us are just on the surface. There is so much information floating around that support each side of the debate and seek to debunk the other side that it's truely next to impossible to discern who is giving the correct knowledge. I've been a KJV guy all my life. I love how it words the scriptures and puts the word of God in a powerful way. But I also can appreciate the limitations when it comes to it. I might have a good understanding of the words in the KJV but some people do not. I've known a few people personally who tried to get into Bible reading with the KJV and later gave up because they weren't grasping it. That was back when I was extremely hostile to the NIV and other translations because of things I had heard and so I would discourage them from reading other translations. Looking back now I want to kick myself for doing that. Those same people have completely stopped even trying to understand the word of God and I might be personally responsible for them never receiving salvation because of my actions.
I've read several things about Westcott and Hort. They may have very well been very corrupt themselves but that doesn't necessarily mean their work is corrupt. God is awesome in ways we can't imagine and can use even the most wicked people to carry out His work. When I study the Bible; I read and compare the passages that I'm reading with several translations to see how they differ from one another. I have yet to find any theological or doctrinal changes. Wording is of course different in many places but it's essentially saying the same thing and the overall message and doctrines are not hindered. We shouldn't be basing the accuracy or the legitimacy of one translation off of another. The KJV is simply a translation just as the modern versions are. We don't have the original manuscripts but we do have very reliable ones that we can use to compare the English text to.
If you know of a doctrine that has been completely altered by the NIV or NASB or equivalents to those then I would be interested in seeing those as I might have missed something. I'm far from perfect and mistakes are a very real possibility when it comes to my studies.
Don Silva finally someone with some brains
Why is it very hard for somebody to understand that NIV or other bible translation did not include verses which are not in the older manuscript? but rather put it as a footnote? What is so hateful about that? Is adding words which are not in older manuscript is good and omitting the words which are not really included is evil? The first bible that I had read is KJV, and I had seen some italicized words and it was noted that those italicized words were not in the original manuscript but added for the sake of grammar and that was understandable.
1cor.1:18 has a different meaning,the KJ says "saved" and the new versions say ..."been saved",and this my brothers changes the gospel.-----
Ummm..yes. if you ever read the end of the bible, it clearly states not to add anything or take anything away from scripture
The verse is speaking of more than one person. We can't read it self centered as if it only pertains to you or me. It pertains to all believers. If there are 50 people who become believers in Christ, #1 believes and is saved. #2 believes and is saved. #3 believes and is saved and so on. Is it safe to say that if I look out at the crowd, there are 50 people BEING saved today? The word of God is spirit. It's not a legal document to be poured over and picked at from a legalistic viewpoint. But if we must act like we are practitioners of the law, lets do so righteously and fairly. The word of God says not to take away OR add to the word. Yes? It doesn't say it's ok to add words as long as they don't change what we think the verse means (italics in many versions, including kjv). Believing on the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, not reading the kjv bible or any one other specific version. And all of the versions I have read over the years make clear that Jesus is Lord and is the only way to salvation. We need to stop being legalistic and straining at gnats, but swallowing flies for no other reason than to feel like we have proven our point (we need to look inside ourselves). We run the risk of damaging others faith. But since it seems I'm just arguing as well, I'm done. sorry for being long winded.
@@vidvuer1 actually what you said makes sense. Expecially the part about how we can damage others faith. What your saying is true. We Christians need to stop quarrling about stupid things. Some things need to be said but in the end, the real question is do you believe that Jesus is the only way to the father? Did you live your life accordingly. Thanks for the input!!
The passage also has patristic citations. It is found in the Diatessaron of the second century. Tertullian (200 AD) notes that an "angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida." [3] The passage is also cited by Ambrose (397 AD), Didymus (398 AD), Chrysostom (407 AD) and Cyril (444 AD), demonstrating that both Greek and Latin fathers accepted the reading as genuine. If oldest is best it is cited by Tertullian second century.
thanks for this comment. Any views on why the earlier manuscripts don't have John 5v4?
@@MSA-uj7cp Well, we don’t have the “earliest” and church fathers citing the verse earlier than “our earliest” testifies that they had an earlier manuscript with the reading. The earliest we have are still 250 years+ after the original and verse 4 is what eventually was copied and recopied.
Good point. I would add 5:7 doesn’t make a whole lot of sense without 5:4.
Fortunately, it is still included in the footnotes.
Very well said Bill. That was the clearest and most concise explanation of this topic I've come across. Thank you for all of your hard work and time, it's a massive blessing. I'm currently going through GRU (and after that will be re-attempting BBG) and it's just great to learn all of this from an experienced professional who has made it accessible to people like me. Thanks again, and God bless.
NIV 64000 words removed
@@ceciliatomas3834 You need to substantiate that....otherwise it is just a rumour...
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
@@ceciliatomas3834 What books and what verses?
@@ceciliatomas3834 I have NIV I’ve heard there’s many missing verses and mistranslations in that version Your gonna need to be specific on the books and verses that are missing so I know which version to get and correct to errors.
Yes and what else did they change??
God’s Word is not a footnote! Better rethink again. Pay attention to detail.
Bill Mounce would definitely agree with you!
His whole argument is that some sentences in the late Greek copies had information accidentally added in to them by fallible human scribes. These mistakes were then incorporated into our older translation, like the KJV, ASV, etc, and were not what John, Mark, or Peter originally intended. So, those sentences, NOT in the original, which were added later, should be removed. Because we only want God’s Word!
Just like Martin Luther when he moved the Apocrypha to the back of the Bible, which was later dropped all together, because that was also not God’s Word either, so these erroneous verses were moved to the footnotes to restore a more accurate rendering of God’s Word. Hope that helps. Take care :)
Jesus is Gods Word. Don’t put scripture higher than Jesus “The Word made flesh”? Blessings to you!
Just getting rid of the verses that were not there, as testified to in the earliest manuscripts. What he didn't add, was you can see the additions in the margins, which were moved into the text by the next generation of manuscript copiers in the 10th & 11th centuries. I've seen the pictures in various scholarly books about manuscript development and accuracy. You need to learn a bit more about textual criticism and manuscript discoveries!
@@David7399 what a convenience anything modern should be void . God don’t make mistakes men do .
@@deerugz2152 Hi Dee, and thanks for your comment. I agree with you that God does not make mistakes, people do. As for your first point, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Anyway, have a good day :)
Billl Mounce apparently is not paying attention to the comments responding to this video he made, so I ask again (in January 2021):
Regarding John 5:4 -
(1) What do you with Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, and
(2) Why did you avoid mentioning Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, in this video?
And some new questions have arisen during Dr. Mounce's silence:
(3) Did the NIV's translators' theological views influence their decision to reject every Greek manuscript in the world except one in Mark 1:41?
(4) Did the NIV's translators' theological views influence their decision not to include a footnote at Matthew 27:49, where Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain a glaring error?
