Matthew 18:11

[grace]

I am a bit ashamed to admit that I did not know this was the case. BUT, it was brought to my attention this morning about Matthew 18:11 in the NIV bible is ommitted.

I then went to biblegateway.com and looked it up in other translations....it is ommited from others as well....but is listed in some.

Does anyone know why..?

What is your *theory* on this..?

I am intrigued now....and researching this. Hopefully you all can help me research it.

Thanks

 

[LitnJD]

i dont know if we are supposed to put web pages on here but hffp://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_translations.htm has some interesting thoughts on the matter. It appears the NIV version is leaving out a lot on Jesus, but that has not been studied very indepth but will look at it more now. It also lists other versions and other verses changed and ommited.

 

[grace]

Thanks LitnJD. I will check it out. This just came up this morning with someone I was having a talk with in chat. So, I have not really looked into it much yet. I appreciate you responding.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Firstly an understanding of how the bible was put together is required to understand why there are differences between the translations:

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=663

http://www.victorious.org/translat.htm

There's plenty of people and even websites that make a fuss about all the differences and how the NIV is "satan's bible" because it "took things out" and all this, who have never bothered to research why there are the differences or understand how bibles are put together.

People's New Testament commentary on Mat 18:11 says:

Mat 18:11 This verse does not occur in the Revision, and is not found in the most reliable Greek manuscripts, such as the Siniatic and Vatican.

The reason why the NIV doesn't have some words or phrases is probably because the original texts it was translated from don't have the words in it. If it was thought to be unreliable by the translators it was probably left out, perhaps sometimes with a footnote about it to say so.

That explains why the NIV etc doesn't have some things that the KJV does. Although some argue that the NIV has words taken out, it could be argued that the KJV has words added in, and that the NIV is actually more reliable because it is based on older Greek manuscripts etc.

Understanding how the bible was put together really makes you think about what the slogan "the bible is perfect" actually means in practice. No translation is perfect, but the translators use their good judgement and do the best job they can with what is available to them. That's why we have different bible translations and even corrected or updated revisions now and then.

But still there is never 100% certainty about which texts the bibles are translated from are the right ones. i.e. is KJV right or is NIV right. Was Mat 18:11 truly in the original texts but somehow scratched out , or was it somehow added in later on and never found in the original?

 

[NazariteNation]

A couple weeks ago, while researching various scripture submitted by several of this forum in support of the doctrine of "once saved always saved", I noticed that many modern translations, especially the NIV, uses "language" that could arguably be said contradicts the teachings of OSAS which is why I feel that there are many, especially Baptists, who seem to adamantly reject most modern translations.

Could it be that the modern translators, while arguably putting together an accurate translation, intentionally chose "language" that is not necessarily OSAS friendly, or could be that the language used by these modern translations is indeed what the translators objectively feel to be the more accurate translation? Also the same could be asked of the original King James Version which was historically translated by a Calvinst majority who were indeed biased toward OSAS theology. Did they purposefully use language which could be deemed OSAS friendly in comparison to language that would have been more accurate? Keep in mind that there were not one but two english translations of bible before the oreiginal King James was put together however, the KJV was widely the most most popular due to Britian openly embracing protestant teachings, namely Calvinism, at that time.

 

[MahogonySnail]

I really don't think OSAS is that much of an issue as much as it seems to be in this forum. Although the Church of England adopted some of Calvin's teachings, the KJV is not obviously OSAS simply because it was written for the Church of England which is not OSAS at heart, and its purpose was basically to attack the Calvinist-following Puritans.

It just goes to show that no one can be 100% sure that their doctrine which may be 100% based on the bible is 100% correct, if it is based upon one or two verbs that may or may not be correctly interpreted by King James translators, or any translators. That's why using a number of different versions/translations is important if we want to establish any doctrine.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Naz this is what I'm getting at:

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/mcdonaldsplace/page3e.html

The KJV is not really a OSAS-friendly bible.

 

[Unbound]

Instead of trying to intellectualize or rationalize the reason for the omission of words or the changing of words in the modern translations, I believe we should each SEARCH to find out the full truth of what God’s Word was intended to convey. I fully believe that the enemy will use ALL MANNER of subtle methods to try and deceive us. Twisting God’s word is definitely not beyond his modus operandi. I have discovered that there have been MANY omissions and word changes in several of the modern translations, some to the point of completely changing the meaning of the verse or passage.
I discovered a very long list of these at http://www.holybible.com/resources/version_comparison_chart.htm. I do not think it would be a waste of time for one to go through this chart and search out the truth their selves. I would think it wise to find out what the Word really says, and was intended to say. This should be a priority as man lives by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Paul told Timothy, “ 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). If this is the case, what makes anyone think they would not try to corrupt God’s perfect word??
MahoganySnail makes a very wise statement in saying, “using a number of different versions/translations is important if we want to establish any doctrine”. It takes time and effort, even going back to the original languages and their literal translations. Do not expect to learn the truth just by going to church and listening to the pastor’s sermon. The truth will be found if truth is diligently sought rather than seeking confirmation of our preconceived notions. If we seek in this way, allowing the Spirit to guide us, we will have confirmation of the truth, “And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[a] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.” (1 John 5:6b-8). (It is also interesting that this passage is one of the omissions/changes of which we are speaking).
God has made it clear that His word is not to be changed. It is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow just as He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The Word itself gives warnings as to the topic of changing it:
Revelation 22:18-20 (New King James Version)
18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add[b] to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Proverbs 30:5-6 (New King James Version) 5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. 6 Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

 

[MahogonySnail]

It's noted on one of the websites I posted previously that none of the major doctrines are affected in the modern translations. And the rest are probably not doctrines we want to bother arguing about anyway.

We have to recognise that the bibles we have are only translations of the inspired Word of God. "only" meaning - they are the product of a lot of hard work by people doing the best they can with what they had at the time. Are they the inspired Word of God? Only where they agree with the original beyond any doubt, the rest we can't know. It can't be said that the mistake or poor judgement of a translator equals the perfect Word of God. Whilst it's ok to say and believe "the bible is perfect", this is only a Sunday-School level understanding, it's a way to get kids and even adults to keep reading their bibles, out of fear that if they find the book they hold onto so dearly may not be perfect, they might reject it. But we shouldn't hold onto the belief "the bible is perfect" too rigidly, in case when we find some inconsistencies or omissions (eg Mat 18:11) it upsets our faith. So it is just as well that we do have the Spirit to lead us into all truth despite any omissions or mistakes in the bible.

 

[Bec]

wow. . .thankyou so much for posting this! I hadn't caught that it was missing--I'm definetly going to have to research this