Is the NIV Missing Verses?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 тра 2023
- Three reasons to doubt the common meme.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
So informative! Thank you for your hard work on these topics. 🙏🏼
You are so welcome!
Great point that these important topics are often over simplified. They deserve far more than a few cutting words in a sermon or memes... Thanks for all you do!
Right!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
The section quoting Erasmus was great. I love it when "new" issues are shown to have been addressed a long time ago.
Right! I find that to be so helpful, too!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
@@MrShain1611 is there a particular reason for adding that verse to this conversation? Funny thing, my morning reading also happen to include Jesus talking about blind people. Since we are posting random verses I'll share mine. :)
John 9:39-41
"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
“New news is old news happening to new people”
@@MrShain1611Are you talking about the KJV only deceivers?
What happens these days is people feel so lied to, so held in contempt, by the media and academics in general - and these authorities have been caught so many times either outright lying, or shading for the benefit of an agenda - be it for personal gain or other - that these knee-jerk reactions have become the norm, instinctual, and authorities have to go a much longer way, and provide much more evidence to the contrary than in times past.
That's why I so greatly appreciate your patient, thorough, and thoughtful expositions on these matters - the MOST important matter, our relationship to our God. Keep up the great work, and please don't get discouraged if those of us who are not subject-matter experts are cynical and distrusting. I have been there myself, continue to do so sometimes without realizing it, which is why what you do is so important.
I really appreciate this, and it is very perceptive. I often find myself thinking when I see this kind of (understandable, sometimes even defensible) cynicism and distrust, "Can we at least all acknowledge that it's very sad when you can't trust the experts?" That is, there is never going to be a day when most normal Christians-insurance agents, stay-at-home moms, cosmetologists, forklift operators, firefighters, grandmothers, engineers, etc.-know Hebrew and Greek. They are always, therefore, going to have to trust people who have studied those languages. Isn't the ideal one in which, despite the fallenness and finiteness of everyone involved, laypeople can trust biblical scholars?
This is very true. Most of us feel like everyone is lying to us, the government, the news, big pharma and intellectuals. I can understand that people are sceptic. However, I know and believe that God preserved His Word and the Holy Spirit reveals the truth no matter the translation. I am concerned about the Chinese government printing their own twisted bible etc. but again, we pray and God will reveal the truth and keep us from evil. Currently I think we have more than enough translations for all people. I am not English but I can read pretty much any English translation and if I struggle with the NASB or ESV then I check my CSB or NLT. We are truly blessed. As long as the translation is Biblical and Glorifies God I am fine with it. It just seems like many people jump to conclusions - almost as if they never asked God to show them the truth. Bless everyone here!
"So true. I was happy to watch all the way through, this was not only thoroughly enjoyable, but the thoughts were conveyed simply enough that I think everyone can comprehend this. Very well done. Comments were great too thank you and God bless!"
It’s always been that way. The kjv was a project driven by the political ambitions of king James.
No it doesn’t make sense that kjv is older. Its source material is far younger than the new versions that rely on early source material.
I deeply regret telling my daughter 15 years ago, that her NIV Bible was corrupt and was missing scripture.
Now she views the Bible as not infallible.
I was lied to.
Wow. =( Don't take this whole burden on your shoulders, and be gracious to the people who told you that untruth-they probably knew not what they did.
I'll add that your daughter is an adult now (I don't know if she was 15 years ago), so while you have influenced her, she is still responsible for herself more than you are responsible for her. I know your feeling though. I have that kind of feeling with my childhood best friend that I alienated after high school with my arrogance of my youth.
So, is the NIV perfect?
@@livingforjesus8551 the NIV is as perfect as the KJV is
@@randywheeler3914
Here is acts 8:36-38 from both bibles, and they both say something different. So, they can't be the same. Either one of them is wrong, or they are both wrong.
Acts 8:36-38
King James Version
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Acts 8:36-38
New International Version
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] [a] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Great overview from Proverbs (hearing the matter first) and the Gospels loving your neighbor. I appreciate the way you appeal to Scripture itself, church history, and logic.
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
To be fair God promised a book
Joshua 1:8
Isaiah 34:16
Luke 4:20-21 proves Jesus was reading a book which had no errors regarding Isaiah 61
So KJV-onlyists can easily make this argument:
If God promised a book why settle for a version that has
a. verses missing
b. passages that seem to attack the deity of Christ
c. clear errors such 2 Samuel 21, verse 19 (who killed Goliath?)
d. Can lead to the smallest of confusion
When God is not the author of confusion - 1 Corinthians 14:33
This is such a great point for the translations. Loved this video! Thank you for your wisdom!
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you, Mark. Spoken, once again, with clarity and grace. I especially loved the Erasmus quote.
Thank you!
I just finished Authorized. Great book brother!
Many thanks! It was great fun to write!
Great video Mark, very clear and through. I pray that KJO followers will honestly consider your words and your heart. Thanks brother!
I pray the same! And the Lord is answering our request, individual by individual!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
His words are based on lies
The NIV calls Jesus lucifer it is a satanic translation
@@chessboxer35Marcion's canon was only Luke and the Pauline letters. He removed every other book. As to removing verses, I'm unaware of him doing that so would appreciate a source.
ua-cam.com/video/avG0piVeYiQ/v-deo.htmlsi=nlGks1AyyER3CM2r
We should be glad we have these translations. I like your channel brother! Thank you!
My pleasure!
Thanks for the excellent video and for the encouragement! I always appreciate your gracious and respectful presentation of truth.
You're so welcome, Micah! May the Lord bless your pastoral ministry, brother.
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
@@MrShain1611I totally agree! But, we should also be compassionate to those who have been deceived. Our Christian tradition become corrupt when we place men's opinions above the authority of God's word.
μὴ πλανᾶσθε· Φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρήσθ̓ ὁμιλίαι κακαί.
Our ability to share the gospel is put in jeopardy when we elevate our own thoughts above God's truth.
ἐκνήψατε δικαίως, καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε· ἀγνωσίαν γὰρ Θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσι· πρὸς ἐντροπὴν ὑμῖν λέγω.
@@MrShain1611so we shouldn’t read the NIV
@@dillonthompson5776 We should as it's more accurate than the KJV when both translations are compared to the oldest available Greek manuscripts. The KJV added verses that do NOT exist in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
Thank you, Mark. Always helpful. Always edifying.
Thanks for watching!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Mark I appreciate your dedication in continuing to make content on this topic. I do think you are addressing an issue that is a big deal for a lot of people.
I just pray that the right people listen and heed! And that the Lord keeps me from sin and error as I explain.
@@markwardonwords you are a blidn leader.. Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
@@MrShain1611 Go and look at the Greek manuscripts yourself, he is not blind. The KJV added verses that simply do NOT exist in the earliest available Greek manuscripts. In other words, the manuscripts that are closest to Jesus's time on the Earth do not have the added verses found in the KJV.
@@acurisur
Earlier doesn't mean better, or correct.
The more i watch this video the more sense it makes. Very insightful. Thank you Mark 🙏
My pleasure!
Great video, Mark! You never disappoint to give us 1st class content!
Request:
Can you do a video(s) on the TR authors, how their greek manuscripts came about, and highlights of their textual critical decisions?
Do not follow the blind Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Hunter, I will file this away! So many video ideas, so little time!
The TR is corrupted unlike the satanic Wescott and Horts translations
This was just what I needed - Thanks again Mark!
You're welcome!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
I honestly believe that you're being guided as I am and everyone who has viewed this video .
Nothing is by chance. God has a perfect plan.
Bravo 👏 and Thank you, Lord, for bringing brother Mark to clear out the fuzziness that sometimes appears from even the best of intentions.
May God bless you and keep you Mark 🙏
Pray for me!