(5) If one grants Dr. Mounce's claim ( c. 3:40 ) that early versions are "more reliable," why is the early Old Latin version's tesimony rejected, almost routinely, in the NIV's base-text?
(6) Why should anyone regard Dr. Mounce's proposal that marginal readings were pulled into the text be regarded as nothing but an unrealistic fantasy in light of the research of James Royse?
Why is Acts 8:37 out?
Because the NIV isn't the inerrant Word of God.
Thank you. I found this very concerning. It helps a lot as I look further into older manuscripts found and their authenticity. Blessings 🙏
What he doesn't bother to tell you is that Bibles were translated from different texts. One came out of Alexandria Egypt the other out of Antioch. I know of the church at Antioch I also know the Egypt was a picture of sin and worldliness. That is not the only difference in the Bible's but if you have a Bible that's missing verses he might want to get a real Bible
I don't think it's any coincidence that sin has gone rampant ever since these newfangled Bibles started being used widely. The churches have gotten extremely weak and worldly. It's not likely that the majority of the people going to church or even saved. Christianity is the number one religion in the world which is completely contradictory to what the Bible says. Straight is the gate now is the way and few there be that find it. Maybe they need to remember you must repent you must be born again.
But what we have today are a bunch of mealy mouth preachers who will not preach God's word straight you know like Joel Osteen the man who would not say that Jesus was the only way to heaven when asked by Larry King...... Well I will say it Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the father but by him.
If a preacher can't say that when it's directly coming from God's word then he's not a preacher he's a false prophet and this world is full of false prophets these days
@@ubyy1 A KJV Only proponent?
@@martinbaker7032 Cult is a very serious allegation. I would not go that far. KJV was just one of the most popular earlier English versions. All of us have used it at one time in our faith if one is older than 30 years in the faith. I do not think it is really a cult
@@ubyy1 he's also not telling you that pre-electronic age communication writings are more accurate. During the electronic age, nothing is trustworthy. I'm curious to see if he answers my question about the translators using electronic communication or not when translating the 2011 version of the NIV. If they did, it explains the decisions they made. If you want authenticity, you need to look to the pre electronic communication age. The 1984 version should be safe.
Which NIV are you talking about? They keep changing it.
There is nothing easier or accurate by doing this to the word of God, just leave it how it was, if you could understand before then why won't you be able to understand now? And there is no shortcuts in reading the bible, this is really annoying, cause I just bought a NIV Bible and as I was going through Matthew 17:21 it doesn't show the verse but it shows in the footnotes "Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29" and that's really frustrating cause I wanted to read it in Matthew 17:21 not in Mark....
You know, coming out of a "King James only" environment myself, I think I finally understand what makes these people tick-fear. It's too difficult for most of them to grapple with languages and meaning themselves. Instead, they rely on some dogmatic principle that denies scholarly and Spirit filled approaches. The KJV is a very good translation. I still read it but it is just that--a translation. Until you become proficient in koine Greek and biblical Hebrew or understand something about linguistics, I suggest you keep your traps shut and your minds open.
Writers Alive hahalol
A little rude, but still true.
"...keep your traps shut.." that was very Christ-like, from which modern translation did you learn to bear that fruit?
i think the biggest thing though, is the fact Christ specifically is mentioned a lot in KJV but left out in many verses in NIV which is unacceptable. Christ must always be recognized
I clearly have a problem with doors and gates in the NIV..nkjv or kjv Jesus said "I am the door"....NIV says "I am the gate"!?...I have learned that gates and doors have different meanings..gates=Law and door=Jesus/Grace....the NIV is watered down and has twisted the words of Jesus!! SMH!!!
Can anyone explain to me why they changed cornerstone to capstone it seems like he went from being the foundation to the Head???
Thank you soooo much for the clarity! Would love to hear more about Bible translations!
Order the 1611 KJV sis. You will find that this book is our history. Job is black (Job 30:30), King of Solomon (1:5) and so many others. Also try Stephen Darby and IUIC on youtube. Peace and Blessings.
@@AishaIsrael_Benjamite Thank you very much I currently have the NIV adventure Bible and I’ve heard there are so many mistranslations and verses not inspired by god in it. Does KJV stand for King James Version?
I’m familiar with it I haven’t read it at all though I’ll also check out Steven Darby on TH-cam Although I’m very young I’m 14 (2nd term of freshman year in high school)
Oh and where can I order it? And from which author is it published by I want to make sure I don’t get the wrong KJV.
@@AishaIsrael_Benjamite *sigh* You’re part of the black Hebrew movement right? Look, I’m not trying to be mean nor do you read scripture not only in context but the actual words. I apologize if I misunderstand you but Job isn’t black, in fact I don’t believe the Bible says his skin color because…who cares, but the same misreading is scripture used here is the same that make some believe Jesus was black. Job is suffering and he say’s his skin is turning black, you know, because the onslaught of torment satan was allowed to cast? You can tell he isn’t black by the fact that it mentions his skin turning black or in the KJV version being black upon him due to the affliction visited on him…why would he describe his skin turning black due to rot? Why would that be unusual if he was already black? Why would the Bible mention Ethiopians as dark skinned or different if their own people looked similar? I don’t care either way what color biblical characters are but for the love of God please read the Bible correctly.
A good example of contextual reading that can help is in Song of Solomon 1:5, it isn’t the king being described but his female bride…unless you’re trying to claim he was homosexual.
@@Broomful Stephan Darby is an illiterate idiot and heretic. Don’t follow him, but you should listen to him with a critical mind to truly understand. The man was the biggest name in the racist group called black Hebrews, he convinced many blacks that the Jews in Israel aren’t true Jews and only blacks are the real Jews. He convinced them that Jesus was black through either misread, misunderstood, or out of context scripture. The guys an idiot but we should know thy enemy. Remember 2 things, skin color doesn’t matter to God, or to anyone important in life, and read more than one translation of the Bible to get the fullest picture of scripture. You can’t rush discernment.
The NIV was published by Harper Collins..He was involved with the Satanic Bible and the joys of gay sex. If you have a NIV toss it out!
Not only that verse but Acts 8:37 is also missing in NIV. It's a common excuse saying that missing text like Acts 8:37 were simply not present in the original text and so the Codex Laudianus didn't have them but simply changed the numbering because scribes later added the missing verse. This however doesn't hold water as the Codex Laudianus was used to form the Minority Text.
However the Codex Laudianus plainly states that it DID contain the missing text of Acts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Laudianus
Regarding John 5:4 -
(1) What do you with Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, and
(2) Why did you avoid mentioning Tertullian's apparent reference to this passage, in this video?
