579:- this is not POV - it expresses the fact that certain text appears in KJV and not in modern versions, such as NIV. It is a genuine subject, but needs to be developed further. Their omission from modern versions reflects the fact that the verses appear in only some of the ancient manuscripts, and note those now regarded as the most authentic. The translators of the KJV and its predecessors worked from what was then available to them. A properly worked up article would explain the reasons for their omission. The present title is unsatisfactory, as a list it is not really encyclopaedic. I suggest
216:. The title and intro paragraph present the issue in completely the wrong terms (modern translations are not "omitting" parts of earlier translations, but making different text-critical judgements). Even if the POV is fixed, the list is arbitrary (what's unique about the KJV that makes divergences from it noteworthy?) and unmaintainable (we can't possibly list every verse in the KJV omitted in any more recent English translation, and there's no justification given for listing these in particular).
650:, I don't think this is encyclopedic. Perhaps on Wikisource or somewhere, but not here. The verses themselves don't have any accompanying explanations or anything and I don't see why a list of omitted Bible verses is particularly significant anyway. Well, not significant in an encyclopedia. If anyone wants to move it somewhere else they should feel free I guess, but I don't feel it is appropriate here. --
458:. Variations among Biblical translations could certainly be an encyclopedic subject, although an essay would be the more appropriate form. If this list had focused on the documented reasons for the variations I would have a different opinion, but this article does not document its claims (in fact, I don't think it even sources its statement that the verses are omitted.
902:
something similar to that) might work, but I've seen no evidence that anyone is actually interested in creating such an article. As far as I can tell, there's only interest in comparing the King James version to the New
International version (whether under the current name or under a new, more neutral-sounding name), and I think that has a POV built into it.
731:
translations after 1881 is really true, so right now this article fails basic verification and needs sourcing to avoid a delete. If someone has time to work on this, it would be much better to provide a detailed discussion that explains the different positions taken on the text involved, rather than a simple list, but that's not an AfD issue. Best, --
771:
other translations should be judged. If this were turned into something like "List of Bible versed not included in all translations", then that would eliminate the POV. But that would be a very different article, and it's not at all clear that the current article would be a reasonable starting point for such an article.
928:, and focus exclusively on the differences between the KJV and NIV. I think an article that focuses on the verse differences between manuscripts would be more useful because it explains why some translations of the Bible omit Mark 16:9-20, whilst others omit Mark 16:8-20, and the other variants on how Mark ends.
846:, per above. These arguments are not reasons for "we should delete this stuff". These are things that should be discussed on the talk page; if you feel it is too POV, then propose a change to the article name or the wording in the header rather than push for the removal of the material altogether.
828:
Arguments presented for deletion are not reasons for deletion, but improvement. If there are verses present in past versions of the bible, specially KJV, wich has been used as a standard by several groups, and this verses are omitted in later versions, it is perfectly encyclopedic to recollect said
345:
I don't know that much about which of the Bible translations is the top competitor to the King James
Version for English-speaking Protestants; the New International Version sells well, but maybe there's one that's more popular; neither do I know if there are others besides the NIV that have a niche
770:
The POV is that the comparison is to the King James version, as if that were somehow the original version. The King James translators made many decisions about what to include and what to exclude, and there's no reason to suppose that their conclusions are somehow the standard against which all
730:
or similar (doubtless there is better wording than this), we could get past this issue and focus on whether the list is sourced or is original research. Right now, there are no Bible commentators or scholars sourced, so we don't really know if the list is accurate or if the statement about most
379:
use for that says "F.D. Maurice was the principle man that Satan used to inculcate
Unitarianism, Communism, and Universalism into Christianity". Not a source I'd quote as accepted fact.) I can see the value in an article that discusses the changes in the source texts for the Bible, and in fact
901:
isn't much better -- it still implies a special role for the King James version, and it's not really accurate (since most of these verses are presumably found in some other versions, just not in all of them). My suggestion above of "List of Bible verses not included in all translations" (or
371:. The title presumes there's a standard list of verses, some of which have been omitted. There's not. Locating at the article, it strikes me as non-encyclopedic. An encyclopedia article shouldn't be an incomplete list of verses out of context without explanation. What explanation there is
617:. I'm trying to see potential, rather than what's there now. The title is entirely, though unintentionally, POV, as it implies a deviation from "the standard." I like the "Textual differences" suggestion above. There should be some mention of the different underlying source documents (
294:
Alright, they were "not included" in the NIV, and I've changed the comment to so reflect. It seems like a good starting point for an article, given the differences between KJV and NIV. Let's not forget the POV, and perhaps a trip to the DMV in my SUV, and I missed a show on MTV.
440:
used. Modern Bible versions are increasingly inaccurate and incomplete, with loose, extensively abridged paraphrases such as the New
Century Version often presented as if they were translations. A list of omitted verses, however, doesn't really do justice to the problem.
48:
to either keep or delete, which by precedence defaults to keep. there are good suggestions towards renaming this, which is for the talkpages, not for AfD. No prejudice against a renom if nothing changes/moves to address deletion concerns in 1-3 months time.
