I've been doing a lot of research on the KJV-only position lately (see my pervious post, "dealing w/ KJVO in the church") as well as difference among versions, and God gave an interesting thought to me that I haven't seen pointed out before. I thought I'd share it, not to stir controversy or promote one version over another (I'm not for this), but just to see what everyone thinks...
The question that came to my mind this "HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE BIBLE HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING IN ORDER FOR YOU TO BELIEVE IT?" Does it have to appear more than once to be valid? Three times? 15? 100? More?
This question came to me after researching and coming across the arguement that the NIV leaves out references to Christ's blood or Christ's Diety (etc...) in certain passages of scripture. I think we can all honestly agree that there ARE passages of text in the KJV that are not in corresponding verses of the NIV and vice versa (although, in my NIV version and every other one I"ve consulted there is always a footnote explaining that this passage is only found in late manuscrips or the like...), because this is clear by comparison. But in most of these cases (***see example below), the accusedly "removed" text can be found elsewhere in the NIV. (I do not say "all" because I am not a bible scholar, I don't know EVERYTHING and I've only been doing research for a relatively short time - and I'm basing this on the findings of others that I have reviewed) In my humble opinion, if it is in the bible ONCE, I believe it. It doens't matter if a portion of text or a doctrine is there once, twice or a hundred times...if it's there, I believe it. The arguement often goes on to say "The KJV has more references to Christ's diety, to the blood, to Jesus as Lord, etc than the NIV, and is therefore better." Again, how many times need it be there for you to believe it?
***One quick example of this:
Some people argue that the NIV takes out references to Christ's blood. After all, look at the difference between the KJV and NIV in Col 1:14
KJV: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
NIV : in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
(*note, some - perhaps most? - NIV versions have a footnote here: "A few late manuscripts redemption through his blood")
Based on this verse, some believe that the NIV denies there very basis of our salvation, being washed in Christ's blood. Did the NIV writer's remove Christ's blood from the Bible!?
But, the refutement of this specific passage that I have found is to look at Eph. 1:7, in the NIV that allegedly removes the blood of Christ from the BIble:
"In him we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of Gods grace." (emphasis added)
So, it's in one passage and not the other. BUT, regardless, it's STILL in there.
So, whether my NIV bible says that I am cleansed of my sins through Christ's blood once or 1,000 times, I believe it.
Now, this is not to say that I would in ANY case support people taking passages OUT of the word of God...please do not misunderstand my argument. I think that to remove God's words would be pure blasphemy. But, I truely believe that the writers of the NIV (at this time its the only version comparison that I'm studying because it's the version i've been "attacked" for using) only omitted some sections (or should I say put them in footnotes) in an effort to have the most accurate translation they could. I don't believe they took out passages specifically to deny Christ as Lord or his power to save us. (Similarly, if a passage was only found in 8 manuscripts out of 1000, and only those thought to be less reliable, I can't support them putting it in there without giving us the full story (footnotes)! That would clearly be ADDING to the word of God!) My point is simply this: If the Bible says something JUST ONCE, shouldn't that be enough?
Again, I don't post this for any other reason than to share a thought that I had and get some feedback - although I have to admit I would really appreciate feedback that is constructive and not judgemental. I"m not a pastor or a Bible scholar, just a lowly sinner saved through Christ..and I wanted to express my view on an issue.
God Bless you all
- regardless of the version you read :-)
-Amanda