Satan is guiding him definitely
Oh, wow! Thank you for this! My ESV, NCV, NIV & NLT don’t show Matt. 18.11 (& 17.21) but a couple have notes at the bottom stating that some Greek copies added these verses.
You might enjoy reading Dirk Jongkind's book on the topic. It's short and accessible and great:
www.amazon.com/dp/B07LCTZNKY?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords Will check that book! I am so in awe of scholars and translators. Another astounding one is Judges 18.30 with the change of Moses’ grandson to Manasseh’s grandson in the KJV (from the manuscript used back then).
There are actually alot more with these verses than without.
I read that the longer ending of Mark was quoted by early church fathers before the date of the earliest extant manuscript of Mark. How do you answer to that? It seems like that would cast some doubt on the Alexandrian text type.
It's generally accepted that the longer ending was added early in the transmission process. The manuscripts that omit it are evidence that a version of Mark existed without that ending, even if that version was quickly replaced in much of Christendom with the extended version.
The most common viewpoint on the ending's canonicity is expressed this way in the Catholic Edition of the RSV: "This passage is regarded as inspired and canonical scripture even if not written by Mark. As it is missing from some important manuscripts, it is possible that Mark did not write it. On the other hand, he would hardly have left his Gospel unfinished at verse 8. Many think that the original ending was lost at a very early date and that this ending was composed at the end of the apostolic period to take its place."
Similarly, the New American Bible Revised Edition says this: "This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Lk 24 and Jn 20."
Orthodox Christians would agree with the Catholic stance on the passage's authority as Scripture, while Protestants are far more divided on its canonicity. For instance, the Protestant RSV had placed it in a footnote until 1971, when tradition won out over scholarly consensus.
I think it's pretty decisive to show the history of the TR and what it's authors have to say.
KJV-onlyists seem to assume the TR is the exact text written in the apostolic age just copy pasted for centuries until someone decided to change it, instead of a renaissance era critical text based on previous manuscripts just like the modern critical text, which happened to be signed during the Reformation era and thus became standard among protestants for a long time. If someone wants to argue for it, it's better not on critical or historical grounds, but theological ones saying something like "yes they're not the oldest manuscripts, but they were the ones preserved by the church so their textual tradition is normative" or something or the sort, which is how Vulgate or Septuagint defenders argue their case, although I think making this case for the TR would be harder.
Thank you Mark for openly discussing textual variants of the bible. Erasmus had some meaningful insights.
He sure did! Those quotes were gold.
This is a very good video. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Beautiful. A video on translations methods would be most welcomed. Thank you.
A good idea! I can't believe I haven't done this before.
This is a solid video on an important subject, complete with the academic nuance and texture vitally necessary for such an important subject. Well done Mark - keep up the great work! 🙂
Thank you, sir!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
@@MrShain1611 so is the NIV bible good to read
Thank you for making this video! It was very helpful, especially the quotes from Erasmus and Dagg. They are surprisingly relevant to this modern debate. I also appreciate the insight about the clarity of a simplistic understanding.
May God bless you and your family!
Yes, those quotes help show that the issues that have caused this debate have existed since long, long before 1881.
Great and excellent video.thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
Thank you for this in-depth explanation.
This topic started a very important journey for me. When I first got saved all I had was the little red Gideons pocket Bible with the NT and Psalms. The pastor eventually gave me an NIV which I cherished. Several years later I encountered a presentation by a man I trusted who taught about the dangers of modern translations. He showed where the NIV had "missing" verses and how certain things were different. He made it sound like I was in serious trouble for using the NIV and he was very convincing so I adopted the KJV-only position. This also caused me to go down the IFB road and started accumulating some very bad theology from the bad teachers I was listening to. This eventually lead me to James White's KJV material. I eventually dropped the KJV-onlyism and started using the NASB, and also started listening to more of James White's content. Now after about 10 years I'm Reformed. One day on the Dividing Line I saw Nathan Cravatt talking about his debate with Mitch Canupp. That lead me to the Recovering Fundamentalists podcast, which is where I discovered Mark Ward.
Praise God! I love James White too. He's so very helpful and he has such a genuine and caring heart. He loves to help people understand the bible better and I'm so thankful for how God used him in my life too. He was also a big part in helping me to better understand the sovereignty of God and soteriology.
Did you watch the old video from the 80's where White and others debated the KJV onliests on the Ankerberg show? It was several hours long and was more of a formal discussion than a debate. But they covered all the issues and the panel consisted of DR White, the main guy from the NKJV bible translation, and the guy from the NIV translation. I think White was there on behalf of the NASB. They really hashed it out and it really helped me to get a proper understanding of the issue and get grounded in a right understanding.
@@chrisjohnson9542 Yes, it was John Ankerberg's show. That was definitely an important show because they really spell out the problems. I watched literally every KJV debate that I could find, and I watched many of them several times. James White's debate with Jack Moorman is the one that finally made me abandon KJV-onlyism.
What is the IFB road?
@@gustifer0311 Independent Fundamentalist Baptist
@@firstnamelastname2552 I take it those are the guys really harping on Rapture and Tribulation…. I am new so I am asking out of sincerity. Trying my best carefully weave through.
Excellent! Been waiting on this for a while!
I could happily attend a KJV church that said it "preferred" the KJV (or TR), or said it was "going with" the KJV (or NKJV, or TR based docs) out of an abundance of caution.
I cannot attend a church where the leadership slanders modern translations and translators, and churches that go with them as heretical. That behavior reinforces the possibility they don't understand their own Bibles.
In almost every situation where some says they hold to the TR I will ask about other translations done by the TR and they are critical of every translation except the KJV....hmm???
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
@@MrShain1611 What does that mean?
I agree, Turtle Trackin'.
Yes, HR G, I think this is the point to keep poking at: why do those who say "the text is the issue" never find any other translations of the TR to be satisfying to them?
Good video. Good information. Thanks !
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹🌹🌹🌹
You're welcome!
I dealt with that in Sunday school. I explained that certain verses were not found in earlier text that most modern translation uses. I told them not to worry because they can trust their translations they read and for them to read multiple translations.
Right!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Another great video, Mark! I was mostly raised on the NIV and it’s still one of my favorite translations!
I love it, too!
Why? It calls Jesus lucifer
This is so great, thank you!! I have wondered about this forever. I definitely wish I knew Hebrew and Greek but I'm just not there (maybe after I finish homeschooling my three kids? 🤔😉)
I really appreciate all your hard work! Thank you for addressing this!
Glad it was helpful!
We know exactly what it’s like homeschooling three kids!
Regarding your point #3, I have two questions:
1) Are the variants found within the TR similar in nature to the variants you gave in your point #1? Do these TR variants merely used different words, or do they exclude whole verses?
2) Are the men you are quoting and their concern for variant readings a concern for words or whole verses?
1) I don't really see a big difference between "words" and "verses." Yes, obviously, the latter are bigger. But the latter are also a category invented by humans comparatively recently. Yes, there are variants among TR editions that are as big as whole verses. 1 John 5:7 is an example. 1 John 2:23 is another. I wrote a paper comparing just two TR editions. Here it is: drops.forwarddesigner.net/f/edWNaC. You can see many of the kinds of differences that appear between TR editions if you look at just those two that I focused on.
2) Again, I don't see a big difference here. My target is textual absolutism. I am arguing for textual confidence instead. The men I quote don't specify words vs. verses. I believe they were aware of much or most of the textual variation we're aware of, though this is not something I can readily prove.
I wonder if you have looked, my friend, at the readings Sinaiticus and Vaticanus "singlehandedly" (or doublehandedly, I guess!) introduced into modern Bibles. We're talking minor stuff. I hope to write a paper and/or do a video on this someday.
