It is not used in the NIV, NASB or RSV.  If you can prove it is used in the orginal Greek would you provide proof please?\n\nThanks
125842
Mark has only 16 chapters.\n\nMatthew 21:17 And leaving them behind he went outside the city to Beth′a·ny and passed the night there. (NWT)\n\nNew World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was translated from the original scrolls,Greek, Arabaic, and Hebrew.\n\nhttp://watchtower.org
528032
I have more than one translation...and using the concordance is always a good idea.\n\nThanks for pointing that out. \n\n:o)
613338
The bible is 99% pure, however there still exist copyist errors which you most definitely have pointed out.  The first is a numbering copyist error and the second, one of the daughters is actually Merab.  However the christian faith does not rest on tiny pieces of data like these examples.  All of the questionable material of the bible has absolutely no impact on the doctrine of Christianity--they are all very minute details such as the ones you have pointed out.  The other 'supposed' contradictions out there commit several logical fallacies such as quoting out of context and juxtaposition, and do not look at hebrew or greek colloquialisms
18966
Heh, heh... thanks bro. ;)\n\nI have seen some rare textual changes that have changed the meaning or even elimination of a word because they could not see how it fits. Hebrew letters can look very close to one another, much like our "l" and "i". So any distortion in the leather parchment could be a problem or the flaking of the ink could cause problems as well.\nMy mentor once told me that when the military creates a complex code, they transmit it with parity, or multiple times, so that if the coded message is in any way garbled, they can compare it to earlier or later transmissions. The Bible does the same thing by repeating the important messages several times. This is why Deuteronomy is called Deuteronomy. It's "repeating what we already know is true".\nCan these people explain to me why the entire 2,000 year old Isaiah scroll found in Qumran is virtually identical with the modern copies found in every synagogue in the world?\nRemember that Revelation carries an eternal curse of damnation for anyone who adds or subtracts from the text of scripture, and I do not think King James was hoping for political advantage at the expense of his soul.\nToday, we still have the original Hebrew and Greek text. Changing the scriptures would offer us ZERO political gain. Yet is still translates the same as the original King James, only with todays vernacular. \nI wonder if these people even research beyond their own notions. Do they have such skepticism when they read their dosage instructions for medication?
90683
This is true. :) Matthew (Levi) did [seem to] want to prove to the Jewish that Jesus was actually the Messiah, thus all the Old Testament stuff.\nI would guess an original Hebrew copy cannot be found because of the persecution. The Greek copies were probably made prior to the Hebrew version being destroyed. The copies were likely sent out to others, while the copier, I would imagine kept the original for himself to use. Only specualtion, of course.\n\n***\nOh, and borrowing heavily from Mark? Probably because the gospel was written a time after the events occured. He may have wanted to keep his facts straight. Or it could have been a coincidence, seeing as there were writing about the same thing.
473610
True, and it is what I've been saying all along. When I was a Christian, I still didn't believe in the letters of Paul. Was it not the prophets of the ancient times that brought laws and the word of G-d through revelation (ie. a burning bush, the direct voice of G-d)? Then years later, the "new" testament is revealed through letters and secondary sources written by people who weren't even there.  Another great point, thanks for the question.
234285
Allow me to rephrase.. Yes it changes the meaning. But ((why)) are such things in the bible when we know they were added later? But there are more verses which were added (the NIV indicates them in footnotes). So, if such things were added, then who knows what else was added or removed?\n\nBTW, do you know about the "Secret Gospel of Mark"? This is a gem indeed. It answers the difficulty of Mark 10:46 (ie. what happened at Jericho?) and demonstrates nicely how they removed things they didn't like ;)
297796
No to your added question.  It is the only one that has stood the test of time and remains loyal to the meanings of what has always been accepted as God's inspired word.  newer versions often leave out or add to which alters the meaning drastically - my personal opionion has always been that satan's greatest division for christians was to confuse their bible so they couldn't even quote it the same anymore.
445756
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
336750
History lesson.  :-) During Jesus' time on earth, there were two canons of Jewish Scripture in use.  One, now called the Jamnian canon, is what is currently used by Protestants.  The other, called the Septuigant, was translated in Alexandria into Greek. The Jews at the time of Christ had disputes about which was the true canon.  This was not resolved until 90 AD, nearly 60 years after Christ's death.  At this point, the authority the Jews had over the "oracles of God (see Romans 3:2) had passed on to the newly formed Christian church.  At the same time that the Jews decided on this form of the Old Testament, they also rejected the New Testament writings that were presented as possible additions to the canon of Scripture.  \n\n\nThe canon of the New Testament was set at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD).  Both Councils confirmed the Septuigant as the Old Testament canon.  \n\nAfter this, there was still dispute among Christians about the canon (include 1 Clement?  is Revelation really inspired?), but the canon stood until Martin Luther, when the deuterocanonicals (literally "second canon", apocrapha means "uninspired") were removed (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and parts of Daniel and Ester).  Luther also wanted to remove  Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation.  \n\nI am thrilled that you have a personal relationship with Christ.  It is vital for all Christians to live as Christ want us to live.  More Catholics need that relationship. Perhaps God led you to find that Bible, and to wonder about it.  Do some looking into Catholicism, you may be suprised at what you find.  Unfortunatly many Catholics are not taught their faith, and so, despite it's intellectualism and beauty, they find God elsewhere.  Good luck.
