• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Matthew 17:21 NIV

lutherangirl

lutherangirl

Member
Real Person
Female
Gary and I went to church last night. The sermon was on prayer and fasting. When the Pastor said to turn to Matthew 17:21, I grabbed my Bible revised in 2003 and noticed verse 21 was not there. I showed it to my husband to make sure. It went from 20 to 22. Then when we were leaving service, I over heard another couple saying they couldn't find verse 21 in their NIV Bible. I was just wonder for those of you here that use or have an NIV if you are missing verse 21 too?
 
A number of bibles will put various verses as footnotes instead of actual text. I know that the NIV bible has done this for many years, though I don't know how many other bibles do this as well.

I would check your footnotes, otherwise get a new bible ;)
 
Clarkes commentary sheds a little light on this.

"...However, there is great difficulty in the text. The whole verse is wanting in the famous Vatican MS., one of the most ancient and most authentic perhaps in the world; and in another one of Colbert’s, written in the 11th or 12th century. It is wanting also in the Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac, Hieros., and in one copy of the Itala."

That is, its not in a lot of most authenticated MMS. Its in the Latin Vulgate though so that is why it has a verse number and the NIV doesn't want to re-number ancient verse numbers due to a quibble. The omission is not totally illegitimate or random.
 
lutherangirl said:
Gary and I went to church last night. The sermon was on prayer and fasting. When the Pastor said to turn to Matthew 17:21, I grabbed my Bible revised in 2003 and noticed verse 21 was not there. I showed it to my husband to make sure. It went from 20 to 22. Then when we were leaving service, I over heard another couple saying they couldn't find verse 21 in their NIV Bible. I was just wonder for those of you here that use or have an NIV if you are missing verse 21 too?
Click to expand...

You have found the very verse that I often cite as a bad example of an important omission, Michelle! (It is why some folks even refer to the NIV, with a bit of obvious negativity, as the "Nearly Inspired Version". ;) )

There is much more that can be said (and probably has - since the topic of variations between Bible versions comes up fairly frequently here). I even have a book (called Ripped Out of the Bible by Floyd Nolan Jones that deals with some of the most obvious issues. (This particular book doesn't even deal with the biggest issues, since it focuses only on the "New" testament. The references in one chapter to the "names of deities" tend to obscure what is arguably the MOST severe change, that of removing the Hebrew "YHVH" (and the many variants with titles, like "YHVH Rapha", or YHVH Elohenu) in favor of "the LORD".)

I have always thought that removing a verse that has to do with the "how to" of getting rid of servants of the adversary probably had a nefarious objective at some level... :twisted:


Blessings,
Mark
 
Thanks all for answering. I did check the footnotes, Scaredwife, and didn't see any mention of verse 21. I agree, Mark, I thought this verse was the very important part of the Pastor's sermon and couldn't believe it wasn't there. Thanks, Taloc for your input regarding those authentic versions of the Bible!

Michelle
 
I don't have an NIV myself, but if someone does can they check Mark 9:29? It says almost exactly the same thing and doesn't have any questions of authenticity. Its actually a major reason they decided to keep 17:21 in the KJV (its a parallel passage that substantiates Matt 17:21 even if it isn't in some MMS)

If they have Mark 9:29 they haven't actually omitted anything in this case. The information is still there, they just removed a questionable source.

Bible translations do some really bone headed things, but it is hard and complex work involving many different people, so I prefer not to snap a judgment. Because of the arbitrary verse breaks I know of no version of the bible that gives a clear rendering of 1 Cor 7 1-2, the way its rendered in every version I've seen it makes it look like its actually good for a man to never touch a woman in general (rather than specifically that its good for a man never to touch a woman for fornication). But thems the breaks, translation has to be done in small parts and the verses are the natural small parts to translate by and sometimes contextualizing doesn't get done properly and then theology comes along based on that lack of contextualization the the mess gets solidified... What a nightmare.
 
I don't have an NIV myself, but if someone does can they check Mark 9:29?
Click to expand...

I don't have a hard copy here, but have checked more than one printing in times past.