@@markwardonwords Concerning #1 above, where you assert that "verses" are a category invented by humans comparatively recently, I think you have missed the mark, again. Verses are comprised of either whole or partial sentences; these partial or whole sentences make up complete thoughts; The addition or removal of a complete thought is hardly a small matter. So I think there is actually a big difference between "words" and "verses" or, shall I say "words" and "complete thoughts".
Let's take your example of 1 John 5:7.
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV)
This verse has a very detailed complete thought. Not only that, it has a pretty big impact on the doctrine of the trinity. This verse (sentence, complete thought) has major doctrinal implications.
The addition or removal of this verse is not the same as the variants discussed in your point #1:
5:45 "for" vs ""concerning"
7:30 "saw" vs "found"
10:32 "blood of bulls and goats" vs "blood of goats and bulls"
12:58 "he" vs "Jesus"
13:30 "shall cover" vs "covereth"
@@goldenarm2118 It may be nitpicky, but it really is more helpful to talk about adding or removing words, phrases, clauses, or sentences rather than adding/removing verses. The verse breaks added by Robert Estienne are sometimes arbitrary, and they first appeared a thousand years after the creation of the notable Greek manuscripts from Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages (whether we're talking about Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western manuscripts). Verse numbers are helpful for pointing out where the variants occurred, but nobody in the ancient world was deleting or adding verses.
With that being said, Luke 17.36 is another example of a "verse" that did not exist in early editions of the Textus Receptus. For an example of a shorter variant, see Revelation 16.5, where Beza's TR introduces a reading that is not present in any manuscripts. Earlier editions follow the reading found in the Greek texts (regardless of the text-type), and modern Greek editions agree with the earlier TRs against Beza.
@@MAMoreno I agree that we should be talking about removing or adding words, phrases, clauses, or sentences rather than verses. I don't think its nitpicking at all. Luke 17:36, a complete sentence has some pretty early, interesting textual evidence. I guess my initial question to Mark is or should be, "What is a TR?" Are you aware if any of the early church fathers quoted Luke 17:36?
@@goldenarm2118 I would define a TR as "a critical edition of the Greek New Testament from the Reformation era that mostly follows Byzantine text readings but includes some additional passages that are primarily supported by the Vulgate and other Latin versions rather than by the dominant Greek manuscript tradition."
Ambrose alludes to the verse in his commentary on Luke 17. Considering that he wrote in Latin and that the verse is most commonly found in Latin rather than Greek, it's possible that he had a Latin translation that contained it. Otherwise, he may have been drawing from Matthew's parallel text (24.40) and conflating the two readings. Assuming that the verse is inauthentic, it most certainly came about by someone accidentally or intentionally harmonizing these two similar Gospel accounts. (Thus, the sentence itself is undoubtedly Scripture regardless of whether Luke included it in his version of the passage.)
Will Kenney's article on this verse also cites Eusebius, but I just looked at a commentary on this passage by Eusebius, and there was no reference to the two men in the field. (Instead, Eusebius read the two in the bed and the two grinding meal allegorically.) Hence why I don't fully trust Kenney's "Another King James Bible Believer" website, even if he is sometimes correct in his data. I really wish he would provide more detailed citations for his claims.
The NASB95 actually has the "missing" verses in text.
So does the LSB, which is based off the NASB 1995.
“The shallows are always clear” is metaphorically analogous to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I think I’m going to use that from now on.
Exactly.
@@markwardonwords - oh no! I just stated the obvious 😂
;)
You may have been asked this already, brother - Might there be, or will there be, a print version of your team's TR/CT Parallel NT/Bible in print as well? I would purchase that in a heartbeat. I do have the LEB currently.
I am just about to because this.
Speech to text error. I mean propose.
@@markwardonwords I can't wait to unleash it on the KJV-Only churches I preach for in this area 😁
Amazing video !! Bravo !
Thanks for watching!
Whether or not the TR position is correct (I actually lean that way), accusing\ CT of removing verses is just a bad way of arguing.
Right!
@@misterdude123 It's called circular reasoning - you are assuming the CT is wrong if you say it removes verses. I lean in the majority/TR camp fwiw
Having used the New American Standard for years, I have to say that I actually like the NIV.
Both are great to have and use! I've read both for 24 years!
@@markwardonwords I use NIV 1984 as my first source, but I refer frequently to ESV, NASB and lastly KJV (in that very STRICT order....please don't ask me about my order lest I refereth thou to his eminence, Reverend David Cloud)
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
KJV is best not those other satanic versions
The NASB teaches works based salvation
John 3:36 is corrupted in the NASB
@@kM-ij2ly show proof
Would it be safe to say if Acts 8:37 (the eunuch’s confession) was not there originally, confession can be found in other Scriptures- to know that confession of Christ is necessary?
Yes!
Thanks! I subscribed to your channel. I really appreciate your hard work.
Thanks very much for a very clear explanation of the amount of errors in the original 5,000 plus manuscripts - and that those errors are inconsequential - or very slight in that the essential text is not turned in it’s head and in fact very very similar and accurate - as accurate as thousands of differing manuscripts can be - but still a miracle that they are so similar. I actually felt guilty at one stage after I bought my ESV expositional commentaries after being told I bought into an inferior translation. I now know better and your video makes it again clear - thank/you
You're so welcome! Check out textandcanon.org for more good info on this topic. And this great book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
I recently taught a lesson on this topic and for the lesson I used the NIV. Come to find out, nearly all the adults in class (30 or so) had a Bible that noted the verses not being in the earliest manuscripts. However, not a single person was previously aware of this before this particular sunday. It made for a very fun class and discussion, and well received. People are genuinely interested in this stuff, for good reason.
Right!
Thank you brother Mark
The KJV only position is FULL of faulty logic..the knife cuts both ways:
NIV missing verses???
Oh really!!!
KJV adding verses!!!
The real question is:
1 . What did the inspired apostles write?
2. Which are the better GK Mss for any PARTICULAR verse?
Brother Mark Ward is spot on!!!
God bless
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Thank you, Robert!
Unfortunately to say something is added or subtracted there has to be a standard.
And what should it be, my friend?
HA! I used the same Dagg quote in my midweek Bible study, June 2022. 👊🏼
I found it in the doctrinal statement of a mission board that I had erroneously assumed was King James only.
I’m very glad to hear the in depth history of the various manuscripts. I’m thankful for the good translations we have. Not all of them are good but there’s life outside the KJV.
Thanks Mark. I so agree with your points. Especially asking people not to create distrust in the Bible 🙏🏻
Absolutely! One of the most profound things anyone in my hearing has ever said about the KJV debate was by my friend Elijah Hixson: He said, "For all the talk of 'Yea, hath God said' [among KJV-Onlyists], I’ve never seen any professing Christian cast as much doubt on God’s Word as those who say, 'If you’re reading an NIV or an ESV, you don’t have a real Bible.' This is something I don’t think I’ve ever heard a text critic say about the KJV."
The problem is, the only way Mark can try to sway someone who believes in the King James only, is to create distrust in the King James Bible. Saying verses were added is an attack on the text of the King James Bible telling us it cannot be trusted. Telling people they don't understand it, even when they do, is creating distrust. Misrepresenting what the King James translators said and believed , is an attempt to cause distrust in the Bible. If it weren't for bashing the KJV, Mark would not have a lot to say.
Only thing I don't like about the NIV 2011 is that they misstranslated a Hebrew word into "miscarry" in Numbers 5. The passage implies the woman would become barren. For this reason I do not and will never use the NIV2011.
Then I'd suggest you a) watch this video (ua-cam.com/video/PM8rXf_I5-k/v-deo.html) and b) take a line from the KJV translators:
"Things are to take their denomination of the greater part. … A man may be counted a virtuous man though he have made many slips in his life (else there were none virtuous, for, ‘in many things we offend all’), also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
David Norton, ed., The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with the Apocrypha: King James Version, Revised edition., vol. 1 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011), xxviii.