James Snapp which is essential since Tertullian lived BEFORE the “oldest” manuscripts that this man cites as his authority for removing this pericope of scripture. The Patrisric writings get these guys every time, LOL.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
Well, I have an 1984 edition of the NIV where in 2 Sam 21 verse 19 has Elhanan killing Goliath. In the 2011 edition has Elhanan killing the bother of Goliath. So my old 1984 edition is out of date. So is this not adding scripture to the text?
One would have to ask the question why the Holy Spirit allowed the "correct" and older texts to be lost for centuries and allow the "faulty" more modern texts to flourish.
For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:10-11 [KJV])
That is why the Sinaiticus text was in the desert, no water, no life.
1) Why not mention the name of "B" which is Codex Vaticanus?
2) Erasmus knew about Codex Vaticanus, but he did not have personal access to it and he did not make accessing it a priority. Apparently he didn't realize how old it was and he did not particularly trust it
Those are both points that make me curious about why you would ignore these facts.
Bill, you’re wrong. Without the contributions of Dr. David H. Stern and Phillip Goble, you wouldn’t know the NT is a Jewish story. Sabbath is there 67 times, but your team ignores it. Bias? You bet!
I have a NIV Bible and just last night I was going over scriptures with a sister in Christ who has a KJV Bible and she helped me to see that there are verses missing in the NIV Bible, I couldn't even find the verses in the footnotes, needless to say I ordered a NKJV Bible but my NIV Bible has helped me tremendously in understanding the text
Actually the NKJV is as corrupt as the NIV. See Gail Riplinger NKJV or the videos by Sam Gip as to how these people deceive people.. Especially good are the videos by David W Daniels..from Chick Tracts. He worked on Bible translation committees and found the Jesuits are involved in nearly ALL translations all over the globe. He blows all this man's lies to smitherines!
He totally proves Sinaiticus is a fake written in the 17th century it is filled with deletions additions erasures leaves ripped out and others put in pages treated with lemon juice to make them look old. So it IS NOT the oldest and certainly NOT the best or most reliable! It shows the hands of at least five different correctors tampering with the text!
Did you watch and listen to the video?
@@anthonyeusebius5834 you are corrupt. There is nothing wrong with the nkjv.
The nkjv is awesome
@@anthonyeusebius5834 The NKJV is not "just as corrupt"....it is still based the textus receptus, just like the KJV. It is nowhere near as "corrupted" as the NIV, which is blatantly corrupted.
Clear and concise. The proof has been there. It’s now time to update and adjust.
........beware of the concision.
Phil 3:2
soon people will put even more into the Bible, it will say gay marriage is okay, it is slowly working itself in there, need to stick with the 1611 KJV there's no changes needed.
This is a breath of fresh air! I’m tired of hearing the older manuscripts are corrupted. I started out KJV only until college when I experienced the NIV for the first time. I wasn’t a scholar so I didn’t know the differences. And now as a middle aged adult I wanted a more word for word translation and chose the ESV as my new bible. And now I’m researching the history of the Bible and textual criticism. I’m glad I came across your video!
Stay away from the ESV PLEASE LOOK AT THESE VERSES IN THE ESV COMPARED TO THE KJV HERE ARE THE VERSES,
1 JOHN 5:7
ACTS 4:27
ISAIAH 14:12
DANIEL 3:25 (THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS ONE YET, IT CALLS JESUS THE SIN OF "gods"????
Read these please and respond soon please stay away from that wicked Bible.
Dr. James White just did a weekend seminar on the Textual Reliability of the New Testament and King James Onlyism at a local church in St. Charles, MO. The sessions are on TH-cam. Search for Covenant of Grace Church James White.
@@trapjuiceproductions8084 Daniel 3:25 were the words of Nebuchadnezzar. Read the text before and after. He knew he was looking at the one true God and his words expressed in such a way as to compare Him the only gods he knew of. Many in the OT do that.
Sir it is corrupt.Research the Slave Bible.
TrapJuice Productions, in my ESV Dan 3:25, it doesn't say "sin of the gods." It's Nebuchadnezzar not knowing that the 4th person is either God or an angel and it says, "...like a son of the gods" because he doesn't yet know about the one true God of Israel. But in verse 28 (ESV) it states, "Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants.'"
Unfortunately, there are no perfect translations. Translators are men. They are not infallible. The only infallible texts are the ones the writers wrote. We don't have them. Our translations come from copies of copies. It is good to use multiple translations when doing bible study. KJV should be one of them. But other modern ones too. The main one I use is ESV, but I refer to multiple translations when doing a study. Thanks, Bill for the clear concise discussion about the matter.
For God's sake I just want to own a Bible to read n come closer to God. But reading all the comments I'm so confused I'm not educated or highly intellectual like u people i don't know which version is added or subtracted. For me i find kjv English hard to read n understand because I'm non English person i can only understand simple version of English eg; I can't understand poems but i can understand children's stories. So please anybody suggest me a good Bible to buy thank you!
Try the REB, The Revised English Bible. I like it a lot. it represents the best of British scholarship according to authors Fee and Stuart.
I still don't get your reasoning behind, because it's earlier it's more reliable? How does being older be more reliable? Especially when there are fewer manuscripts? The Catholic church is not a trustworthy institution so why would we rely on a manuscript from that church. These are the things that make people not trust modern versions. And just telling people, "Oh just trust us", does not help. It will never help. Therefore, make modern versions with the TR as well .
Is there any argument that makes us assure that these oldest manuscripts are more reliable?
exactly. Latin "Lucifer'(morning star/pl Venus) is an insertion for "Hesophorus".
Hades(hell).....Leviathon(crocodile)....Goliath(cyclop "titan")....Zeu+s ~ Diu, Deo,Deus
moses~Asclepius.....Eresh~Ceres....Cybele~ Bella donna.....its all Greek Mythology.
@GALLI...... like @Attis....transfigured into @Cybele...at @Hilaria (easter Dies Sanguinis).
what makes this reliable? >> statues in stone, Pigna at Vatican in bronze, yellow frocks.
biblical?.....Matthew 19;12....GALATIONS....Greek Temples in Galla tia....phila-delphia ch 7.
*in the 4th Crusade 1204.Latin Venetians, sacked greek east roman Byzantine Constantinople.
The texts, went to the new capital..."Italian Rome". The Renaisance(knowledge) , was the ottomon 'Fall' in 1453....other Greek and Arabic/Assyr books.....entered Europe.
@CASTRATO.......did they get to italy Rome in 204BC?...or Byzantine choirs in 1100s?..
or did it start with Origen,St Amun,Eusebius 300AD ?......Aristotle in Lyceum 350BC?
i feel the lady priestess "gallas" singers of Temples & Ziggurats etc......were replaced by these lady-boy (transgender-transvestite) infiltraitors. The "Vestal Virgins", by a full eunech ....of course pre-pubescent, saves the 'soprano angelic boy voice'....and makes fem features.
this is what the old manuscripts lead me to find..."early desert fathers"(eunechs)@ORIGEN.
