Is there no one who will defend the idea that the Bible is without error? Really?
What happened to verse 4? The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400 years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that did not even date prior to 1100 AD. The NIV translation committee had access to manuscripts dating back within 150 years of the original documents of the New Testament.
What are those numbers?
This is a list of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but absent from most modern Bible translations completed after 1881 which are based upon the earliest manuscripts, see also Novum Testamentum Graece.
If you -really- want an answer, you need to ask the people that put those version of the Bible together.Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?
Are these verses the Word of God? *If so, why aren't they in the NIV Bible? *If not, why are they in the King James Bible?
Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14.
Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28.
Luke 17:36; 23:17;*
John 5:4.
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.
Romans 16:24.
Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.
So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
Maybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.Dude! You are such a TROLL! Is this your mission in life or something, to bait someone into arguing over miniscule, and often irrelevent, Biblical translation inconsistencies? Really? Does it just make your day to show us dumb ol' "Jesus Freaks" just how "inconsistent" the "book" we follow is? You really don't understand a great deal about faith, do you? It is sad, really.
Nahhh, he's just a troll. He asks twice for someone (innerantists) to argue against his accusations, and when he gets no takers he posts this..........give up already, LOLMaybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.
Panache wrote:
So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
Ok, so the popular theory seems to be that the King James Version had a bunch of errors because it was based on the Textus Receptus which also had a bunch of errors, and the NIV has provided a somewhat more faithful interpretation by correcting some of these errors after cross referencing older manuscripts that also must contain errors, since they often disagree with each other.
So where do people get this idea about an "inerrant" "Inspired" "perfect" Bible from? Surely there must be someone on this forum who suffers under the delusion that everything in the Bible is true.
Maybe he just wants an answer from an inerrantist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?