@@markwardonwords ill watch the video but I have no idea why you wrote down all that. Has nothing to do with my comment.
After watching the video. I'm not even sure why you wanted me to watch it. I think maybe you misread my original comment
@@KevC1111 Perhaps I misremembered the content of my own video! I thought I addressed that…
But my other comment surely still applies.
Hey Mark!
Do you have a video where you talk about the CT bibles having a different reading in Mark 1:2 verses the TR Bibles? The NIV reads a quote from Mark but it says it’s from Isaiah, when the quote is actually from Malachi.
I’m assuming it’s a similar issue to where in the KJV (and other translations) that say they quote from Jeremiah in Matthew 2 and Matthew 27, but the quote is actually from Zechariah. SOME scholars I’ve read from say that some of the early manuscripts were grouped under a single name, such as Isaiah, and it included more than just Isaiah’s writings, but it carried his name over the entirely of the scroll.
Care to comment or point me in a good direction?
Have you read www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20?
Loving your videos. Do you have a video addressing Origen and the KJVO position that he corrupted the New Testament? I've read alot of KjVO books and they talk about him but I see very little detail on how they know he did what they say he did. Thank you.
I have not spent time with such claims. We have no way of knowing that the "Alexandrian family" is truly tied to Alexandria, let alone to Origen.
To me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the story told by KJV-Onlyism is true, how different would you except the resulting New Testament text to be? I can use the words of KJV proponents: I'd expect it to be "radically" different, "completely" different. Is it?
Here's my attempt to help others answer that question:
ua-cam.com/video/B7mxJdp0poM/v-deo.html
Wow! Thank you so much for this. I began true Bible study with some friends using my NIV1984 Bible. I was saved reading that Bible version. Then some KJV Onlyists came along, confused me and stated that I was using a perverted Bible. I could never get a handle on the KJV Bible rendering of the text no matter how hard I tried. I was that kid who struggled with reading comprehension well into adulthood. Even in college I had to work 3x harder than my peers because of my weak reading comprehension.
I wanted to read the Bible and understand it. I was introduced to the NIV, and reading that version was enjoyable for me. I had my struggles in certain areas, but nothing compared to the KJV.
My husband’s native language isn’t English, and he says that it isn’t fair that these people (KJV Onlyists) condemn you for reading a version other than the KJV. It’s a shame!
Yes! This is why I do I my work!
Me too, sister, i been in the same boat as you, i still use my NIV thst ive had for 20+ years, the concepts and precepts are solid in the NIV. Thank you Lord for a bible in my language!
Thank you for making that website, I've always wanted to know all those differences. Would be amazing if someone do the same with the spanish versions of Reina Valera and the NBLA or the NVI versions in spanish.
That really is a great idea. But a lot of work!
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Majority text shows the text was there right? We can't go by older scrolls because the ones unused and probably cause of errors will always last the longest.
I disagree with each point.
Just because something is used less is not proof that it has error of is defective. If I store a crystal vase away because it is precious to me and I want to preserve it as best as I can, does this then mean it has lesser value or is defective? No. Many MSS are buried or were at one time hidden because civilizations were decimated and their stuff stolen and tossed aside or even buried .Until the printing press it was very expensive to obtain your own copy of the Bible. It had to be hand written and scribes could charge a lot for their time and effort. When the printing press was invented and even when it improved it still wasn't cheap to obtain a copy of the Bible, but it was easier than before. Just because we find buried copies of older manuscripts (ones closer to the originals) from much older civilizations does not mean they were bad. If they were bad then they would have most likely been burned. Keep in mind that the more something is copied the more errors can add up too, like words or footnotes from previous scribes who may have put in those footnotes that are later mistaken as possible scripture and then added into newer copies. Does having more errors or even additions added (like placing the holy names in more in the newer manuscripts in what is called the "expansion of piety") into later more recent copies make them bad? No. This is why translators learn textual criticism, so they can match readings and attempt to decipher what the closest reading the originals is. Is it a perfect science? No. Nothing is perfect when copied by humans.
Please help me. I want to read the NIV but I'm really struggling with how they translate αὐθεντεῖν in 1st Timothy 2:12. The word isn't related at all to the modern word "assume". Its really bothering me and does indeed make me believe there is a secret motive behind it. I am not a King James Onlyist I swear by the NASB 95 but sometimes I just want to read something easier without going all the way to the NLT. Please help me reconcile this!
The NET Bible footnote says this about the word: "According to BDAG 150 s.v. αὐθεντέω this Greek verb means 'to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to' (cf. JB 'tell a man what to do')."
Thayer's Lexicon says that it means _"one who does a thing himself, the author_ (τῆς πράξεως, Polyb. 23, 14, 2, etc.); _one who acts on his own authority, autocratic,_ i. q. αὐτοκράτωρ an absolute _master;_ cf. _Lobeck_ ad Phryn. p. 120 [also as above; cf. W. § 2, 1 ο.]): _to govern_ one, _exercise dominion over_ one: τινός, 1 Tim. ii. 12."
But if you want a translation that's somewhat similar to the NIV, there's always the CSB. In this verse, it reads, "I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet."
M.A. gives good advice! And you can disagree with one rendering in a translation and still find the rest of it valuable!
If you disagree with a rendering in a translation, then can you seriously put your hand on that bible and call it God's Word? It's time we all concentrated less on what WE think the bible should read and more on what HE has commited to us in writing.@@markwardonwords
So a woman with a PhD should remain silent and not teach in schools? Your interpretation, NOT mine.🙄
@@Charlene916 it's talking about teaching doctrines of the Holy Church
Thank you Mark for this explanation. This showed me just how fast people will spread false news, without even trying to prove it to be facts. I feel more confident in my NIV Bible 👍🏾
Excellent! That’s the goal! Read with confidence.
Excellent stuff. Folks are afraid that people will lose faith when they learn about variants. Truth is they will lose faith when they learn you have been concealing evidence about variants. J. Warner Wallace has some good stuff about variants on UA-cam.
Right!
Would you give me your recommendation for a parallel Bible? I know you've said you like the one you got as a young man.
Honestly, I haven't seen one that meets my current standards for typographical beauty in a Bible. =| But then I use digital tools for this kind of work now. And I check far more than four translations, like the four-version Bible you've heard me reference-which makes digital tools all that more essential.
I really wish I had something to recommend. I just checked Amazon, and I'm not impressed with the selections-The Message probably doesn't belong in that format, but it's in a bunch of parallel Bibles.
The best one to get by far, assuming you're a Protestant, is Hendrickson's The Complete Evangelical Parallel Bible (2012). It contains the 1873 edition of the King James Version (in a paragraph format and with the original translators' notes!), the 1982 New King James Version, the 2011 edition of the New International Version, and the 2007 edition of the New Living Translation.
Now, if you're not a Protestant--or if you want some variety to your study--you have another excellent option in Oxford's The Complete Parallel Bible (1993), which includes the Deuterocanonical Books (aka the Apocrypha). It features the 1989 edition of the New Revised Standard Version, the 1989 Revised English Bible, the 1985 New Jerusalem Bible, and the 1991 edition of the New American Bible.
@@MAMoreno Thank you!
Thank you for raising the topic of parallel Bibles. I used to own one but gave it away many years ago. I can't even remember which translations it had beyond KJV and NIV. Time for me to do some homework. Although I have multiple translations and study notes on my tablet, there's still a certain appeal to having printed Bibles.
I have been studying this topic for weeks, and you seem to be the only person that looks at it from a neutral, non-offending perspective. Can you please tell me if “ god breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) is how it is translated from Greek, or is that us putting our own spin on it?
Because I love how that verse reads in NIV , but I want to accurately quote it as possible
Thank you for all your work.
Just yesterday I ran into a scholarly book arguing that that is not accurate, but I think it is. I just checked the major Greek-English lexicons, and they're agreed. "God-breathed" is a good translation of the word there. So is "inspired by God."