All I know is that the Alexandria is where allegorization kind of started, which lead to Catholicism. While in no way do I suspect that the translators are doing anything to tamper with the word of God, it is possible that the scribes were.
That being said this argument does not apply to the verse cited here. Nor does it apply to the trinity verse 1 John 5:7.
@@maxxiong Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
There no doubt in any true believers mind who has any discernment that the Byzantine line are the correct and accurate line of texts which puts almost all new translations as corrupted.
@Prottasha Pijush they are translated from corrupted Greek manuscripts from the Vatican.
Why would you put a scripture in the footnotes? The NIV is known as the never improved version in the new ignorant version. And reads on the 9th grade level where the King James Bible reads on the 6th grade level.. apparently you need some more scriptural schooling 🤔
what about the NIV bible that don't have footnotes? why just not put the verses that missing where they need to be?
He actually mentions this directly about the five minute mark. Many early manuscripts didn’t have the verses present
Older doesn't necessarily mean more reliable or correct. The source of the texts is what's important. People were corrupting and misinterpreting scripture from the beginning, as we see in Paul's letters to the first churches. If you assume that God's plan is to offer the gift of salvation to everyone, wouldn't the Holy Spirit write the correct version that He knew was to be the first book printed and used to spread the Gospel throughout the world? Surely God wouldn't mislead everyone. Modern scholars, impressed with the age of the scraps of versions they recently discovered could.
Your explanation answers some debates and questions on NIV authenticity that i have seen in various online forums.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
I didn’t know you chaired the ESV New Testament committee. Helps me respect it more. Thank you.
What I find very disturbing is that since all these new translations have come into the churchis that every one brings their own translation and the pastor has his translation and reads scripture, it's hard to follow along because it's different than my KJV.
Also the young people are in charge of the music and contemporary rock music is the singing time. No more hymns. The piano and organ have been removed. The ministerial has given in to the young people's demands. Many Christians carry a lot of baggage.
One good pastor told me that these new Bible translations are written just for the making of money. And I will add also that today's music in the church is written just for money. You can find this on you tube.
It's heart breaking to see and hear what is happening in today's church.
I will add and say that in today's Church there is a lot of jumping in the isles, dancing in the pews, falling about with fits of laughter - it's all about the beat. But this is a million miles from the true joy of the Christian. What the Church needs is good sound teaching. We know that faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
I agree with you on the music but new translations are not made for money instead they are made to be more accurate. The King James Version is not based on original texts that the author wrote instead it is based on texts that were available at the time which had been heavily changed. For this reason, the KJV is a bit inaccurate. If you think the KJV speaks to you the most or you grew up with it and prefer it then read it but don't say the new and more accurate ones are made for money because that is not true.
The KJV was a NEW translation at one time. It was even demonized by people just like yourself. Study into a topic before passing judgment on a text.
Sounds like your trying to sell this version at least at first
My sentiments exactly!
because it is more accurate? right?
How can you add verses when the Manuscripts don't contain verses.
DEROY CREWS Sidenotes and footnotes written in margins were mistakenly copied as part of texts.
DIATESSARON (160-175) section 22:12, has John 5:4. Also there was Stephanus in between Erasmus and Beza. Much more to it that 3 manuscripts
Well you had better tell Dr Mounce he is uninformed then...lol!
NIV. 64000 words removed.
not removed it's because greek words often require less English words to express.
KJV 64000 added uninspired words.
Thanks for this video.The topic on 17 verses in NIV in comparison to the KJV.As a former KJVOnly I can understand why this question was asked.My question why use KJV as standard why not the original Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and Greek for the New testament because these are nearest to the original.I'm glad I was enlightened into believing that different manuscripts are used and not question even the testimony of the users of modern Bible versions.
Can anyone recommend a good Bible that has no ommissions and is more accurate to the original text rather than newer translations?
Hello,
Was electronic communication used by the translators who who participated in the 2011 NIV version?
Yah said not to change the word. It should be where it's suppose to be not in any foot note.
Why does Genesis 6:4 reads different from nkjv. No footnote
Ahhh! There it is, it’s in the footnotes. Thank you :)
cwamdun
That’s right! Folk ain’t been reading their footnotes! 😲
Lol ne?
Thank God aye I thought I had a corrupt bilbe.
The NIV and ESV are my main Bibles and I find them extremely good but it is hard to have a totally accurate translation from ie Hebrew, so I always check the original Hebrew, it’s not saying the translation is wrong just that you get deeper from the original Hebrew and of course the Greek
You can ONLY get the TRUTH from FATHER GOD. See MATTHEW I6:I6,I7
Donna,I have a problem with the ESV!It says that Elhanon killed Goliath,not David! Read it yourself! 21:19
@@DS-uo5ie I don't know what ESV your reading but mine says David killed Goliath.
@@MsDenver2 He was struck down,not killed,I’m sorry!
@@DS-uo5ie That is because the Hebrew text of 2 Samuel 21:19 says Elhanan killed Goliath. The ESV remains faithful to the Hebrew text despite this being a likely copying error by the scribes. Pay attention to the footnote in the ESV for 2 Samuel 21:19. It points to 1 Chronicles 20:5 where it says Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath.
The NIV does not translate 2 Samuel 21:19 as accurately as the ESV and modifies the verse from the Hebrew text.
The NIV does this in other locations as well.
The NIV modifies 1 Kings 4:26. ESV, NKJV, etc says Solomon had 40,000 horses for 12,000 horsemen. This is what the Hebrew text says. The NIV changes this verse to say 4,000 stalls for horses and 12,000 horses. The NIV makes this change from the Hebrew text to match 2 Chronicles 9:25.
The other translations like ESV, NKJV, etc do not try to cover up these discrepancies the Hebrew text.
I’m amazed at how much I misunderstood the KJV until I started reading the NIV. My question is, with all the newly discovered biblical documents found since the KJV was written, were any ADDED that were not in the current KJV?
Why does the Catholic bible have content that is not in the NIV? Where did it come from? Who is right?
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book;
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.
REVELATION 22: 18 & 19
We all know that there is a verse 4, and that it has been omitted. I started my Christian walk reading the NIV, until I was following along with Pastor Hagee, and realized the verse was missing. It was not in the footnotes. I call these Bibles NLT, NIV, ESV, RSV, Berean and any other New Version Bible, they are all new age Bibles.
GOD new men were going to add to HIS WORDS, and take from HIS WORDS, that is why Revelation 22: 18 & 19 are in the BIBLE.
Most of the verses missing from these new age bibles are JESUS’S WORDS.
Who would want to delete JESUS’S WORDS? The devil, that’s who.
Why would they have originally skipped verse four in the first originals? Sounds to me like it always belonged there but was eventually unveiled and fixed and now they’re trying to remove it again.
They didn't skip it. They simply didn't write it. Had it not been included in the Greek text used by Robert Stephanus when he numbered the verses, we would never know that it even existed as no number would have been designated.
