Hark, the Herald Angels...Sing?

[FerventGodSeeker]

Really??? Which ones???

Though I occasionally cross-reference the NIV, it's not the one I usually read, so just wondering....

To name a few: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, 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.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Snowbear]

Whoa!! Cross-referencing those verses, it appears many of them are missing from a few other versions as well.... Thanks for the info, FGS.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So Doc.... you are a member of your local church of Christ, right??

Is the leadership of your church open to the suggestion that just because a concept (like intrumental music during church services) is not mentioned in scripture means it can't be done? I'm kind of taking this a step farther and wondering if things like a capela music ARE mentioned as a part of formal worshop services? If not, why is music allowed at all during worship services

Actually,

yes they are open to it, though the Elders have decided to keep our tradition of a' capella for the time being. They fellowship with churches that use instruments with no problems.

 

[Scuba Pete]

To name a few: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, 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.

FerventGodSeeker

That's funny. The online version found at www.biblegateway.com seems to add these verses with merely a caveat that not all manuscripts have them. Nothing wrong with that, and I find your representation of them as FALSE.

 

[Snowbear]

Actually,

yes they are open to it, though the Elders have decided to keep our tradition of a' capella for the time being. They fellowship with churches that use instruments with no problems.

Cool.
Openmindedness is always a good thing

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

That's funny. The online version found at www.biblegateway.com seems to add these verses with merely a caveat that not all manuscripts have them. Nothing wrong with that, and I find your representation of them as FALSE.

Bible Gateway may have edited the version to add it, or a new edition of the NIV may have come out that included the verses. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that numerous of these NIVs completely omit these verses.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, you have the "facts" wrong.

Those "contested passages" are all there and denoted as such in every NIV. Perhaps you need to re-read it and/or examine your motives.

Fortunately, God's Spirit can move with or without all of the scriptures present. Too often the choice of which translation to use devolves into legalistic traditions of men. I am thankful to be under the "Law" of freedom.

 

[Snowbear]

Those "contested passages" are all there and denoted as such in every NIV. Perhaps you need to re-read it and/or examine your motives.

Question.... why are those passages "contested?" After looking up several of them, I don't get it why some translations (not just NIV) omit or contest them?

Fortunately, God's Spirit can move with or without all of the scriptures present. Too often the choice of which translation to use devolves into legalistic traditions of men. I am thankful to be under the "Law" of freedom.

Absolutely! Frubals to you for this reminder

 

[Scuba Pete]

Snow, they are not in ALL of the manuscripts that we have available to us. IOW, they might have been added as an after thought by some well meaning disciple who was copying the texts.

And thanks for the Frubals!

 

[Snowbear]

Ah, OK. Thanks Doc.