@@markwardonwords thank you for responding. I’m sure Paul was referring to the Hebrew Texts, when he wrote to Timothy 2000 years ago. Either way, I think that there is nothing wrong with applying it to the New Testament.
And again, thank you for clarifying that, I always loved “god breathed” but have been wondering if that is modern translation putting their own spin on things. I feel like this is a major concern coming off of KJV.
How often are pronouns changed in modern translations? Are there any major modern translations that seek to be more “gender neutral” as to be more inclusive and modern towards society’s thoughts on women?
I once heard someone say the NIV is a major culprit of this, but not offer an example.
@@gustifer0311 The NIV 2011 and the NASB 2020 are the ones that get called out on this the most. The NIV 1984 and the NASB 1995 use phrases like "fishers of men," just to give you one example. The NIV 2011 and the NASB 2020 use "fishers of people" instead. I personally prefer the former over the latter, because it's what I'm used to, but I will point out that the meaning is exactly the same either way, because "men" in this context refers to "mankind." When the context clearly shows that men and women are being referred to, the use of "people" is appropriate, and is IMO an accurate translation. Same with "brothers in Christ" vs "brothers and sisters in Christ" or "siblings in Christ." The NIV 2011 and NASB 2020 do not use such gender neutral terms where both genders are not intended. They don't try to make God into a female or a genderless being. He is still masculine. They do not try to make women the head of the family. They stick to using gender neutral terms only where the context allows. And while some have problems with it to various degrees (the most extreme reasonable argument is that it's part of a "transition phase" to more heretical renderings in the future, while the least extreme argument is that people still are aware that "men" includes both genders in some contexts, making the new renderings pointless), I think the arguments are over-exaggerated, and the renderings are not heretical.
@@curtthegamer934 thank you for that long and thoughtful reply! Just trying to understand all sides of this argument. It baffles me that this is actually a debate within Christianity. I came across this passage and it makes me think of the KJV only argument. I quoted it to a KJV advocate, from the KJV, who had no response.
Titus 3:9 KJV. But avoid foolish questions and genealogies, and contentions, and striving a about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain
@@gustifer0311 Since you referenced 2 Timothy 3.16, I'll give you a sampling of recent (or updated) translations for verses 16-17 to demonstrate how they handle both θεόπνευστος (God-breathed) and the phrase θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος (God's man). As you'll see, most of them find "inspired by God" to be sufficient, but they differ on how gender-inclusive they should be with the other term.
CSB: All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
NET: Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
NIV: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
ESV: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
NLT: All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right. God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.
NASB: All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man _or woman_ of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
CEB: Every scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for showing mistakes, for correcting, and for training character, so that the person who belongs to God can be equipped to do everything that is good.
NRSVue: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the person of God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
King James only might be too dogmatic, but removing verses is a problem, honestly or good intentions. Maybe in the footnotes placing verses is better than not. One version I saw didn't even do that. Some rewording that changes oviparous Deity wording would be a problem, even if the excuse being two manuscripts disagree with KJV. I would side on the Deity version.
The problem is that verse numbers were not introduced into the New Testament until the editions edited by Robert Estienne. All the editions of Erasmus came first, and those editions are "missing verses" by a later scholar's standards. The medieval Greek manuscripts used to make the Textus Receptus were also "missing verses," and not simply because some of them were in disrepair.
Some of the verses that ended up in the KJV were supported more by the Latin Vulgate than by the Greek majority text, while other potential verses from the Vulgate were left out by Estienne, so they never received their own verse numbers. Thus, versification in the New Testament reflects the voice of one textual scholar from the 1550s over every other witness.
Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
The NIV teaches the same exact Doctrine Theology and Christian practice as the KJV
Agreed.
@@davidchupp4460
Sinful nature describes it better than flesh does I see no difference between the two could you please explain the doctrinal theology difference between these two
@@davidchupp4460
In my opinion that does not I guess we will have to agree to disagree but what about acts 5:30 in the King James which does change Doctrine
@@davidchupp4460
I see what you are getting at but I still don't see it as a different Doctrine or theology
@@davidchupp4460
I believe in preservation not inspiration God definitely has preserved his word over these many many years and I don't believe there is a such thing as a perfect Bible there are issues and mistakes in every single translation overall I believe that most modern conservative Evangelical Bibles will lead you to Christ
Could you answer a question that I have please. Rev 13;16 KJV And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: The modern versions say on, not in. Which is correct as this is a reason for debate and division. Thank you for your time. I am hoping that you can help with this question.
My gut says strongly that “in” meant “on” to the KJV translators in that place. My gut is shaped deeply by experience. ;) But it isn’t proof.
@@markwardonwords my friend makes the argument that Christians will be lead to take the mark because they say it is on and not in so this couldn’t be the mark! I just am wondering why they are different! One answer from the Greek should be correct! I just want the truth in all things! Thank you for responding may God bless you as we work out our salvation with fear and trembling!
The Greek says “on” or “upon.” The KJV is almost certainly not wrong. It’s probably an archaic use of “in.”
Re your clear shallow water illustration:
Once in time past, there was a small lake near a major source of acid rain.
Some folk found they could see tiny details 20 feet down in the water.
Later learned the water was so very clear, because the low pH had killed all life in it. The lake was dead!
:--}>
First step away from the TRO position was realizing that too many TR arguments were circular reasoning, and in this case we were guilty of trying to make the Bible say what we thought it ought to say in a passage, rather than letting God's Word inform our thoughts.
Dear friend, harsh words aren't your style, but I know in walking away from the TR Only tradition, I had to cry some tears of repentance over specific statements I made about other translations, it was an insult to the Word of God. If something ever comes off as harsh it may be needed.
Textual criticism was a good introduction to abductive reasoning. Good video.
Many thanks!
Yes, harsh words are sometimes called for. But I have to feel that most TR defenders don't realize that that's what they are and simply don't understand the details. That's because most TR defenders are laypeople in churches with TR doctrinal statements.
@Mark Ward you are right, of course, we were in ignorance. It's amazing how many of us started by trying to prove the TR Position to be the correct one. As I sometimes say, I was TR only, then I learned Greek.
Here are some phrases and sentences missing from the NIV (supplied in brackets from the Knox Bible):
Acts 5.15: As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by [and so they would be healed of their infirmities.]
Acts 15.32-34: Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [But Silas had a mind to remain there; so Judas went back alone to Jerusalem.]
Acts 15.41: He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches [and bidding them observe the commands which the apostles and presbyters had given.]
Acts 18.4: Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks [by confronting them with the name of the Lord Jesus.]
Acts 23.23-25: Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.” [He was afraid that the Jews might seize on Paul and kill him; and that he himself might be falsely accused of taking a bribe from them.] He wrote a letter as follows:
Romans 4.5: However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness [according to God’s gracious plan.]
Romans 12.17: Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone [as well as in God’s.]
1 Corinthians 16.19: The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. [It is with them I am lodging.]
Jude 1.24-25: To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy [when our Lord Jesus Christ comes] - to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
Can you imagine leaving these lines out? What were the translators of the NIV--and the KJV, for that matter--thinking when they overlooked these perfectly good verse readings from the most trusted and beloved Bible translation in Christian history, the Vulgate? Did they think they knew better than the devoted Christians who had been using the Latin version for a millennium? 😛
You snark! Ha! ;)
Quite a nice list of examples! Will you be providing more? :)
@@19king14 I don't know if there are many more that are all that interesting. It's more like a word or two here and there. Every once in a while, the NIV and Vulgate will actually agree against the Textus Receptus, but again, that usually comes down to something that's almost too brief to translate. (A notable exception is Revelation 8.7: the KJV doesn't mention that "the third part of the earth was burnt up," as in the Douay-Rheims, but the NIV does.)