Thank you sir, for these great videos (as well as your books and translation work!)
I must question one crucial statement you make here. You say, in all the years you have participated in bible translation you have NEVER seen anyone suggest a translation due to their personal theology. I offer a few cases for you to consider.
First, 1 Peter 4:6 in the NIV. Even Dr. Kenneth Barker, in his own book about the NIV, admits the word "now" was added because it didn't make sense (to evangelical protestant theology?) to imagine the souls of the dead requiring any preaching. If the verse, according to most translations, indicates the gospel was preached "even to those who ARE dead," how is inserting "now" justified? Is it any different from Luther's infamous insertion of "alone" or "only" in Romans 3:28 to bolster sola fide?
Likewise, in Psalm 138:2, Dr. Barker indicates "...since either rendering is possible, we chose ours on theological grounds."
Don't get me wrong- I have great respect for you, Dr. Barker and the NIV. I just find it hard to imagine that renderings are never chosen based on the theology of the individual translators.
Thanks so much and God bless you.
(Edited to add second example and give proper title to Dr. Barker)
to be precise I believe Bill was saying that no whole verses are added or subtracted for theological reasons. What you're talking about I think is translating a sentence that is already there in a way that makes the authors intention clear, which I think you have a point with.
What is another way of saying "we are justified by faith not by works of the law"
FAITH ALONE
@@convert2islaam500 yeah the word alone was added because I think it seems to still have the same meaning.
Why salvation message is consistently removed?
swapna koshy Where is it consistently removed from? (a sincere question)
It isn’t
Thank you for this video! This video helps a lot.
I use the 1984 niv version which has seemed to prove very dependable, but the 2011 niv version has many changes that does can change the meaning of scripture. Very concerning. Not particularly adding or taking away verses, but the words chosen and phrasing tend to change the actual meanings. If you want specifics, Preacherman Sage has a TH-cam channel and does a great job with some comparisons.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? -----. PLEASE READ TO THE END
If you continue to read the NIV after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be United by TRUTH, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY.
Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION,
Revelation
22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 19 AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK.
GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15
JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
Why Would Anyone Use The NIV? -----. PLEASE READ TO THE END
If you continue to read the NIV after reading this article, then you are truly blinded by Satan. Peter admits that some Scriptures are hard to understand. The King James version Bible began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, but in the year 1978 the full version of the NIV BOOK was released. The “NIV” stands for “Non Inspired Version”! The people who put the NIV together were not led by the Holy Spirit like the prophets who wrote the scriptures of the KJV. Read 2nd Timothy 3:16 Look for yourself. They state that they wanted to publish a new Bible that wouldn't offend any particular religious group. So they got many people together to compromise the Word of God, and published a perverted Bible that satisfied many peoples opinion of the flesh. Their STATED MAIN PURPOSE was not to preserve what they called THE TRUTH; but rather, to publish a translation that was non-offensive to all religious denominations which is WIDELY MARKETABLE. God makes His children to be United by TRUTH, rather than to be divided by error. (2nd Corinthians 6:14-17). The Word of God magnifies TRUTH; whereas, the DEVIL 👿 crowd magnifies LIES and FALSE RELIGIONS which are 100% HERESY.
Something's Missing! So what's wrong with the NIV? In a word... EVERYTHING! Do you have any idea how many things were changed? Hundreds of words, phrases, verses and even the entire Bible. Whereas the King James Bible are mentioned all the words in FULL COMPLETION,
Revelation
22:18-19 King James Version (KJV) 18 FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARS THE WORDS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS, GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: 19 AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK.
GODHEAD - Acts 17:29 Romans 1:20 Colossians 2:9 JEHOVAH - Exodus 6:3 Psalms 83:18 Isaiah 12:2-26:4 JEHOVAH-JIREH - Genesis 22:14 JEHOVAH-NISSI - Exodus 17:15
JEHOVAH-SHALOM - Judges 6:24 COMFORTER - John 14:16-14:26-15:26-16-7 HOLY GHOST - is removed from 89 verses and is ONLY located in 1 verse in the NIV REGENERATION - Matthew 19:28 Titus 3:5 MERCYSEAT - Hebrews 9:5 CALVARY - Luke 23:33 REMISSION - Matthew 26:28 Mark 1:4 Luke 1:77-3:3-24:47 Acts 2:38 -10:43 Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:22-10:18 QUICKENED - Psalms 119:50-119:93 1 Corinthians 15:36 Ephesians 2:1-2:5 Colossians 2:13 1 Peter 3:18 INFALLIBLE - Acts 1:3 IMMUTABLE - Hebrews 6:18 PROPITIATION - Romans 3:25 1 John 2:2-4:10 OMNIPOTENT - Revelation 19:6 One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the “only BEGOTTEN Son of God.” Yes, that's right, the NIV removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of TRUTH and JUSTICE could any professed Christian use the NIV? I'd burn every NIV I could find. Then exchange them with BRAND NEW King James Bibles'' There are also 15 verses that has been REMOVED from the NIV which you do find in the King James Version bible, and that is: Matthew 17:21 - 18:11 - 23:14 Mark 7:16 - 9:44 - 9:46 - 11:26 - 15:28 Luke 17:36 - 23:17 John 5:4 Acts 8:37 - 15:34 - 24:7 - 28:29 The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the KJV! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, so we could live by them! Matthew 4:4, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread ALONE, >>>BUT FROM EVERY WORD THAT PROCEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
'If we shouldn't subtract from God's word, then it would be equally as bad to add to His word as well" (paraphrase) Very interesting take on the decision to exclude these verses and one that I would guess not many had considered. I know I hadn't.
Acts 8:37? Doesn’t impact doctrine? An infant can’t believe with all his heart.
Walter Relief that is what makes this argument so ludicrous. The omission of “through his blood” in Colossians affects doctrine i.e. the blood atonement. The omission of 1 John 5:7 affects the trinity of the Godhead. It could not be more disingenuous for this man to say that these omissions (they are clearly not additions) do not affect doctrine. He is lying to his audience.
John David Howe they are either ignorant or evil.
Well first of all, the Ethiopian Eunuch was a grown man, and Catholics teach that an adult must believe to be baptized, so that verse doesn’t go against them at all...
David Figueroa I thought Catholics taught infant baptism?
Walter Relief They do... but they teach that adults have to believe to be baptized... they do not disagree with Acts 8:37...
Who’s “we”?
Translators
Didn’t God say not to take out or add to the book? Damn devils
Corey R Revelation 22:18 “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book”
So I will say it once again damn devils
exactly dude you are right and that is exactly what the KJV does it adds things that where not in the original transcripts written by the original authors.
Act 8: 37, the phrase of believing Jesus as Son of God is omitted. How many theological or doctrins are GONE without this fundamental verse? Why leaving it out?
