This really has more to do with integrity of the Bible than with the Trinity, but the verses in question are often mis-used to prove the Trinity, so I have addressed the question asked for those who care to actually study this process.
It’s from a Christian site…at least it appears to do so.
Which Bible verses did the NIV delete?
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This is one of the GREATEST verses testifying of the trinity. That is why the Jehovah's Witnesses leave it out. They do not believe in the trinity and they do not believe that Jesus is God. Why does the NIV leave it out...?
Whole books have been written on the manuscript evidence that supports inclusion of this verse in the Bible. Reader, do you believe in the triunity of God? If so, then this deletion should offend you.
People are playing around with the Bible and it ain't funny.
________________________________________
NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to...
tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?
If not, you need to get a King James so you can have some confidence
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NIV/niv_deletes_verses.htm
Yes. This is a Christian website. They ask the question: "NIV Reader: Do you have enough confidence in the NIV to... tell God, OUT LOUD, that these verses do not belong in the Bible?"
Answer: Yes. Those verses do not belong in the Bible.
Does that surprise you? Remember, I have never said that the Bible has never been corrupted. There have been errors made by some of the copyists. This one appears to be more than an accident. This one appears to be an intentional scribal gloss added by some over-zealous copyist.
So, why do I make that conclusion?
This is a passage that has two variant readings. One of those is as follows:
Variant A
7οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
8το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
This form is how it is found in all of the most ancient manuscripts of not only the Greek versions, but the later translations in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. It is also found this way in even in the earliest of Old Latin copies, including Jerome's first editions of the Vulgagte. Of some 70 different ancient manuscript families and hundreds of individual copies that include this book of the Bible, a total of 8 do NOT have this form of the verse, which is the Greek text that the NIV properly translates:
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The other 8 copies include the scribal gloss:
Variant B
7οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν
8και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
This is the version that the KJV translates as
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The difference between the NIV and the KJV being whether or not the phrase -- εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη, translated into English as "testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth" -- is original or a gloss.
The earliest use of the phrase is not even in a copy of the Bible, but in a 4th century Latin quotation by a Spanish heretic named Priscillian who died in 385 AD. After this it begins to appear in a few families of the later editions of the Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and then is translated from the Latin back into Greek where it appears in an 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th century copy.
Plus there is also an 11th century copy where the phrase is definitely a scribal gloss written into the margin of a Variant A copy of the passage by a 17th century hand to make it into a Variant B version.
None of the early church fathers quote the phrase in question in any of their writings when citing the passage. Not even at the time of the great trinitarian debates in the early 4th century does anyone make reference to it. And as has been said, it would have been a prime verse for those who were looking for support of their trinitarian views to have quoted if it had existed.
Also, if it were original there is no good reason to imagine someone to omit it, neither on accident (it is a rather long addition to have missed) nor intentionally on theological grounds. However, in addition to the lack of support from nearly all copies and all of the most ancient copies, there is also the fact that the gloss makes an awkward break in the sense of the passage.
So where did it come from?
Most likely it was a comment entered into the margin of a Latin copy of the Vulgate. Later, when that copy was copied, a careless scribe included it. And subsequent theologians accepted it because they no longer had access to the earliest manuscripts to make comparisons.
Then in 1516 Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament on the printing press. Erasmus, himself, knowing that the scribal gloss was not original did not include it in his first edition. But, by this time theologians were used to reading it and and using it in their Latin versions of the Bible, and Erasmus was criticized for omitting it. Erasmus's answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words of the gloss in it he would print them in his next edition. Well, someone did come up with one of those very late Greek copies; and Erasmus, true to his word, but very much against his better judgment, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.
Then 28 years later, in 1550, Stephanus printed his edition of the Greek New Testament to which he gave the name
Textus Receptus or "The Received Text" in which he used Erasmus's 1522 edition that included the in question gloss. Stephanus' text became the basis for the KJV and most other bibles for the next 300 years.
Now we don't decide that a verse should or should not be in the Bible based on how we feel about it, or that it somehow got added or deleted in the middle ages. We use the best scholarship available to us to evaluate the various existing manuscripts to determine the most likely form of the original passage if there appear to be any variants. And based on that process in this case, it is certain that the NIV rendering of the verse is based on the correct Greek text, and the KJV was in error for ever including the gloss.
ok , i just saw anther Christian site where they are telling readers to be cautious about bogus bible.....Strange....when Muslimls claim that Bible has been changed , normally Christians protoest but these info are from their sites.......they are accusing other Christians to play with Bible.
I agree it is strange. For some reason there are some Christians who are so enamored by the poetry of the King James Version (also known as the Authorized Version because King James authorized its printing) and its long history of use as formerly the best of the English translations that they think that God himself personally authorized it and that he even inspired not just the original text, but even the King James translation. As you can probably guess, I am not one who so believes. Rather, I believe that those who claim that modern scholarship, careful research, extensive study, and good textual criticism are corrupting the Bible just make fools of themselves and of God's Word. They care more for their well-preserved traditions, than what God actually inspired.
Hope i did not hurt Christians feelings.....i want to know. My question is : if Bible is from God , why so many verses are removed from Bible by Christians ? I also read long ago that many verses are returning back in some versions…how is that ?
If you read through the process of how this one gloss got into the KJV and why it was preserved, and yet how today we once again have access to some of the oldest manuscripts that people had lost access to for a long period of time, and can now better judge discern and evaluate when a mistake in the copying has been made, I think that will probably answer many of your questions. There really aren't any verses being removed from the Bible. That is a red herring offered by those who want to preserve their beloved KJV as the only legitimate English bible in use today. But there are some verses that we realize today that the KJV probably didn't use the best Greek text (or Hebrew text when speaking of the Old Testament) from which it was translated. As we are able to produce a better copy that we have more confidence of being what was originally written, those texts are to be preferred, and thus translations based off of those texts are also to be preferred.
mg:
