Acts 24:6-8 Inspired Scripture? or the NIV can't count right

[brandplucked]

Acts 24:6-8 Are these verses inspired Scripture or do the NIV editors not know how to count?

In the King James Bible we read of the high priest and the elders of Israel accusing the apostle Paul before Herod's judgment hall. Among the things they accuse Paul of are these words: 24: 6 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. 24:7 BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUR OF OUR HANDS, 24:8 COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him."

All the capitalized words are found in the vast majority of all Bible translations throughout the world in most languages even today, yet they are omitted or called into doubt by several modern versions that don't seem to be able to count right. The Absolute Standard has already been set as to how many verses are in The Bible, yet several modern English versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB have to continually "skip over" anywhere from 15 to 45 of them, rather than re-numbering the verses in their conflicting versions. (See for example the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24.)

The words are found in a multitude of Greek copies and in the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener, and the Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek speaking churches of the world today.

They are found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin copies (ar, c, dem, e, gig, p, ph, ro, w), the Vulgate Clementine, the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harkelian, the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions. These words are quoted or referred to by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Bede.

The English Bible translations that contain these words are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560-1602, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, the Jerusalem bible 1968, Young's, Darby, the NKJV 1982, Green's Modern KJV, the Amplified Bible, New Life Bible, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the 2003 Holman Standard, and the 1995 NASB, though these later two place the verses in brackets.

The NASB editors can't seem to make up their minds. From 1963 to at least 1972 the NASBs omitted all the words in question from their text, but in 1977 and again in 1995 they decided to put them back into the text, but in brackets this time, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity. It's reassuring to have a "bible" version with brackets around some 40 verses of the New Testament like the NASB does, isn't it.

Likewise the Catholic bible versions can't seem to make up their minds either. The previous Douay-Rheims version included the words. The 1968 Catholic Jerusalem bible also included the words, but then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and later the New Jerusalem 1985 omitted them, but now the latest "official" Latin version has come out and it puts them back in again.

Modern English versions that have chosen to entirely omit all these words from their text are the RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV and a slew of modern English paraphrases like the Living Bible, TNIV and the Message.

However, all the words these modern English versions omit are found in the following foreign language Bible translations: the Afrikaans 1953, Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic Peshitta, Basque, Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Esperanto, Finnish 1992, French Martin and Louis Segond, Hatian Creole, the MODERN GREEK and MODERN HEBREW, the German bibles, Hungarian, Italian Diodati and Rivudeta, Icelandic, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, the New Vulgate, Lithuanian, Maori, Netherlands, Norwegian, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and the 2000 Slovo Zhizny, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituas 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 to 1995, the Swahili, Tagalog, Thai, Turkish 1994, Ukranian, and the Vietnamese bibles.

Basically the reason some modern English versions either omit or place these words in brackets is because the usual suspects called "the oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them. Yet these two Greek manuscripts are continually at variance, not only with the majority of all other Greek texts, but with each other as well.

For further study on what these two "oldest and best" texts actually say, please see my studies here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html and the study on John 5:3-4 and the troubling of the water by the angel here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/John5.html

Will Kinney

[Jerry]

You wonder what goes through an NIV-advocate's mind when reading a passage like this - do they just not notice that verses are missing, or do they really not care? What do they do when a preacher is preaching from that passage? Does he just skip the verses that aren't there, or read them anyway and hope someone doesn't notice?

[kevinmiller]

You wonder what goes through an NIV-advocate's mind when reading a passage like this - do they just not notice that verses are missing, or do they really not care? What do they do when a preacher is preaching from that passage? Does he just skip the verses that aren't there, or read them anyway and hope someone doesn't notice?

I imagine that most don't notice. I probably wouldn't unless someone pointed them out to me. Usually when you read the Bible, you are just looking at the words without really paying attention to the numbering of them.

[brandplucked]

I imagine that most don't notice. I probably wouldn't unless someone pointed them out to me. Usually when you read the Bible, you are just looking at the words without really paying attention to the numbering of them.

What would be a lot of fun in a mixed bible version class is to ask the all to turn to these passages one at a time and ask them to comment on their meaning.
(See for example the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24.)