You don't put verses as footnote!
The simplest of questions that i would be grateful if answered is why the original scripts skipped verse 4? It makes wise or chronological order that the verses should be in that order. But why then do the original scripts skip that position that all of us expect to be filled? Why are all other Bible scripture, except the 16 or 17 in the New Testament in order? And determine the importance of these missing verses in these scriptures?
And further, I believe, unless proven otherwise, that the King James Version is older than the NIV and others which miss these verses. Why are these older versions complete and the later missing verses?
They were added in 10th and 11th centuries
Im confused. If there was never a verse 4 or in Matt 18 verse 11 why would you leave it blank? Why not just move the next verse up ?
This is very enlightening. (I have a doctorate from a recognized university). Please do more of these type of videos. Thanx!
well...iesus collegium Oxford 1500s...deer~hart....sacred heart.. Lawerence & the Habiru..
Prometheus David........Galli = Cybele ineOracle........iheshu+s , replaced /hid Attis......
PIGNA= seed of Attis tree= xmas trees........easter was the Hilaria....Dies Sanguinis.......
@CASTRATO......do your emeritus ever mention this little mystery? (Matthew 19;12).
1cor.1:18 has a different meaning,the KJ says "saved" and the new versions say ..."been saved",and this my brothers changes the gospel.-----
@@peralopenaify no that doesn’t change the gospel as it doesn’t change the meaning
@@peralopenaify I’m sorry but it says being saved not been saved. Learn to read before you post.
I just found out that the so called missing verses from the NIV Bible aren't necessarily missing, they're actually in the footnotes
Whaaaaat? so an average person reading who don't care to really read the footnote and or is unaware can just continue to skip read the actual script!? NIV is there to confuse people only God can open ones understanding. This preacher is well versed in what he's saying but he is misled!! Stick to kjv or nkjv!!
@@angelofgod8211 I like the nkjv. I switched to the esv but those missing verses in the footnotes is a hassle, I went back to nkjv.
Angel ofGod brother with respect I think many of us had been misled with our dogmatic thinking.
You must be kidding me to say this man is well versed to deceive
That just tells me truth goes right over your head. And your arrogance is so high you take what he said as deceiving??
Yes I agree
Thank you for clearing this up for me. I’m in a discussion with a Pentecostal pastor who uses the King James and he said to me in a comment reply that the footnotes take away from the Authority of Scripture, is this true or is he just blowing smoke?
No. The footnotes just convey the reality of the manuscript data. Truth doesn't take away from the Bible's authority.
You can trust many good modern versions. ESV, NASB, CSB... even NIV 2011. NKJV is a fine translation, but I'm of the view that the TR is an inferior manuscript tradition. It's still the Bible and God's Word, but less accurate in communicating what the authors wrote.
"discussion with a Pentecostal pastor" reveals that you're not Pentecostal. Always take footnotes with a grain of salt. Some are good and some are BAD! James says if any lack wisdom, let them ask of God. Do your best to rely on the Lord for understanding of Scripture as much as possible.
I have a 1611 KJV Reprint and it has Marginal notes, variant readings, and a preface from the translators that speaks directly to the translation issue
123tominator007 you’re right! I’m not a Pentecostal or a Baptist (IFB). I’m a Lutheran (ELCA).
Footnotes are far from trustworthy, no matter how nice a person seems to be. Beware of Jesuit infiltrators.
Thank you for the excellent explanation. I appreciate it. However, what are the other 16 verses that differ between the Alexandrian Text and the Textus Receptus?
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
In 1986, I had an opportunity to stay for two & a half days at St Catherine’s Monastery, at the base of the God trodden mount of Sinai (yes I slept one night on the summit of Sinai where Moshe stayed), and I had a chance to spend an afternoon in their inner library, toured where (even now) mountains of manuscripts, papers, are stacked into the alcoves. It’s only in this last 7 years I’ve become more fully aware of Codex Sinaiticus. In the debate over “Received Text v Majority Text”, I come down in the camp of MT, inerrancy & all. I don’t even engage people who argue or debate “KJV Only”. It’s just a waste of time. Besides, who knows that by pulling up a weed, I might accidentally pull up a healthy stalk of wheat?
Baby Albatross Music Dont worry. The angels do the weeding, not humans.
I agree, there seems to be no benefit in debating the KJO crowd. If you do, you’re written off as an intentional conspirator.
Also, are you referring to the so called Mount Sinai located in Egypt, the Egypt Moses and Israel left? I’ve come to believe the real Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia and known as Jabal al-Lawz.
Baby Albatross Music that is not the real Mt. Sinai. Read your Bible (it tells you where it is) and do more research.
Catholicism isn’t Christianity.
Papacy has been deviating from actual translation for centuries for theological reasons. People of the Catholic faith are being deceived. Research the history of christianity
Well their 10 commandments are different to the original, they remove the one about making idols and break a later one (about wanting your neighbour's house/property etc) into 2 instead....a deliberate changing of the original Hebrew OT! No excuse for that!
@@TheStrataminor The early Christians taught by John used the Catholic Old Testament & it was only in 1600's that it was changed that too depending on the people who tried their best to disprove that Jesus is the Messiah. Say's much about the reformation. Search for the truth my friend if you really dare too. Don't listen to any one word. Go see how the Christians taught by the Apostle John and the likes were far from being Bible only Christians. Seek & You shall find the Truth. You may want to check out #JourneyHomeEWTN (ex-pastor's who seeked the truth of Jesus Christ & found it in the Church founded by Him.)
Don't be surprised if you end up a heretic, in the eyes of the early Christian Church. Just a heads up.
This may be true of hard copies of NIV or ESV but it is absolutely not true of these translations on most (perhaps all!) of the most popular Bible apps! This is confusing and problematic since most newer Christians use Bible apps like You Version and Bible Gateway which I have on my devices! The verses are completely missing on these apps - with absolutely No Explanation! This can be unsettling to new Christians especially. It is one thing to put the “questionable verses” in italics or brackets but I think it is completely irresponsible to bypass these verses in total! Also this becomes problematic when you search classic commentaries like Spurgeon and Matthew Henry etc. one has to conclude that many whole sermons and study commentary notes are now rendered meaningless!
Job 13:15
1599 Geneva Bible
Lo, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him, and I will reprove my ways in his sight
Job 13:15
King James Version
Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him
You would have to listen to Jesus Christ himself through his Holy Spirit to get stronger truth than the Geneva bible
Did you guys know that every word that is italicized in the NKJV and KJV was added by the translators?
They added to God's word, so does that make the KJV and the NKJV corrupt?
I wouldn't say so.
I think God can use any translation He wants to teach and rebuke those who truly belong to Him.
Your full of it Billy boy. Perhaps you can explain why the 84 NIV 2 Samual 21:19 has Elhanan killing Goliath, but the 2011 has Elhanan killing the “bother”of Goliath? By your own admission we should discard the 2011 edition because it has added words not found in the original.