The blueletterbible has an NIV function on-line, and says this:

He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer.*”

Note that the "and fasting" is missing. Their footnote adds that:
* Some manuscripts prayer and fasting

I have seen NIV printings that both include and omit that footnote, so "your mileage may vary".

(My own opinion in general is that the biggest variant is generally the difference between the source chosen; Masoretic text vs. Septuagint, etc. I like tools like the BLB because they can both be compared, although in general I'm a big fan of the closer to the original Hebrew, the better.)
 
That makes sense, they are relying heavily on the Vatican MMS then since it doesn't have fasting in it. To my knowledge it is the only MMS that lacks it, so its not a very good decision to footnote it. I think they are bias in this case (of course I think they're bias in general)

I thought you would say that about language primacy. Would I guess correctly if I said all the Hebrew texts include 17:21? Matthew in Hebrew makes the most sense even if you don't prefer the Hebrew in general, but the NIV is no doubt heavily bias towards the Greek. If the Hebrew has it in most cases it clearly should be in (even by the Greek alone it probably should be in) but if they are ignoring the Hebrew that would be the reason they would think omitting it would be ok.
 
Hmmmmm. Interesting folks. Glad to hear it's restated elsewhere as well.

Regardless, I'd like to add the observation that whether or not it is correctly included in Matthew, LutheranGirl, perhaps the important point is that the content of the verse is TRUE!

There ARE evil spirits that resist the simple lawful command to leave made by a born again Christian. And however the spiritual or physical mechanism works, adding fasting to our prayer DOES increase the power of our commands in the spiritual world much like adding a power steering mechanism does to the steering wheel of your vehicle. And ultimately, they do have to go.

Since that is the case, it makes perfect sense that the adversary seeks to keep us from praying or fasting either one, but ESPECIALLY from fasting. Even to discrediting the scriptural concepts. Guess he doen't mind if we pray prayers of frustration and fear and despair, so long as we don't get the power to make them prayers of hope, authority, and command!

Screw him! Let's FAST and pray!

PS: Gotta be Biblical about my statements, of course ... *grin*

2Chron 7:14, "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."

That's all understandable to me except the "humble themselves part. How do we do THAT? By fasting!

Psalm 35:13 "... I humbled myself with fasting."
 
Taloc,

Forgive my ignorance, but what is MMS?

Cecil,

You are so right that the verse is true and that's all that matters.

Mark,

I'm a little disappointed that the NIV has admitted important verses, because I was a huge supporter of this version. For me, although, I love hearing the Thee's and Thou's in the KJV, the language doesn't flow has well in my little brain as the NIV.
 
MMS is shorthand for Manuscript, in this case early hand penned pre canonization Greek or Hebrew Manuscripts. The Vatican MMS is one of thousands of early Greek copies of the whole or part of the New Testament, we have more extant early copies of the New Testament by far than any other ancient work (it's very popular) other than the Old Testament, (which has tens of thousands of copies and fragments)

Thats why the verse being missing from key copies is important, but since its the book of Mathew we should really be looking at the Hebrew copies for originality as Mark pointed out (well, Mark always prefers the Hebrew copies).
 
Textuel criticism was my awsome mans favorite subject in college and I know he thinks the NIV is one of the worst translating jobs ever done. He is not KJV only but he definetly isnt a fan of the NIV. Wish he had time to post some textuel crticism on here it is really interesting. I'll try to talk him in to it.
 
cbv3123 said:
Textuel criticism was my awsome mans favorite subject in college and I know he thinks the NIV is one of the worst translating jobs ever done. He is not KJV only but he definetly isnt a fan of the NIV. Wish he had time to post some textuel crticism on here it is really interesting. I'll try to talk him in to it.
Click to expand...


cbv3123,

That would be great if your husband could post this information. I look forward to reading it. Although, I'm still kinda bummed that almost every study Bible :roll: I have in our house is NIV. I only have one KJV in the house.
 
lutherangirl said:
almost every study Bible :roll: I have in our house is NIV. I only have one KJV in the house.
Click to expand...

