What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Amarok]

So huggy trying to wiggle out of the flaws in his holy book trying to use copy right has failed . 

Not really a surprise 

[drfuzzy]

I have studied copyright but never looked into the copyrights of various Bibles - never thought of it.  But I did have to confirm this one - how can a book created by committee over 7 years, written in Elizabethan English, published in 1611 is still under copyright?  But yes, the UK holds the copyright. That's pretty smart. 

Wow, I stand corrected. Thanks, Fuzz.

Still, copyright has nothing to do with this, and as all sources indicate, the omitted verses are still included in footnotes.

Yeah Vulcan.  I'm still not certain.  I have studied text and music copyright . . . but the list of Bible versions and how they are copyrighted can make one's head spin.  This is messy!
And there are groups that claim that having a copyright proves that these are man's words, not gods.  That is also ridiculous.  (Pretty sure copyright has nothing to do with content.)
And there are so many competing websites about Bible copyrights that someone would have to do a research study to pull the facts out of the propaganda.

[Huggy Bear]

*edit* I see Drfuzzy already addressed it

---

So huggy trying to wiggle out of the flaws in his holy book trying to use copy right has failed .

Not really a surprise

[vulcanlogician]

You're right about that, Huggy. It's still under copyright. I was wrong in my assumption. (I looked up American copyright law, like an idiot.) Still, I don't think copyright is the issue. The NIV and others include the omitted verses in footnotes. If it were a matter of copyright, they wouldn't be included at all.

[drfuzzy]

Huggy and I just agreed on something.

   

[Amarok]

Now watch huggy laser focus on that one point ignore everything else and proclaim victory

[The Grand Nudger]

The source content of any given translation is not and cannot be copyrighted.  Any given translator is not, in compiling their NT, copyrighting the story of jesus.  They are copyrighting their specific and noted translations, and any editorial material.

The reason the NIV is the standard is due to the overwhelming quality of it;s scholarship..and it's nature as a functional rather than formal or poetic translation. It makes many, many formal textual missions. Original language puns, for example. If somebody told you a greek joke...would you get it? So..they translate the message being communicated rather than a literally faithful recitation of the pun. This is the entire MO of a functional translation. They will omit and footnote any number of things that produce confusion rather than clarity of message.

The main gripe people have about it presently..no shit..boycots, is their decision to use too much gender nuetral language. Triggered the shit out of the evangelicals.

[Angrboda]

https://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html

The above is just not true, I can go look at the original Greek and see the scriptures that were omitted are there.

If we look at Matthew 17:21 in the original Greek:


In the NIV you can see the 21 verse is not there.



btw I took the Greek from this site
http://www.scripture4all.org/about/about.htm

The objective of Scripture4all (read "Scripture for all") is to make the original Scriptures accessible for a broad public by developing tools to bridge the gap between the original Bible texts and Bible translations.

Consider Matthew 17:21  for example. You will notice in your ESV a little note which says, “some manuscripts insert verse 21: But this kind never comes out except by prayer and fasting”. If you read this in a KJV you’ll notice it simply says, “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting”. No footnotes or anything. So what gives?

In 1881 Westcott and Hort published a Greek New Testament using numerous ancient manuscripts which were not available to the original translators of the KJV—way back in 1611. When we discovered these ancient manuscripts we see that in a few places they didn’t square up with the existing manuscripts. In some places—like Matthew 17:21  —the text was omitted in the older manuscript. When you run into one of these differences it is called a textual variant.

When you encounter one of these textual variants the interpreter/translator has to attempt to figure out why there is a difference in the text. And so why would newer manuscripts have Matthew 17:21  but older manuscripts not? Which would should we trust more?

Look at Mark 9:29  (even in your ESV and NIV Bibles) and you will notice a verse that sounds very similar to what was omitted in Matthew 17:21  . Now is it possible that a copyists would have inserted material from Mark 9:29  to make it square with Matthew 17:21 ? Absolutely. In fact we find that this was actually a somewhat common practice.

http://www.mikeleake.net/2015/07/on-thos...bible.html

There are questionable translations in the NIV. There are also questionable translations in the KJV. Your preferring one translation over the other is likely more based on emotion, propaganda, and ideology, than any real examination of the issue. There's nothing magic about the KJV.

Also this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version

Biblical scholar Bruce M. Metzger criticized the NIV 1984 edition for the addition of just into Jeremiah 7:22 so the verse becomes "For when I brought your forefathers/ancestors out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices." Metzger also criticized the addition of your into Matthew 13:32, so it becomes "Though it (the mustard seed) is the smallest of all your seeds." The usage of your was removed in the TNIV and did not return in the 2011 revision.

If you're using Metzger as an authority, regarding Matthew 17:21:

According to The Greek New Testament (4th Edition), edited by Aland, Metzger, et al. (2012), this verse does not appear in the best Greek manuscripts available. In order to save ourselves the tedious task of comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of the variant readings, the late Bruce Metzger has also published the companion volume, which is A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition, 2012).

On page 35 he writes the following:

17.21 omit verse {A}
Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29.

What he is saying, is that the "Editorial Committee" (comprised of the four editors of The Greek New Testament which include Mr. Metzger) had ascribed {A} to their reading, which means that they are "certain" that the verse was not in the autograph.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q...tthew-1721

[vulcanlogician]

Here is some interesting trivia showing just how deep the rabbit hole of ignorance can descend:

The King James Only movement is a loosely associated group of Protestant Christians who believe the King James Version of the Bible is superior to other English translations, and that other versions...are not to be trusted and are based on corrupted manuscripts.
...
[Among the various strands of the King James Only movement, this is the most interesting]
"The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

Check out the bolded portion. Wow. This demonstrates just how closely some theists coddle the teat of tradition that was provided to them. There are actually people who think the KJV is more accurate than the original Hebrew and Greek! Holy shit! This definitely goes on the top ten list of the stupidest shit I ever heard. If this doesn't lay bare the problems that atheists have with "theist logic," I don't know what does.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I was raised Southern Baptist.  Then Pentecostal.  For over 40 years I have played the organ for nearly every major Protestant denomination - variations of Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Quaker, 1st Bible, Holiness, Quaker . . . also Unitarian, Anglican, Episcopal, and I'm currently playing for Catholic Mass.  It's really too bad that all of these folks are reading from the same book, but most will accuse the others of "doing it wrong" or "false interpretation of the scriptures" etc., etc.   

When you talk about what God wants to someone who doesn't believe such a creature exists, the burden is upon you to prove it's existence.  It should be quite obvious that statements like "God will never allow such a rewriting of His loving plan" is beyond absurd . . . yeah, Superman was really ticked off when they changed his costume and then reported that he had died!  But then the holy comics posted that he was resurrected, hallelujah!  I'm going to go pray to him that you accept the truth so you won't miss out on Paradise!

There is no afterlife.  There is no god, no angels, no demons, no Satan, no ghosts, no zombies, no sparkly vampires, and no Santa Claus.

*emphasis mine*

---

This is simply wrong, the Catholics use a bible with 7 added extra books, while the Evangelicals only have the New Testament in their bible, with the exception of Psalms. So you really just proved GC's point.

You are wrong.  The Protestants use a Bible with 14 fewer books.  They are using a major alteration of the Bible.  All Bibles were "Catholic" Bibles until a committee influenced by two English guys deleted the 14 books in the Apocrypha section in the 1880s.  The "Protestant" Bible has only existed for about 134 years.   

The Catholics have the real Bible.  The Protestants use a fake Bible.