Will

[lettheredeemedsayso]

What would be a lot of fun in a mixed bible version class is to ask the all to turn to these passages one at a time and ask them to comment on their meaning.
(See for example the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24.)

And conclude with the NIV Challenge.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/NIV_Challenge.html

[Jerry]

I imagine that most don't notice. I probably wouldn't unless someone pointed them out to me. Usually when you read the Bible, you are just looking at the words without really paying attention to the numbering of them.

The preachers I know point out and emphasize certain verses as they are preaching - that causes the listeners to look for those numbered verses. Also, in my own studying I am always paying attention to the verse references, because I want to know which parts I should actually quote, which ones to sum up, which cross-references to bring in, which to memorize.

Not saying anything is wrong with the person who just reads the paragraphs (my Bible is divided into verses, not paragraphs, and I use the individual - not paragraph - option in my Bible program), and doesn't pay direct attention to the numbers - I just find it way easier to focus on the parts of each passage when I do. Years ago, I used to just read - so then it probably wouldn't have mattered, as I would just be concerned with the chapter number - but now even as I read I am always looking up word definitions, so I am continually aware of the verse references.

[Guest Guest]

I remember when I first discovered that the newer Bible versions take out entire verses. It came as quite a shock to me. It still comes as a shock to me though not as much of a shock as it was before.

[manofconviction]

We all use the KJV (for this very reason). There really isn't any debate on versions at our church. New converts who may already have another version, are worked with one on one.

[brandplucked]

Acts 28:29 "AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THESE WORDS, THE JEWS DEPARTED, AND HAD GREAT REASONING AMONG THEMSELVES."

All these words are found in the majority of all Greek texts, as well as in such ancient versions as the Old Latin copies of ar, c, gig, p, ph, w, the Syriac Peshitta translation of Lamsa, the Syriac Harkelian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic.

English Bible translations that include this whole verse are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Youngs, Darby, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified, New Life Bible, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, the KJV 21st Century 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible. Some of the new versions that often omit hundreds of words from the New Testament because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, have now gone back to including this verse in their texts; these include the 2003 Holman Standard and the 2006 ISV (International Standard Version)

Even Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, who sometimes adopt the Westcott-Hort readings or omissions, say: "the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves--"This verse is wanting in many manuscripts [and omitted by several recent editors], but certainly without reason. Probably the words were regarded as superfluous, as they seem to tell us what we were told before, that Paul "departed" (see Ac 28:25). But in Ac 28:25 it is the breaking off of the discourse that is meant, here the final departure from the house."

But as is so typical among the "every man for himself versionists", Daniel Wallace's NET version omits the whole verse and then he tells us: "Some later mss include 28:29: This verse is almost certainly not a part of the original text of Acts, as it lacks the best credentials."

Instead of "Some later mss. include", Dr. Dan would be far more accurate if he were to say: "Most Greek texts, several ancient versions, and several church Fathers quote this verse (Chrysostom, Euthallus, Cassiodorus, Theophylact), but primarily because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we choose to SOMETIMES omit it in the multitude of conflicting modern versions."

In its now familiar fickle fashion, the NASBs from 1963 to at least 1972 chose to omit the whole verse from its text, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 they "scientifically" decided to place the verse back in the text, but this time in brackets. The NASBs now bracket some 40 entire verses in their N.T. just so you wont get too comfortable with the idea that you might in fact have the true words of God in Book form.

The footnotes are also misleading in many versions. The NASB brackets the verse but then tells us: "early manuscripts do not contain this verse." However the previous ASV of 1901 also omitted the verse, but they told us in their footnote: "Some ancient authorities insert" the verse. Do you see how they have now downgraded the evidence from "some ancient authorities insert" to "early mss. do not contain"? The newer NASB footnote is a half lie - half truth. The fact is that many early manuscripts DO contain the whole verse.

Also the Nestle-Aland footnotes are misleading as well. They tell us that the Syriac Peshitta omits the verse, yet both Lamsa's and Murdock's translation of the Peshitta, as well as the modern Aramaic Peshitta versions all contain the verse in question.