For whatever it is worth, LutheranGirl, I grew up on the KJV, jumped on the NIV when it first came out (and still use it at times, but more as a devotional Bible than for study), have tried a variety of others, and have settled at present on the NKJV for "most of the time" use. Similar to the KJV but quite a bit more readable. Readily available at a Walmart near you. *grin*
 
Greetings Brothers & Sisters in Christ,

Great topic, thanks for bringing it up Lutherangirl! I also have only NIV bibles in our home. :( I'm currently looking for a better more authentic bible, that contains Yeshua's original complete & truthful Holy will and command for our lives. I also am thinking of getting the NKJV. However I've recently discovered information pertaining to the Geneva bible, that is suppose to predate the KJV. I've read that it was the bible that the pilgrams brought over on the Mayflower. Has anyone ever heard of this bible, read about it or actually studied it? I would be very interested in any information, or feedback on this particular bible before deciding to purchase it. Take care all, seeking and searching His True will for our lives. Finding His Healing & Joy for the journey.

F.S. :)
 
Several of us have and treasure Geneva Bibles. However, expect to find it as hard going as the KJV or more so for everyday reading.

If you want to really dig in, don't be shy about getting a copy of every translation you come across. Each will have something to offer, as well as some "problems". That even applies to paraphrases, such as The Living Bible and The Message.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Interlinnear Bible whicch has the English nterspersed with the Hebrew and Greek, with dictionary numbers for the words so you can do some semblance of original language study even without being a scholar in that language.

So dig in and enjoy. But for my everyday, day in and day out, reading and memorizing and underlining and reasoning with others, the NKJV works really well.

Also, there's a version, the CEV (Contemporary English Version) that I like for folks who a) have no or little religious background or b) English is their second language. Critically, it probably is NOT as good. But yuou can sure teach the plan of salvation and each of the doctrines you need to, even if ALL your "proof" texts don't come out quite the way you'd like.
 
A long time ago, I became confused by all the experts in Bible translation. I have a tough time with English, much less ancient languages. I am also not a very trusting soul when it comes to experts. On one occaision I was having a difficult time with a chapter, nothing made sense. I went to my books and brought 5 different references, translations and commentaries. Not one of them agreed with another. I was reminded that Jesus said the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. Putting the books back, I reminded Him of that promise, knelt by my desk and claimed that promise. Sitting again at my desk, the Lord seemed to shine a light of clarity on what was previously obscure. I am not opposed to scholarship, but I found that it really does help to consult with the Author. In thirty years since, He has not failed to share with me.
 
Hey there Cecil,

Thanks for responding, as I knew that I could get some good/helpful information from ya! :) I do appreciate your recomendations for the other bibles you posted about as well. I recently discovered it through Vision Forum Ministries catalog. I do enjoy and agree with some of their doctrinal beliefs, as I feel they do line up with Yeshuas truths. However some of their teachings on doctrine/Christian living, are and can be somewhat legalistic. Anywho, they offer it at a pretty hefty price for our familie's current financial situation at this season. May I ask where you found and purchased your Geneva Bible? Thanks again for taking the time to be a wealth of info and help in this matter! :) Take care and Keep on Keepin on with Yeshua, family & friends.

F.S.
 
F.S.: I think I got my Geneva Bible for $39.95 or somesuch on Amazon. If meory serves there are severral suppliers and bindings from which to choose.

John Whitten: Thanks for that observation as well. Perhaps the most important point. Relax, enjoy, and ask God to illuminate His Word to our understanding. He translates it best!
 
Oooh, I just had to chime in on this one. The translation I would highly recommend is called "The Scriptures". It's not translated from a translation as most are tranlated from either the Greek or Latin. It's translated from the original and translates where it should translate and transliterates where it should transliterate. Every other version I've seen gets those mixed up usually without any transliteration at all. In fact, "The Scriptures" doesn't even make an attempt at Yahuweh or Yahushua. They just print those names in the original Hebrew.

There's another version called the "Restored Names Edition" (I think) that uses the sacred names, but it makes the same translation/transliteration mistakes that the others do. Even though "The Scriptures" is what I mainly use, I still have various other versions including a Chumash and even a Masonic bible.

http://www.isr-messianic.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top