But since you asked, here are two more examples. As you'll see, they're rather minor:
Luke 16.20-21: At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table [but none was ready to give them to him.] Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luke 19.26: He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given [and his riches will abound], but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away.'
@@MAMoreno Yes, Thanks. As you may have already gathered, I've been on the constant comparison of the NWT, always in a peaceful way, not argumentative. Every example you showed, the NWT has already left out too, no surprise to me though. I also noticed my 1950 edition of the NWT has a line ending Luke 19:25 showing that 'part b' of the verse is left out. The 2013 edition has added a few words though. One instance off of the top of my head is Mark 1:1 now ends with the phrase "the son of God" whereas the former editions didn't.
@@19king14 It's interesting that the NRSVue has placed "Son of God" in the marginal note instead of the text, especially since the Editio Critica Maior has gone the opposite direction and taken υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ out of brackets. (Granted, the translation may have already been near completion by the time that the ECM came out, but it still makes the newest NRSV look outdated out the gate!) The Lexham English Bible also leaves it out, but it's less prominent than the NRSVue.
I would like to see a video on what you mean by inerrant, please.
www.moodybible.org/beliefs/chicago-statement-biblical-inerrancy/
what are your thoughts though on newer translation becoming gender neutral and such things vs keeping the original text for accuracy?
I talk about that issue in this video: ua-cam.com/video/8KaRpnhkViY/v-deo.html
But in most such cases, the original IS gender neutral. Let me give you an example from Spanish, since I don't speak Hebrew or Greek. If I say "¿Cuántos hermanos tienes?", the word "hermanos" is masculine plural, but the correct translation would be "How many brothers and sisters do you have", not "How many brothers do you have?". Similarly, when Paul writes "Brothers" or "Brethren" (as per traditional translations), he's actually addressing men and women. Modern English usage doesn't use "Brothers" to refer to men and women, so "Brothers and sisters" is a more accurate translation. I'm a professional translator, and the first thing we all learned at translation school is that we translate meaning, not words.
@@timtranslates and there are different sides to translations. Some Bibles are word for word and some are meaning for meaning.
It amazes me that a person can argue that two texts found in the 1800's, arguably dated as older than the majority texts, are more accurate than the majority text. Older doesn't mean more accurate.
My friend, if those documents were placed in front of you, could you read any of them? By what you've told me, I suspect the answer is no. How do you know what they say if you cannot read them? Asking sincerely here.
@@markwardonwords I can't read them. But I don't need to. Just because something is older doesn't mean it is more accurate. Two manuscripts found in the 1800 (one in Alexandria, the other in the Vatican), even if older, does not replace the weight of evidence from the majority text. You hold the position that older certainly means more accurate but that logic doesn't follow. Thanks for your time.
Edit: Actually, I can read them; I just wouldn't be able to understand them.
I don't hold that older certainly means more accurate, my friend.
@@markwardonwords See 5:30 - 5:46 "younger Greek New Testament manuscripts" vs "older Greek New Testament manuscripts THAT HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF SCHOLARS." What that means is that the thousands of texts that comprise the majority text, which make up the Greek texts that the KJV relies on, has been replaced with 2 "older" Greek texts, found in the 1800's. The scholarly justification for using these two texts against the majority text is because they are thought to be more accurate because they are thought to be older.
@@markwardonwords You spend 15 minutes on your point #1, which is a straw man. I don't know anyone who would argue over the words "for" and "concerning", or between "saw" and "found". This is not where the disagreement lies. And, so, for 15 minutes, you argue that the many variants are a "distinction without a difference" which most would agree with. After establishing the nature of variants like the previous examples, you then jump to a conclusion that you did not establish; that the KJV added words to the text. The context of your video are the "missing" verses in the modern versions, and especially in the NIV as the title of this video suggests. The discussion is not whether or not the KJV changed "he" to "Jesus". So your point #1 is irrelevant to the title of your video and deceptive in the sense that you use this example of the KJV translating "he" into "Jesus" and then conclude its the KJV that has added, rather than the newer versions taking away. So you are either asserting these whole verses are added to the KJV, or the point #1 is irrelevant. Your point #1 doesn't address that removal of full or whole verses from the newer versions or the addition of full or whole verses from the KJV. When looking at the title of your video and the repetition of the phrase "The KJV has added..." one gets the impression that your point #1 is asserting that the KJV added WHOLE verses to the text, rather than just changing "he" to "Jesus". Your conclusion of your point #1 doesn't establish that the KJV added full or whole verses to the Bible, friend.
Title of Video: Is the NIV missing verses?
0:00 Is the NIV missing verses?
0:11 Portions and full verses missing!
0:29 - 1:50 Your asserted context here is missing WHOLE verses; mentioned 5 times and with a picture of a bible with missing verses.
2:41 The KJV has extra verses; the modern versions do not have missing verses.
5:45 The actually differences between these two sets of manuscripts are outweighed by their similarities and the actual differences are very minor such as the difference between "for" (tr) and "concerning" (ct).
7:30 Another example of a minor variation between "saw" (tr) and "found" (ct)
8:35 Whether the church prayed "for" or "concerning Peter is a distinction without a difference.
8:40 The vast, vast majority of differences among Biblical manuscripts are like that one (the difference between "for" and "concerning"), inconsequential. You've built a whole website demonstrating this vast inconsequentialness of these variations.
10:03 We have somewhere around 5000 handwritten copies of various portions of the New Testament...and none of them of any size is exactly the same as any other. Before you translate into English, you have to decide which variant you are going to go with.
10:32 Another random example of a variant you have to choose "blood of bulls and goats" or "blood of goats and bulls".
12:58 the KJV tended to mildly expand and clarify the text by naming a person, for example instead of using a pronoun like replacing "he" with "Jesus". So, for people who study these things the KJV is, in a sense, adding to God's word.
13:22 modern translators attempting to weed out extraneous words that have crept into the Greek New Testament manuscript tradition TO COME UP WITH THE BEST CHOICE OF THE BEST VARIANT.
13:30 another variant example "shall cover" vs "covereth"
13:45 You may want to stick to the tried and true,the choices made by the KJV translators... but at least be aware that the vast majority of faithful evangelical Christians who believe the Bible and read Greek think that the King James has some extra verses in it; not that the modern versions have missing verses.
The word of God tells us not to follow blindly. As I see that happening on this board. Mat 15:14
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Agreed, friend!
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching!
the takeaway from watching this video is that we should be gracious with people we disagree with and hold our ridgid beliefs loosly as we keep studying in humility. disagreements need not divide us necessarily but launch us into deeper study.
Yes. Where God has not legislated something for the Christian church, we ought to provide as much liberty of conscience as he has permitted.
NIV authors tried so hard to make it easy to read, they heretically engaged in a lot of interpreting instead of faithfully translating, as the KJV translators did!
This is simply untrue.
All translations have some degree of interpretation in them, including the KJV. It's nearly impossible to translate any work into another language without having use interpretation at some points.
The KJV translators also did a lot of interpreting as well. Using your logic they were heretics as well. Love my NIV does not have all those added uninspired verses that the KJV does.
My question might be out of place. With all of these then what is your take on study bibles? You also use these big and chunky study bibles? Or you would rather use a complete set of commentaries and exegesis separate from the biblical texts?
I personally am no longer helped much by study Bibles. I do turn to technical commentaries, usually. But I'm not opposed to study Bibles at all. They helped me for a good while.
One thing is was curious about is if you speak the Greek and Hebrew languages fluently?
Only a tiny number of people in the whole world can speak Koine Greek and biblical Hebrew fluently (a larger number can speak one or the other). The vast majority of people who trained deeply in Hebrew, in Greek, or in both can read it but not speak it.