Other modern versions that omit the entire verse from their text are the RSV, ESV, NIV, and a slew of modern paraphrases like the Message and the TNIV. Likewise the Catholic versions are in disarray with the previous Douay-Rheims including it, but now the St. Joseph NAB and the newer Jerusalem bible omitting it from their texts. Jerome's Vulgate omitted it; the Clementine Vulgate included it and the newest Latin edition has now put it back in as well.

Among the foreign language Bible translations that DO contain the entire verse are the following: Afrikaans 1953, Albanian, Arabic, Aramaic Peshitta, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian 2005, Cebuno, Chamorro, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Esperanto, Estonian, Finnish 1992, French Louis Segond, French Ostervald 1996, Modern Greek, Modern Hebrew, Hungarian, Haitian Creole, Indonesian, Italian Diodati and Riveduta, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Maori, Portuguese, Norwegian, Romanian 1984, Spanish Reina Valera 1909 - 1995, Swahili, Russian, Tagalog, Turkish, Thai, Ukranian, Uma, Wolof, Vietnamese and Xhosa.

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

Hi saints. Over at our Which Version club brother Teno Groppi just posted this great Motto for all those modern versionists out there.

"Use the Modern Versions - you don't know what you are missing!"

Teno Groppi

[John the Baptist]

Acts 24:6-8 Are these verses inspired Scripture or do the NIV editors not know how to count?

In the King James Bible we read of the high priest and the elders of Israel accusing the apostle Paul before Herod's judgment hall. Among the things they accuse Paul of are these words: 24: 6 "Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, AND WOULD HAVE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OUR LAW. 24:7 BUT THE CHIEF CAPTAIN LYSIAS CAME UPON US, AND WITH GREAT VIOLENCE TOOK HIM AWAY OUR OF OUR HANDS, 24:8 COMMANDING HIS ACCUSERS TO COME UNTO THEE: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him."

All the capitalized words are found in the vast majority of all Bible translations throughout the world in most languages even today, yet they are omitted or called into doubt by several modern versions that don't seem to be able to count right. The Absolute Standard has already been set as to how many verses are in The Bible, yet several modern English versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB have to continually "skip over" anywhere from 15 to 45 of them, rather than re-numbering the verses in their conflicting versions. (See for example the NIV in Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24.)

The words are found in a multitude of Greek copies and in the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener, and the Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek speaking churches of the world today.

They are found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin copies (ar, c, dem, e, gig, p, ph, ro, w), the Vulgate Clementine, the Syriac Peshitta, the Syriac Harkelian, the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Slavonic ancient versions. These words are quoted or referred to by Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Bede.

The English Bible translations that contain these words are the following: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560-1602, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Webster's 1833, the Douay-Rheims, the Jerusalem bible 1968, Young's, Darby, the NKJV 1982, Green's Modern KJV, the Amplified Bible, New Life Bible, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, the 2003 Holman Standard, and the 1995 NASB, though these later two place the verses in brackets.

The NASB editors can't seem to make up their minds. From 1963 to at least 1972 the NASBs omitted all the words in question from their text, but in 1977 and again in 1995 they decided to put them back into the text, but in brackets this time, thus indicating doubt as to their authenticity. It's reassuring to have a "bible" version with brackets around some 40 verses of the New Testament like the NASB does, isn't it.

Likewise the Catholic bible versions can't seem to make up their minds either. The previous Douay-Rheims version included the words. The 1968 Catholic Jerusalem bible also included the words, but then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and later the New Jerusalem 1985 omitted them, but now the latest "official" Latin version has come out and it puts them back in again.

Modern English versions that have chosen to entirely omit all these words from their text are the RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV and a slew of modern English paraphrases like the Living Bible, TNIV and the Message.

However, all the words these modern English versions omit are found in the following foreign language Bible translations: the Afrikaans 1953, Albanian, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic Peshitta, Basque, Bulgarian, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Esperanto, Finnish 1992, French Martin and Louis Segond, Hatian Creole, the MODERN GREEK and MODERN HEBREW, the German bibles, Hungarian, Italian Diodati and Rivudeta, Icelandic, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, the New Vulgate, Lithuanian, Maori, Netherlands, Norwegian, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and the 2000 Slovo Zhizny, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituas 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 to 1995, the Swahili, Tagalog, Thai, Turkish 1994, Ukranian, and the Vietnamese bibles.

