Friday, July 07, 2006

Missing Verses

One argument for the KJVO point of view is that newer translations are missing verses, and leave out the blood, the name of Christ, etc., etc. What about the KJV? These might be new to you:

Acts 4:25
KJV: Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
NIV: You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:" 'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?"
I could fault the KJV for "deleting" the Holy Spirit.

Jude 25
KJV: To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
NIV: to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
I could fault the KJV for "doing away" with "Jesus Christ our Lord"!

Rev 22:14
KJV: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
NIV:"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city."
I could fault the KJV for teaching works salvation. In addition, John Gill tells us: "The Alexandrian copy reads, "that wash their garments"; and so the Ethiopic version, and also the Vulgate Latin, which adds, "in the blood of the Lamb," " So I then suppose I could lump the KJV with all the other modern versions in a conspiracy to take the blood out of the Bible!

One response might be that, well, the KJV removed whole _verses_; bear in mind that verse divisions were designed around the Byzantine text-type and, being a fuller text-type (more words), this state of affairs would automatically position any text-type of less fullness right in the crosshairs of this objection. So I don't know that it is fair.
I would also encourage you to start at Matthew and compare the KJV with the NIV throughout the NT and you will find Christ's name present in many places in the NIV were it is not in the KJV, and vice versa. The point I am making is not that the KJV is inferior, or that the NIV is superior; I hold that the KJV is superior. I am against the double-standard being applied by some.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I also believe Kjv is superior but I do think you make a good point on the NIV.A lot of times people only tell or listen to one side of the story instead of hearing and understanding for theirselves