Bill, wasn't it the Elzeviers in Leiden who coined the notion of 'Textus Receptus' in their prefatory advertisment, and not Th. Beza? I thought it originated in their 1633 edition, and not in any of Beza's earlier editions.
I found out about verses that are clear blasphemy in the NIV. If it is translated to be easier to be understood and comprehend, why have they completely changed words?
Daniel 3:25 Changes from "The Son of God" to "sons of gods" in the NIV.
Isaiah 14:12
Hosea 11:12
Just to name a few,
Also Placing a very important verse in Matthew 17:21 Fasting and Prayer in the footnotes?
You must use your discernment, what this man is saying in the video is totally contradictory to the reality of what has been changed in the Bible.
Use the Discernment through the Holy Spirit. Amen.
My nasb doesn't have verse missing?
Idk that but the I don't think so... NASB is the best that i have heard about but I'll stick to my NIV
@@agnostic_man6943 the NASB is the most literal version of the Bible out there. However it can be fairly difficult to understand. The CSB is my preferred translation because it is very literal and very easy to understand
The verses in question will be in parentheses and there will be a footnote.
The NASB and the HCSB put the “missing” verses in brackets and have a footnotes indicating that many of the manuscripts never had those verses to begin with
2 Cor 2:17
For we are not as
MANY, which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Just because a version or manuscript is closer to the time of writing does not mean it is correct. Paul says that MANY were corrupting God's word even in his day (while the NT was STILL BEING WRITTEN)
Imagine this: Paul writes Romans and sends it to Rome. In Rome a 2 copies are made: 1 is 100% correct, the other is filled with mistakes. The one with mistakes is not used because it's wrong, the one that's correct is used until it's worn out.
The end result is that the corrupted Romans survives longer and is older and the correct Romans copied from the worn out manuscript is younger.
Thus to say that older is better is flawed
Omiting brings in to doubt as to weather it is indeed the word of God.did God really say .creates doubt .
As does adding
weather?? lol
First time I’ve ever heard someone call the sinaticus “wonderful” but ok lol
How about we go over 1john 5:7 instead of choosing a verse with a meaningless variation
If your watching this vid, please do your own readearch on Erasmus this guy obviously has an agenda
Why are all the different translations compared to the KJV? Are they that worried about the KJV?
I appreciate your work and do find it useful. I would like your treatment of 1 Corinthians 2:13 et seq. : which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. I am interested in the use in the English of "spiritual thoughts" and "spiritual words" as there is an alternate reading that is completely different in footnotes.
great explanation about the missing verses that were omitted in modern translations. How about the added phrases that were not in earlier manuscripts but were not omitted in modern translations i.e. the Son of God clause in Mark 1:1? Why was that not omitted if earlier mss don't have that either?
Wonder what John Wycliffe & William Tyndale would think of these modern translations and the manuscripts that produce them?
What about the NWT (New World Translation) the bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses? When translating the bible they omitted and added to it, something the bible clearly says not to do but the omitted scriptures were left in the foot notes, but their translations was clearly altered to fit their doctrine. Isn't that for theological reasons?
Yes they edited God’s Word for their own purposes. I would recommend not getting into it with this group because they deny very many important things that the Word of God teaches such as the divinity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and possibly much more. God bless you sister!
How can I have that biblical training wallpaper?
you are leaving out the earliest the colx recievitext so your hole study is wrong. there are many changes the the 3rd and 4th cen. versions most around the deity of JESUS
This video is irrelevant, KJV works for me, NIV is translated incorrectly.
You don't really know that as you are not a Greek or Hebrew expert....I suspect that Dr Mounce would know what he is talking about...KJV blurs a lot with it's overtly old English that misses nuances....but in the end, NIV or whatever tells enough, that Jesus died on the cross,,,,etc....so the other details are minor points anyway
hey, man with all respect you sound like a very self-centered person. I don't think you did any research for this comment. It is a fact that the NIV is more accurate. KJV was made in a rush based on a view manuscripts that had been changed over the last century. However, the NIV is based on original transcripts that the author of the book for example Matthew actually wrote.
So true
@@weirdflex8158 that’s incorrect. The modern textual critics have lied about the KJV. Any bible that uses the critical text has been corrupted by words being removed and meanings changed in hundreds of places.
@@TheStrataminor people who have the Holy Ghost know it. You’re playing God. Looks like none of you new version people are saved. Can’t be - trying to drag people from Gods true word, and completely leaving the Holy Ghost out/ but adding your unimportant opinion-when the Bible that existed and was being read before you were born, will be doing the same when the worms are eating your corpse. You’re not important. You don’t even have power over your next breath. Leave people alone
you are so wrong sir. you know will you can stick those manuscript
Not true Sir. It leaves out several verses...including one of the most important verses in the bible...which literally changes the meaning of the gospel message...which is the core our witness to the lost. Example, in Acts 8:36...the Eunuch asks, "here is water, what doth hinders me to be baptize?", What is should say in Acts 8:37, is very important, Philip cautions the Eunuch saying, "You can proceed...if you believe with all your heart". Notice, he says, believing the Gospel is first...another wards, trusting and believing the gospel and trusting Christ. This is omitted, and then jumps to...they came out of the water. As a result, occults, and false religions and denominations, such as Church of Christ can then base the omission, and have the authority to say, "you see, there is no requirement to believe the gospel...all I have to do is be baptized...this is what saved the Eunuch, water baptism". Naturally, we know from scripture, this is false and a "works" or perverted" Gospel. The Eunuch this confesses "Christ", and His Lord and Savior, which is required in multiple scriptures in the bible including Romans 10:9-13. "if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe that he hath raised him from the dead, though shalt be saved". Notice it backs up and is consistent with the verse in Acts 8:37. The Eunuch even states, "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God". Finally, 8:37, is missing. Further, a "footnote" does not mean it is part of scripture...which is "why" it is below...and refer to as a "note"...nice "double talk"...very slick...but, doesn't meet the mustard. You are in error sir...repent and stop peddling a false Gospel and taking away from the Word of God. You are even too blinded and ignorant to realize that they are "minor changes" and is giving the authority for people to remove important scriptures. Your own testimony said it all..."you were paid" you false prophet from the devil...you make these translations. Your judgement will be thorough and in measure! The bible's words, not mind. Greedy of Gain...you stand...."accursed" preaching another Gospel and another Jesus as Paul warned. Exposed!
I would like to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Hermen Eutics. I encourage you to pay attention to what he says. He is open to reason, impartial and sincere, full of mercy and good fruits and he sows a harvest of peace in righteousness.
You should look into the errors of KJV also like Easter leaven and unicorns and the 1611 has masonic handshakes in it.
