Dr. D. James, faculty member and President of The Lay School here in Clinton, Tennessee, in his ongoing presentation before The Lay School faculty, continued his presentation concerning Terry Watkins’ online article entitled, “New International Per-Version”. Continuing the theme of adding to and taking away from the Scriptures, Watkins presses further into this issue, citing 17 verses which he asserts have been taken away in the NIV. The reader of his article needs to wary for his methods of deception are easily missed unless one takes the time to double check what he claims!
His claims:
(1) 17 verses are completely taken away in the NIV
(2) The NIV asserts in places “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses …”
(3) “Matt. 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!”
(4) “That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!”
James’ response:
(1) of all the 17 verses that Watkins alleges have been removed in the NIV, ONLY Matthew 23:14 HAS actually been left out of the NIV with no further comment. Fourteen of the alleged verses omitted are found in the duly notated footnote for that verse. (Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 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, and Romans 16:24) Acts 28:28 is incorrectly identified by Watkins and should be Acts 28:29; yet verse 29 is included in the duly notated footnote. One verse, 1 John 5:7, is included partially in the text with more information found in the duly notated footnote. Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are included in the text of the NIV with a parenthetical explanation IN THE TEXT; the very parenthetical explanation that Watkins appears above in his claims under “(2)”. And last, in four references he provides (Matthew 12:47, Matthew 21:44, Luke 22:43-44) the verse IS included within the text with a footnote which explains “some manuscripts do not have verse…” THEREFORE, of all the 17 verses that he claims the NIV omits, ONLY one is TRULY omitted; the others appearing either in the text itself with notes of explanation or in the duly notated footnotes.
IF one carefully counts the Scripture references in this paragraph in his article, we find twenty-three references listed, not merely seventeen; why then does Watkins assert that “The NIV completely “TAKETH AWAY” 17 verses!”? Why does Watkins totally ignore the fact that of the twenty-three verses or passages he lists that are allegedly omitted from the NIV (which we have seen here is NOT true) the Revised Standard Version truly omits 24 verses (Matthew 12:47, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 21:44, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 22:43, Luke 22:44, Luke 23:17, Luke 24:12, Luke 24:40, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, 3 John 15, and Revelation 12:18) replacing the text with “* [No text]”, and offering, at least in the digital copy no explanation for the missing verses or the use of the asterisk “*” in each instance. Further, three of the verses/passages Watkins alleges the NIV omits are present in the Revised Standard Version (1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:53-8:11) with nary an explanation that those verses/passages do not appear in “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses…”; yet Watkins makes no mention of this; why? And the references in Matthew 12:47, Matthew 21:44, and Luke 22:43-44 are omitted from the Revised Standard Version entirely with no comment, yet Watkins makes no mention of this in his article, why?
Or, why does Watkins ignore the fact that the Revised Version of the Bible also omits sixteen verses (Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, and Romans 16:24) replacing “<>” for the text, but offering absolutely no other information concerning the omitted text? And the references in 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, Matthew 12:47, Matthew 21:44, and Luke 22:43-44 ALL appear in the Revised Versions, but Watkins makes no mention of this either, why?
Further, the same marking “<>” that the Revised Version uses to indicate omitted verses appears in numerous other places, namely the majority of headings of the Psalms and the end of Habakkuk 3, yet the text still appears there. This is a curiosity concerning this version, yet no mention of this is made by Watkins in his article either; why?
His admitted focus is the NIV, yet this information concerning the Revised Standard Version and the Revised Version clearly indicate that there are other modern versions that ACTUALLY DO remove verses rather than include them with explanation or relegate them to a footnote.
Then there is the issue of whether Watkins knows what a footnote is for and how to use it. In several places in his article he ignores there very existence, and then manipulates the facts concerning them to make it appear as if more verses have been omitted by the NIV than actually have been!
Our investigation into these allegations result in ONE, count it, ONE, verse being totally omitted from the NIV: Matthew 23:14.
Last when considering this issue, which of these verses that have allegedly been omitted actually alter in any way, shape, or form, any of the Christian doctrines? Our answer is NONE!
(2) Of all the claims Watkins has made in this entire article, this claim is the one that should command the greatest portion of his contentions, yet it does not. That “The NIV asserts in places “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses …” do not contain the notated verse or passage. Exactly which of “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts” is being referred to by this disclaimer? Who decides which manuscripts are the oldest and upon what criteria is that determination made? Who decides which manuscripts are the “most reliable” and upon what criteria is that decided? And last, and yet SO important, why then are there so many more manuscripts that support the inclusion of these allegedly omitted verses than those manuscripts that support there exclusion? This argument goes to the core of the real controversy, the difference between the two streams of manuscript lines, the one from Alexandria, Egypt, and the one from Antioch, Syria.
(3) Now watch the sleight of hand here as Watkins redirects the reader’s attention to the fact that “Matthew 12:47, 21:44, Luke 22:43 and 22:44 are all removed in the footnotes!” This is true that they do not appear in the footnotes, and that is because the NIV includes them in the text itself!!!!!! But Watkins manipulates the facts and omits others in order to continue his tirade against the NIV!
(4) “That's 45 complete verses the NIV removes from the text or in the footnotes!” Watkins claims, yet we have pointed out that his claim is NOT TRUE!
We repeat, “Our investigation into these allegations result in ONE, count it, ONE, verse being totally omitted from the NIV: Matthew 23:14.” All the other verses and passages Watkins alleges have been omitted from the NIV actually do appear either in the text with qualification or in a duly notated footnote!
Now to add our “two cents worth” so to speak to these facts already presented: the sbs, vbv, comparison study between the King James Version and fifteen other English translations being conducted by Sterling Ministries has completed Genesis through 2 Kings excluding Ruth, and Matthew through John 6 to date, and has found not one single instance of any of those versions being substantially different to alter one single Christian doctrine! That same study as well as the stats presented above indicate that there are modern translations which are worse than the NIV!
Wikipedia offers to all with computer access an informative chart comparing the manner in which certain of the modern versions deal with these “omitted” verses. That chart can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_omitted_Bible_verses.
According to Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible, there are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament and 7,957 in the New Testament. If we concede for the sake of argument that the forty-five verses Watkins asserts erroneously have actually been removed from the NIV then that amounts to a little less than 6/1000 of the total verses of the New Testament (since ALL of the alleged verses he asserts were removed from the NIV are from the New Testament) that have been removed (which they were not as our analysis has shown).
All of this is setting the stage for Watkins’ next assertion that 64,576 words have been removed from the Bible in the NIV translation; which is the next topic for our investigation!
Comments