NIV and missing Bible verses

[Natsumi Lam]

Hi Family,

It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.

Is this true?

Why would they be omitted?

Natsumi Lam

 

[dysert]

Well it's true that the NIV does not have some verses that other versions (e.g., KJV) do have. But whether they're "missing" or not depends on what Bible is the "gold standard". I mean, if we had the *original* manuscripts, would it be that the NIV omitted verses from the originals, or would it be that the KJV added verses to the originals?

 

[Hank77]

Hey
This is a question that comes up fairly often. I think this article may be of help to you.
I always remember that even in the very oldest MSS there are slight differences between them such as the Syriac compared to the Arabic. Bible scholars look at all the oldest MSS they can.
It's not just the NIV but ESV, NASB, etc.

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

 

[JackRT]

Another example is:

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

To the best of my knowledge, no Bible version has dropped it but it is footnoted in most versions as problematic. If it were not such a beloved story, I wonder if it would still be included.

 

[bcbsr]

Hi Family,

It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.

Is this true?

Why would they be omitted?

Natsumi Lam

It's "missing verses" just like any modern translation like NASB or ESV is "missing verses". They're not missing. They're simply translations based on manuscripts different than KJV which don't have those verses.

 

[hedrick]

ohn 7:53 - 8:11

I would actually favor moving it out to a separate book. I consider it canonical, but it's certainly not part of John.

The difference between this and some of the other additions is that this appears to have been transmitted separately from John. Most of the additions likely arose as marginal comments or varying texts of the main book. Even the varying endings to Mark were probably intended to be part of Mark.

 

[straykat]

The idea that God only preserved his word in a handful of manuscripts that got discovered in the 19th century is pretty sad to me. Manuscripts opposed to a wealth of manuscripts that the Church (of all stripes) had been comfortable with for millenia. It's nice and all to examine these things, but the whole endeavor comes from a spirit of conspiracy and distrust of Church authority that I think has no place with Christians.

I understand that what I'm saying isn't a scientific argument. Just a religious/ecclesiastical/emotional appeal.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

Hey
This is a question that comes up fairly often. I think this article may be of help to you.
I always remember that even in the very oldest MSS there are slight differences between them such as the Syriac compared to the Arabic. Bible scholars look at all the oldest MSS they can.
It's not just the NIV but ESV, NASB, etc.

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?

With this info...what is your open on the most accurate translation?

 

[Willie T]

Hi Family,

It seems like the NIV has missing Bible verses.

Is this true?

Why would they be omitted?

Natsumi Lam

It seems the KJV, and those Bibles written with it as a model, included some things the translators of the NIV could locate nowhere else.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

It seems the KJV, and those Bibles written with it as a model, included some things the translators of the NIV could locate nowhere else.

Do you believe there is an omission theme?

 

[straykat]

The funniest thing is that so much value is placed on a fringe collection of manuscripts that were removed from central locations of the Church (Egypt at the time). And simply because of age, this apparently means "quality". As if age is a designation in and of itself. The same areas also produced many fringe Gnostic and Arian outlooks. And even the legitimate church had issues with it's people - like the famous killing of Hypatia (scientist in Alexandria), where it was somehow good to attack a woman with a "Christian" mob, strip her, and skin her alive. Yeah, great "quality" people.

The same area caved in to it's worst inclinations and produced Muhammad some centuries later. Who WAS NOT some "new religious leader", but a blasphemous reviser, much like Joseph Smith. He took Christian and Jewish texts and distorted them. He didn't create anything new.

 

[Willie T]

Do you believe there is an omission theme?

I don't even know what "an omission theme" is.

 

[Natsumi Lam]

I don't even know what "an omission theme" is.

Meaning is there a theme to which verses are not included or different. Ie the Trinity or Jesus' deliverances...

 

[Willie T]

Meaning is there a theme to which verses are not included or different. Ie the Trinity or Jesus' deliverances...

I have no idea. In fact, the only way I am ever aware of differences is when someone spends months and months searching for something, anything, they can point to in order to either super sacralize the KJV, or defame some other version.

And I don't know if those things ferreted-out fit into any particular category, or not.

 

[Willie T]

Do you believe there is an omission theme?

Perhaps, maybe there was an "addition theme" slipped into the translation of the KJV?"

 

[straykat]

I have no idea. In fact, the only way I am ever aware of differences is when someone spends months and months searching for something, anything, they can point to in order to either super sacralize the KJV, or defame some other version.

And I don't know if those things ferreted-out fit into any particular category, or not.

I would say it's not about the KJV. We gotta step out of this Western/English bubble, because it's relatively recent and means little to the bulk of history. It's about a whole majority of manuscripts that span the whole history of the Church, that applied to every language it was transmitted to... not merely English in the 17th century. And further, this really centers on how you think of Church authority.. or give implicit value to "dating" in and of itself. If you don't think the Holy Spirit is real or that God never built a Church, then sure... it's all a mess and the majority of manuscripts mean nothing. But if you do, the idea that it's all been a mistake for 2000 years is absurd.

And you don't have to ferret out anything. Some of the differences are blatant.

 

[JackRT]

The idea that God only preserved his word in a handful of manuscripts that got discovered in the 19th century is pretty sad to me. Manuscripts opposed to a wealth of manuscripts that the Church (of all stripes) had been comfortable with for millenia.

Wealth? The KJV was based on just ten not so ancient manuscripts whereas we have about ten thousand available today.

 

[Willie T]

I would say it's not about the KJV. We gotta step out of this Western/English bubble, because it's relatively recent and means little to the bulk of history. It's about a whole majority of manuscripts that span the whole history of the Church, that applied to every language it was transmitted to... not merely English in the 17th century. And further, this really centers on how you think of Church authority.. or give implicit value to "dating" in and of itself. If you don't think the Holy Spirit is real or that God never built a Church, then sure... it's all a mess and the majority of manuscripts mean nothing. But if you do, the idea that it's all been a mistake for 2000 years is absurd.

And you don't have to ferret out anything. Some of the differences are blatant.

Did you ever research why James I (King James) had the English printing of the Swiss/French Geneva Bible outlawed and banned in England...… then had his own version translated to replace it? There really was a very personal and strong reason of self-interest to the king.

 

[JackRT]

I would actually favor moving it out to a separate book. I consider it canonical, but it's certainly not part of John.

A book of "orphan verses"?

 

[Anto9us]

I dislike the way NIV is just SILENT about the "missing verses", whereas other modern versions will have margin footnotes that say "other manuscripts have blah - blah - blah" and allow the reader to decide, at least to KNOW that there were manuscript variants.