I enjoyed this discussion, thank you. After my rebirth into Jesus Christ, I developed an insatiable hunger for the gospel. I have an embarassing number of the authorized editions, and I study through at least 3-5 translations. What I truly love is what God has done to "open the eyes of my heart" which is the way to understand. I really love everything from the poetry of the 1611 KJV, to the paraphrase of the NLT. ❤ and I have a copy of George Lamas' Peshitta.
Thanks for sharing! Be a little wary of Lamsa, I'd say. He was an odd one. But if you read many other translations, you're inoculated!
Mark you failed to rightly divide ( 2 Timothy 2:15 orthotomeo means to cut straight)The warning in Revelation 20:19 is talking about the book of Revelation.
I tend to agree. But the point ends up being the same, my friend.
So helpful
Glad it was helpful!
In point one, the translation usually says law as you show here. Law, to a Jewish person in first century meant Torah. What we call pentetuc. So e also thought of prohets and writings, but most would go for the five books of Torah
You are appreciated brother Mark. I have a few concerns.
1. You seem to imply perfection is determined by an exact copy (no variation) of the original (autograph).
- Without an extant copy of the original (autograph) how could perfection or imperfection ever be determined today?
2. You seem to imply that variance is proof of imperfection.
- Yet there are distinguishable variances in copies of the 10 Commandments (Exodus vs Deuteronomy, what & how the prophets, Jesus & the apostles quote the 10 Commandments), quotes of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament, and variance in the words of Christ as reported by the Apostles, i.e. the wicked 𝘰𝘯𝘦 (Mt 13:19), Satan (Mk 4:15), the devil (Lk 8:12).
3. You seem to imply that the Church of God must determine what is and what is not (missing or added) in the written word of God (Scriptures, the Bible) by the opinions of conservative scholars using the latest axioms of textual criticism. Those opinions are filled with variances! What now?
Feel free to correct any misunderstanding of your position that I may have. Could you give some Scriptures that teach us how the Church of God should recognize what is and what is not (added/missing) the written word of God? What danger is the Church of God in if it believes and preaches all the additions (as opined by some conservative scholars today) as the very word of God? I realize this is probably not the best medium to discuss these matters. I will say that we probably agree on more things than we disagree.
Brother, I made a vow not to argue about textual criticism with anyone who insists on the exclusive use of the KJV. byfaithweunderstand.com/2016/08/29/a-vow-regarding-the-kjv/
I appreciate the tone you use, but I can't take up this topic with you until you acknowledge the validity of any other English translations of the TR.
*Without an extant copy of the original (autograph) how could perfection or imperfection ever be determined today?*
It can't be. It can only be approximated. That's true no matter if you prefer the conclusions of Theodore Beza or those of Kurt Aland.
*Could you give some Scriptures that teach us how the Church of God should recognize what is and what is not (added/missing) the written word of God?*
It doesn't, and any verses used to claim otherwise are being distorted (a distortion that far exceeds any mere textual corruption found in the various TR or UBS editions).
*What danger is the Church of God in if it believes and preaches all the additions (as opined by some conservative scholars today) as the very word of God?*
Those verses usually pose no problem at all: their teachings are supported by undisputed verses, so they don't threaten to introduce new doctrines. The one awful exception we've seen is the use of Mark 16.18 to justify Appalachian snake-handling. The idea that a Christian might survive a snake bite is paralleled by Acts 28.3-6, but in that passage, Paul does not intentionally pick up the snake. (If the Signs Following crowd had been using an ASV at the time of their movement's founding in the early 20th century, maybe they would've noticed the footnote at Mark 16.9 and thought twice before risking their lives on a disputed passage.)
@@markwardonwords Brother Mark, don't break your vow. I was simply expressing my concern about some of your comments in the video. I didn't realize that I was venturing into a textual criticism debate. Does your vow prohibit you from defining what is the written word of God from Scriptures? I'll give mine::
The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized and received as authentic by a consensus of born-again Spirit-filled believers in the vulgar language of every nation and generation unto which they have come; they are the very word of God in a written form given by inspiration of God - true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
* The inspiration of God implies true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The inspiration of God is without distinction in nature and is not limited by time.
* By the Scriptures, I mean the generally accepted consensus of versions, editions, and printings of the Scriptures.
* The Standard Version always takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions or editions.
* The Scriptures determine versions and editions; versions and editions do not determine the Scriptures.
* The preservation of Scriptures is not about preserving exact jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's written authority - Sola Scriptura.
As for your request I'll answer from the translators of the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures first put forth in 1611:
"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where."
All versions of the Scriptures are valid even the "mean ones" 🙂
Hope this helps.
@@MAMoreno Thank you for your reply.
Perfection as used in the Scriptures is not about jot and tittle matches of the autographs or the original. I wish both sides of the debate would consider this.
Let me rephrase my question:
Do the Scriptures define what the Scriptures are? Or, when the Scriptures use the term Scripture(s) what is the meaning? How does that definition apply to us today? Will it help us in the current debate?
Sects within Christianity are notorious for twisting the Scriptures or using isolated verses to build a fundamental doctrine peculiar to their sect. We both know this is wrong.
If the snake handlers had paid attention to the text they would have realized the true purpose of signs was to confirm the word.
Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
And had they taken your advice and paid more attention to the scholarly notes instead of the text they would have doubted that vital bit of information found in verse 20.
@@BrentRiggsPoland The group calls itself "The Church of God with Signs Following," so I think we can be sure that they've read verse 20. They think that they're confirming the word by burning themselves, drinking poison, and agitating rattlesnakes. And so it's no wonder that they tend to be in the King James Only branch of Pentecostalism.
I love your word studies, however, my Thompson Chain does not omit the scriptures on Revaluation's 22: 7,16.
I am not a King James only individual, it is my favorite . I am however not a fan of the NIV, but I do use Amplified, Tree of Life and just presently started looking at the ESV.
Thanks for sharing! I love the KJV, too.
This is very helpful. It clears the confusion.
✔
The greatest part of this is to show the necessity of studying ancient texts, instead of relying only on one 'translation'. God knew in allowing His word to be placed in such debates on which is better only sharpens our desires to know the infallible word of God in all of its variations - truly the best translation is the one which follow wholeheartedly to glorify Christ in our lives. The Christian is thus called to be the best translation so that all can easily read the words of Christ from both actions and speech. May we all follow, as Paul follow me as I follow Christ!
15:56 I see what you did there. (Catherine Winkworth did a lot of excellent hymn translations.)
I knew someone would pick up on that!
@@markwardonwords I actually did a reharmonization of the tune a few years ago after finding it hymnal-surfing - that's how I knew it.
Does the esv have matthew 17:21?
However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
Matthew 17:21 NKJV
It has this verse in a footnote. As you noted, it's in the main text of the NKJV. It's also in the MEV and the LSB (though the latter places it in brackets). The ESV does have the parallel verse in Mark 9.29, but the words "and fasting" are again in a footnote.
Superb take of the issue! Pastor Mark - there are just translations that are worrisome (The Message and that of the Jehovah's Witnesses' which anybody can grab in the open market). Can you please give more clarity on why people must avoid these translations?
Jehovah's Witnesses are open heretics; they are Arians. They meddle with the text of Scripture, specifically where the Bible affirms Jesus' deity.
The Message I'm not so down on, but I also don't push it on people-and I myself haven't read the entire thing, just dipped in here and there. Here are my thoughts on it: ua-cam.com/video/F5Q74WuvFNU/v-deo.html
Hello Mark, God bless you. I have a question. The Bible talks about adding or taking away words and punishment for that etc...What did it mean by that? in light of what you were saying.
Nevermind, you answered it. 🙏
Happy to help!