Basically the reason some modern English versions either omit or place these words in brackets is because the usual suspects called "the oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them. Yet these two Greek manuscripts are continually at variance, not only with the majority of all other Greek texts, but with each other as well.

For further study on what these two "oldest and best" texts actually say, please see my studies here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html and the study on John 5:3-4 and the troubling of the water by the angel here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/John5.html

Will Kinney

Will, if you want believe this way that is your business, The Siniaticus and the Vaticanus arenot nearly as bad as you say.The differences in all of the manuscripts only a small percentage of the variants have any weight and the rest are insigificant. By comparing the manuscripts you can get back to what was original said.

But of course you do not accept the texts that are at variance with the KJV, therefore you cannot accept the earlier manuscripts.
But you have a right to your beliefs.

God bless
John

[Calvary]

Will, if you want believe this way that is your business, The Siniaticus and the Vaticanus arenot nearly as bad as you say.The differences in all of the manuscripts only a small percentage of the variants have any weight and the rest are insigificant. By comparing the manuscripts you can get back to what was original said.

In fact B and Aleph do part company between themsleves in over 7,000 places.

If you think that is not really significant, then you sir are entitled to believe that. By comparing B with Aleph you will never get to the original. By comparing Stephens with Erasmus one will never get to the original.

Ever stop to think why the Lord did not preserve any "original"?

Imagine all the questions that could be answered, imagine all the false doctrine that could be righted, imagine all the strongholds that could be torn down if we only had the original mss of the Pauline Epistles!!

I just can't understand how a man can in good conscience imply that there are originals to be found, when all the facts point to the cold hard fact that there simply is no such animnal.

Digging into the dead orthodox past will not yield any light.

Look at Tischendorf. He found an old discarded piece of trash ready for the fire and changed his own "original" in over 2500 places immeadiatly. He fell in love with his own scholarship, and was led astray.

John, 9 years of Greek? And you think you can improve upon the scholars that sat on the committee of the KJB?

Am I to take you seriously?

This men prayed in Greek, wrote out devotions in Greek, knew about more variants... ahh why waste my time. :zzzz

Calvary

[chev1958]

Please take this as a gentle warning: One KJV thread was locked because it degenerated to name-calling. Let's not allow this one to follow the same path, OK?

I know passions are really strong, but let's play nice.

Mitch

[Calvary]

Heeded and duly noted. :smile

Calvary

[John the Baptist]

In fact B and Aleph do part company between themsleves in over 7,000 places.

If you think that is not really significant, then you sir are entitled to believe that. By comparing B with Aleph you will never get to the original. By comparing Stephens with Erasmus one will never get to the original.

Ever stop to think why the Lord did not preserve any "original"?

Imagine all the questions that could be answered, imagine all the false doctrine that could be righted, imagine all the strongholds that could be torn down if we only had the original mss of the Pauline Epistles!!

I just can't understand how a man can in good conscience imply that there are originals to be found, when all the facts point to the cold hard fact that there simply is no such animnal.

Digging into the dead orthodox past will not yield any light.

Look at Tischendorf. He found an old discarded piece of trash ready for the fire and changed his own "original" in over 2500 places immeadiatly. He fell in love with his own scholarship, and was led astray.

John, 9 years of Greek? And you think you can improve upon the scholars that sat on the committee of the KJB?

Am I to take you seriously?

This men prayed in Greek, wrote out devotions in Greek, knew about more variants... ahh why waste my time. :zzzz

Calvary

Well for your information Scholars have gotten back to the original wording in many words and phrases. The reason God did not see to preserve the originals was probably so man would not worship them or change them.

Did the orginals exist yes they did. the manuscripts that we have now the critical as well as the majority text have such a high degree of accuracy that it points to the orginals being without error. If there werer no orginals there is not secure basis for the KJV.

How many years of Koine Greek have you had?

God Bless
John