650605
Well yeah, kinda, but it was originally written in Hebrew, Greek, and a little Aramaic.\n\nEach time someone makes a new translation they do not use exactly the same English words. This is where most of the confusion comes from. There are some words we don't have an English word for-in that case several English words are used to get the meaning of the original. \n\nThere are some who believe in the 'double' inspiration of the KJV. This also causes problems when other translations don't exactly line up with the KJV.\n\nThere is about a little less that 1/2% discrepancy in all the text. No Biblical doctrine is affected. Any good translation id safe.\nKJV, NKJV, NIV, CSB, NAS, NASB,  all good. Some are easier to read than others, some are more word for word, some are more thought for thought.
7124
Because they cant read the original Hebrew for the Hebrew Scriptures, or the original Greek for the Christian's New Testament. Therefore they must rely on someone else's translation. \n\nRemember that modern translations are copyrighted, and the organizations that translated them make money when every book of their translation is sold. The KJV is so old, going back to 1611, that it has no copyright anymore, so it is free. That is why it accompanies many, if not all, computer Bible Programs.\n\nAlso keep in mind that the KJV was the only version available, and then the only version acceptable, to many denominations of Christianity for a very long time.\n\nPlease also remember that the person or organization who does a translation is biased, and their translation will reflect their own theology, regardless of whether or not a verse in the original actually says what they claim it says. No translation is totally right, and some are better, and some are worse, than others.
209480
Its another fake Gospel written by an early christian sect who obviously had no contact with Jesus, the disciples or the disciples followers. It was common for christian sects with no direct link to church founders to create bogus gospels to support there beliefs.\nIf the gospel is real it would have been mentioned somewhere in the ancient history or copies of it would have surfaced elsewhere. Not to mention a true gospel always matches with what the rest of the bible says.\nPeople have a bad habit of thinking if a text is old then it must be a part of Gods word.  This is not true!
226736
Not quite\nThe hebrew 6 is Vav (like W), but WWW would be 18, not 666, similar to the way III in Roman is 3 and not 111
653121
Hey,\n\nDifferent translations doesn't necessarily mean that the Bible in THAT translation is not truth. The Bible was originally written to be relatable to the people of the time. Many believe nowadays that translations that are little "looser" attempt to do that --> relate the Bible to modern day a little more.\n\nSo there are two ends of the spectrum here; of course, at one end where everybody above has mentioned the King James Version, this side is the closest to the original Greek/Hebrew text. These versions include the King James Version (with all its thous and thees) and the New King James Version (replacing thee with you and etc). The New American Standard Bible fits in between the KJ version and the middle. \n\nOn the middle of the scale is the New International Version which is usually the most common in churches nowadays in North America; the Amplified Bible gives a lot of extra words in case you don't understand (amplified = expanded). The New Living Translation sits in between the middle and the far "liberal"/"loose" side. \n\nSo on the "loose" side, there would be the Message by Eugene Peterson - the Bible basically in contemporary, modern language. This version is the loosest you can get, with the English Standard Version sitting closer to this side than the middle.\n\nLemme draw this out:\nKing James                             ----     Most to Greek Text\nNew King James\nNew American Standard Bible\nNew International Version        ----   Middle Ground\nAmplified Bible\nNew Living Translation\nEnglish Standard Version\nMessage                                    --- Most to Modern Day Language\n\nEssentially, it depends on the purpose of your Bible. If it's for personal devotional time, it might be good to spring for a good study Bible that settles in the middle on that scale (ie. the New International Version Study Bible is a really good one; if you're a youth, go for the youth edition.)\n\nFor research and textual study, the King James line is good for you. \n\nFor modern day easy-read (maybe you commute and you just want to give the Bible a read w/o much thought into it), there's the Message version by Eugene Peterson.\n\nSo happy Bible reading! Remember, most important though is that you're not just reading, but allowing the Word to shape your life.
37738
I will give you the scholarly perspective:  The NIV is more accurate than the KJV.  And the NIV is much easier to read in my opinion.  But the New Revised Standard Version is the most often recommended by Biblical Scholars (including Christian Biblical Scholars) for its accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages.  (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
125131
It is not. Back then, each copy of the Bible had to be handwritten when they were reproduced. This means the scribes had free will to add/change anything they wanted. Also the Bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew to English. So its changed a lot, because there are no originals in existence. KJV went through the hands of countless scribes before being translated.  Even the dead sea scrolls are not the originals, just really old, close to original copies. And no, they're not in English