@@markwardonwords sorry about that Mark, as I was typing the question and when I sent it you were answering the question on your channel 😄. Really love your channel. 🙏😊
Marcos, ¿Qué pasa con este error tanto en KJV como en la NVI: Mateo 27: 9 Entonces se cumplió lo que dijo el profeta Jeremías: "Tomaron las treinta piezas de plata, el precio que le puso el pueblo de Israel, 10 y las usaron para comprar el campo del alfarero, como el Señor me mandó".
Eso no se encuentra en Jeremías, sino en Zacarías.
La cita es una combinación de Zacarías 11.12-13 y Jeremías 32.6-9. Se le da crédito al profeta más famoso de los dos.
Thank you so much for this video, Mark. I get the same reductive, oversimplified remarks about the KJV vs modern translations topic in my comments section alot these days and it's a bit tiresome to see. I'll definitely be linking this video in my comments from here on out.
I pray those viewers can be helped!
It’s my understanding that KJV comes from Antioch/byzantine where the church was established … and the Critical text came from Alexandria Egypt
Also that Westcott & Hort had bad theology
And that the “Older manuscripts = Better” argument just doesn’t make sense as unused documents will outlast daily handled documents 9/10
Also, im having trouble reconciling the rules of textual criticism, e.g., the “harder reading is preferred”
I love your channel and content. Just got these questions still… Great job.
Ps. I use the KJVER from Whitaker House publishing .. they have underlined & provided definitions for archaic words in their Bibles .. I also use the King James version, new, living translation, amplified, even The Message Bible when i wanna half listen and drive and various dramatized version, including the Bible Experience NIV
I'm afraid the Antioch/Alexandria idea is simply not true.
In a recent series of videos on this channel, Tim Berg discusses Westcott and Hort's theology. Westcott's theology was better (in our minds) than Hort's. But both remained orthodox Christians throughout their lives.
I think that without the KJV-Only movement, "older is better" would generally make sense to people. We simply cannot know what role daily handling may have played. And the key oldest manuscripts were *massively* expensive, like the most ornate family Bibles of today-except far more expensive, because every letter had to be written by hand on prepared sheepskin. Those kinds of documents (like family Bibles today) aren't necessarily designed to be used daily.
I get the objections to "harder is preferred." On this channel, people are 100% free to prefer the TR. I believe that is a matter of Christian liberty, and I do not believe the TR is very different at all from the critical text. I've shown this, I believe, at kjvparallelbible.org. So why should I divide from others over this? Instead I believe we should focus on what the Bible clearly say in 1 Cor 14: edification requires intelligibility. If you prefer the TR traidtion or the Majority/Byzantine tradition, then make or use a translation of whatever text you prefer into fully intelligible contemporary English. It looks like you're doing that!
You also might want to check out this book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
Or add this to your listening time while driving: www.biblicaltraining.org/learn/institute/nt605-textual-criticism/ It's free!
Mark, do you consider the TR and the CT to be on equal footing as the preserved Word of God?
No. The CT is closer to the originals. But both are moral choices Christians could make without sin.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for the reply. That was helpful.
AMEN!!! ✝️
Glad you found this helpful!
I am in general agreement with you here. The Body of Christ would be much better served if those on both sides of the issue would point out the agreement of the texts. The only thing I would disagree with is, at the end, when you asked are there missing verses in the NIV? You said no. I would say maybe.
So are there added verses in the KJV? Maybe.
Sure-I agree. I think my point is precisely the same as yours: we can't be certain that the verses are missing from the NIV or added to the KJV. 100% certainty eludes us; God hasn't given us warrant for it.
Sounds like my grandmother. I don’t think there’s anything I can say.
And with your grandmother maybe you don’t need to say anything. Is she breaking relationships over this? If not, you can very likely leave her be and love her for her other good qualities!
The shallows are not always clear. That's how crocodiles get so close to their prey, before striking.
Right!
I was reading in John 21:5 this morning in the NKJV and the translators substituted "food" for what the KJV translators used, "Meat" for.... I can't believe they'd do this....... the NKJV translators must have been vegans! Unbelievable and unconscionable that they'd do this!
;)
@@markwardonwords of course this was "tongue I'm cheek".
Thanks for the laugh 😂
Should I buy an Oxford English Dictionary? I want to, but I think it is a multi-volume set and kinda pricey. Or use an online version maybe?
It's literally the only tool in existence that will give you confident, careful, assessments of the *diachronic* use of the English of the periods you're interested in, meaning that it will trace the use of a given word through time, from the Elizabethans' time to ours.
It is expensive, but it's the only way. There is literally no other tool that can do what the OED does. I have electronic access through my local library system. Perhaps check their first before buying the set? There is also a two-volume, micro-type set I have that a friend found for $4 at Goodwill. Perhaps you can score a similar set.
@@markwardonwords awesome 👌
I have one more question about literal translation. I came across this one while I was searching for qualifications on who can preach the gospel or lead a congregation.
NIV. 1 timothy 3:2 Now the Over seer is to be above reproach, FAITHFUL TO HIS WIFE
KJV. 1 timothy 3:2 A bishop must be blameless, the husband of ONE WIFE
This makes a pretty big difference to someone like me, who is divorced...
Which is more accurate?
Thank you again for taking the time to reply.
Gus, this is a complex matter-both translations are accurate, and I think you should not read too much into the difference. But this is probably something worth talking to your pastor about, and worth poking into some commentaries on. Do you have a good study Bible and/or access to any of the commentaries at the top of this list?
bestcommentaries.com/pastoral-epistles/
@@markwardonwords thank you again for the reply.
Yes I have multiple study bibles, and look at commentaries on various versions. I never noticed this passage written like this, until I read the KJV. Then I was like, “wait, why did that not jump out to me when I read in NIV..” the. I cross referenced it in CSB, And NASB.
I did in fact ask the pastor and the response was neutral. “There’s multiple ways to look at it” other Deacons stood behind what’s written in other versions (or how they were raised to believe). None have studied the Greek text.
Not looking for an answer as to ministering, just a question pertaining to how it translates
. I suppose the NIV would translate differently if it was from another Greek New Testament different from KJV, CSB, NASB?
@@gustifer0311 Great question! No, this is not a textual variant. What you are seeing is two legitimate ways to take a slightly ambiguous Greek phrase. Let's not forget that "ambiguous" doesn't mean, "It can mean anything you want it to mean!" It means that the two major possible translations are both legitimate. And it means, to me at least, that you can probably take both interpretations you're considering to mean the same thing. That is, "faithful to his wife" means the same thing as "husband of one wife." I don't think this will solve the problem you've raised, but I do think it will help lay out the possibilities.
@@markwardonwords thank you so much for the clarity on that Mark! I look forward to watching more of your videos on this subject!
Thank you for the content!
Yesterday, of all places, I had a gentleman comment on my Bible as I was walking to the Christian Book Store ( literally he was walking out as I was walking in) and this gentleman strikes a conversation, then proceeds to tell my Bible is “Corrupt”… All in a manner of 10 seconds.
Interesting enough, I was holding a KJV, and he had an NASB. Now I’ve been studying this subject for a few weeks now, and I was always under the impression I would be defending modern versions, not vise versa lol.
I simply quoted 2 Tim 3:16 and told him to have a nice day and walked off before i got drawn into a parking lot hillbilly debate.
Started watching your channel about a week ago to deepen my knowledge and defend appropriately ( and intelligently) 😂
Thanks again.
@@gustifer0311 My Mom actually has a friend who believes the KJV is corrupt and always tells this story about how King James forced his own personal beliefs into the translation that he authorized. This is pretty much the opposite extreme compared to KJV-Onlyism, and I would say it's just as bad. While it's true that King James was butthurt after a lot of people continued to use the Geneva Bible instead of the KJV, the story that my Mom's friend tells is far from accurate and absolutely villainizes everybody involved in the production of the KJV.
What about the Majority Text
See the most recent video on the channel, an interview with Maurice Robinson.
Best spin, not if it means lying.