Also it niv says "I am the gate"!?!?....kjv or nkjv Jesus said "I am the door"....gates and doors have different meanings...gates = Law and door = Jesus/Grace
Of course, what the maker of this video does not tell you is that the majority of uncials such is E, F, G, H, I, J, K, etc., through W, and all other cursives, over 200 of them, follow the King James text and that of the TR. In addition, the old Syriac, the Peshitta,the majority of all Latin manuscripts also contain the verse. Each of these are older than any of the Greek manuscripts that he cites. Finally, the patristic writings of Tertulllian, Chrysostom Augustine and Jerome, which are all older than any of the Greek manuscripts he cites, also reference the verse. These church fathers could hardly reference a verse that was not in their Bibles. So basically, this guy is full of hot air. He is justifying omissions of passages that clearly belong in the Bible and if you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you should continue to use a King James Bible. It is the only English Bible that has all the verses in it.
So does William Tyndale’s New Testament, which the KJV copied heavily from (80% of the KJV is copied from Tyndale's version). to say the KJV is the only English bible that "has all the verses in it" is utter rubbish.
@@acurisur and how accessible is the Tyndale NT to the average English speaker at say, Barnes & Noble. IT’S NOT. Therefore, the KJV is the only ACCESSIBLE English translation with all of the verses it it.
@@DrHoweThD The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus which is full of errors. The translators who worked on the KJV weren't even KJV only themselves.
They also added verses that were not present in earlier Greek and Hebrew translations.
"Many consider the King James Version of the Bible to be the crown of English Bibles. Even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Greek text used in preparing the KJV was the Textus Receptus. Both Luther and Tyndale translated the Scriptures into their vernacular languages using the same basic Greek text. Luther used the second edition of the Erasmus New Testament, and Tyndale utilized the third edition."
www.gotquestions.org/Textus-Receptus.html
One thing that I would preface all of this with before making these explanations is to explain to people that "verses" are a recent invention that didn't exist for the majority of the Bible's history. They didn't "take verses out" because not one of the greek manuscripts has the verse divisions that English bibles have today
It removes ACTS 8:37! Without it, you are lead to believe that you must be water baptized..
Not in my text and not in my footnotes……NIV Life Application Study Bible….Matt. 17:21
So if a very very old manuscript was found that dates back to 20 years after the death of Christ, then that version would take precedence. That would be the expectation except that such a manuscript based upon the existence of others, would have been determined to be incomplete. I am confident that we have enough resources to be sure that the editions of the bible that we are reading today are complete. I do greatly respect the work that the NET BIBLE team has done in their passionate, exhaustive, and thorough translation of each verse and discussion of any verse that had to be omitted from the text. Translators notes galore are there to indicate what happened and why.
Okay so NIV is the most reliable right now, but how do we know which verses in the NIV are also additions that we just don’t know about?
How can we know what is from god and what is not?
Why did he leave us like this?
Why did he allow people to corrupt his words?
Can anyone help answer my questions
I fear for you on judgement day...
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:19
The Holy Spirit did NOT use foot notes for ‘theological’ reasons. You’d better FEAR GOD and repent!
dude, are you kidding me? these verses are not in the original transcripts meaning the author did not write them! The verse which you pointed out says not to add to Gods word which is exactly what the authors of the Kjv did Im confused by your comment.
Normally, I have a HEAP of respect for Dr Mounce. His respect for the sloppy Sinaiticus, and his neglect (or ignorance) of the Early Church Fathers, shows a flaw that opens massive room for error.
You think you’re more knowledgeable about the NT than Dr. Bill Mounce? Pure pride…
You think Dr Bill Mounce knows everything about the NT? Pure worship...
Justin Martyr and Cyprian quote Acts 8:37 which cannot be found in the sloppy Sinaiticus or sloppy Vaticanus: two complete New Testament mss from the 4th century. These mss differ from each other 3000 times in the Gospels alone! Justin Martyr wrote 190 years BEFORE the Sinaiticus, and Cyprian wrote 160 years before it. If Acts 8:37 was in the Bible in the 2nd century, and not in the 4th century, then reappears in the 7th century, then you would have to CONCLUDE that the Bibles we find in the 4th century DO NOT REFLECT the Bibles typical in the 4th century! Why did these two sloppy mss survive? Was it because NOBODY thought they were worth READING, and nobody thought they were worth COPYING (this is how mss wear out and perish).
I respect Mounce, but NT textual criticism is not as simple as he makes it. The oldest Mss are all found in Egypt where the weather preserved them. One cannot simply dismiss an alternative reading like the end of John 3:13 “who is in heaven” because it is not found in early papyrus. There is so much bias with many NT textual critics, either they only embrace the critical text or the Byzantine text. We need a more eclectic approach.
Some would say codex sinaiticus is a forgery. How would you respond?
Pastor Brian - actually _many_ would say codex sinaiticus is a forgery. Sadly, I doubt that you will get a response from Mr. Nounce. Thank you for your comment!
It is a forgery. He lied when he stated it’s such a great manuscript. It has so many errors only a fool would trust it.
Most likely copying they left it out... and being copies from the originals being sent to Alexandria the chances of error is bigger. The reason they are older is that they were less used (the reason why they were less used is up to debate since it appears they knew those copies were less accurate/faithful therefore they were not the Majority Text) and the climate. What made the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, the Byzantine family were probably the oldest once, but they got destroyed for that precise reason, they were older and due to usage and climate only newer copies but more copies were left. I find very misleading to give ONLY one side of the argument and not explain the other with the scientific explanation of why older not always is better like in this case, where more quantity and location may have the answer. It is easier to leave a verse out while copying than adding a marginal note into the text "by mistake". Try it for yourself.
Nonsense. The climate in the area of Alexandria was better for preserving the manuscripts.
The chances of errors in the Majority Text being greater is because the more times a copy is made, the more likely for errors to creep in.
If we used today's Bible as an example of why more copies does not make something better and/or more accurate look at the NIV.
The NIV is 40% of all Bibles out there sold. By far more NIV Bible copies are sold than other translations. Since it has the most copies, it must be the most accurate, right?
This example should show how foolish it is to claim having higher number of copies means greater accuracy.
CSB has a much better approach. They keep the "missing" verses right in the main text, but put brackets around them.
danbuter the problem with that is most readers do not pay attention or know what the brackets mean. Most readers do not pay attention to these devices and just assume there is no issue.
Notia Bizniz Plus, square brackets clearly can have various meanings. The committee that Metzger frequently refers to in the book cited by Dr. Mounce in this very video sometimes voted for square brackets when it came to certain variants. These variants are likely, but not certain. John 5:4 is very, very, very unlikely, therefore square brackets according to that usage is not appropriate here.
I personally would prefer that in brackets rather than taken out. I know it's difficult as point mentioned above that just readers won't realise why it's in brackets. But now I know.. Definitely would prefer it.
CSB does not