346:
to show where a verse wasn't included (as in the case of Matt 18:11). Not sure how other translations handle the 13th floor issue. The point of the article is that there are verses that are in KJV but that aren't in more recent translations.
520:
That's probably the best first step toward fixing POV concerns, particularly since people feel strongly when it comes to the virtues of the Bible they use... the way people talk about it, you'd think it was holy or something.
496:,with a redirect from the current title. Then add verses like 3 John 1:15 to the list. In theory, this article could get into the differences between versification schemes at the verse level, as it is a badly written subset of
435:
The article isn't saying that the KJV was used as a standard by which to judge omissions. It merely cites the KJV as the main source of the verses shown. Still, the article gives no information as to what standard
790:
First, the article title is wrong - this is not about "omitted Bible verses" but about differences between the KJV and NIV translations. Further, there is currently no proper sources, instead this looks like
309:
But why pick on the NIV? The issues with the NIV are basically the same as 90% of the
Biblical translations done in the 20th century. The issue is the underlying editions of the Greek New Testament.--
233:
I hate to say delete because I find this topic really, really interesting. However, it constitutes original research if it is without references (and, I searched, couldn't find a single reference).
166:
Does it make a difference? This is a list, with well referenced sources that describes omitted verses from the modern versions. Besides, where is the facts upon you saying that the KJV added them?
748:. Not sure how it's POV. It's a straightforward list. These are verses in the KJV that are not in the NIV. A more descriptive title would be warranted, as Shirahadasha suggests. --
702:
272:
They weren't omitted from the NIV; they were added to the KJV. It's simply pointless to have a list without discussions of the Greek manuscripts that drove these decisions.--
133:
676:
726:. One difficulty with the article title is that it seems to take a position on which view of the Bible is correct. If the article could be renamed only slightly, e.g.
580:
100:
95:
799:
selection on text passages. However, the title could be adjusted, and there is tons of literature available comparing those two Bible versions - so the topic itself
104:
829:
verses. There is ample room for improvement of the article, and probbly a precision in the name "~ from the KJV" or whatever, but this is no reasson for deletion.
87:
924:, and cover the differences between all of the various editions of the Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Old Church Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, etc) or
727:
418:. "they tried to delete Matthew 18:11". The article seems to imply an ulterior motive on the part of biblical translators since the KJV.
17:
91:
497:
966:
937:
911:
891:
855:
838:
820:
780:
763:
740:
717:
691:
666:
642:
609:
592:
569:
555:
530:
509:
484:
467:
450:
427:
410:
393:
375:; see Matthew 18:11 for one example that assumes the verse was removed to change the meaning on the bible. (The quote-unquote
355:
331:
304:
281:
267:
242:
225:
204:
175:
157:
69:
804:
251:
463:
83:
75:
981:
36:
950:
954:
446:
897:
I'm not convinced that it does have that potential. The POV starts with the title, which is not a good sign. And
808:
980:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
384:
does a decent start on this. But neither the title nor the contents of this article are encyclopedic or NPOV.--
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
933:
588:
505:
459:
736:
551:
887:
442:
406:
630:
883:
565:
389:
327:
277:
250:
I was surprised to learn that the New
International Version actually omits verses like Matthew 18:11
238:
920:
In reading the comments, it is obvious that the title of the article is wrong. It either should be
907:
882:
This article has the potential to have the POV removed from it, so it is a clear example of keep.
776:
713:
687:
526:
480:
423:
351:
300:
263:
868:
929:
877:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.
851:
834:
816:
626:
605:
584:
501:
200:
153:
56:
629:
to provide context for the differences, and go from there. However, I am pessimistic - this has
962:
732:
622:
547:
221:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
651:
638:
402:
796:
372:
618:
561:
385:
381:
323:
273:
234:
171:
957:
or whatever. Seems notable, of research interest to college students, and well-sourced.
792:
376:
187:
It's not referenced at all - that is to say, all it demonstrates is that the verses are
903:
772:
709:
683:
522:
476:
419:
347:
296:
259:
847:
830:
812:
601:
560:
Um, !voting here. "bad nomination" tells us nothing about why you disagree with it.--
196:
149:
62:
50:
958:
867:. No article should be deleted if the problem can be fixed through editing as per
217:
121:
258:
not included in the New
Interantional Version" and have the commentary removed.
749:
659:
634:
167:
803:
have an article. If that seems better than having the information e.g. in
863:- Work on NPOVing the article and consider a more NPOV name such as
974:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
475:. As others have pointed out already, this is hopelessly POV.
728:
List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions
254:. This should probably be moved to "List of Bible verses
140:
Hopelessly POV. Who is to say whether the modern versions
128:
117:
113:
109:
600:. Recent changes have made the article a lot better.
195:
in modern versions - not the same thing as omission!
899:Bible Verses found only in the King James version
865:Bible Verses found only in the King James version
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
984:). No further edits should be made to this page.
581:Bible verses not included in modern translations
703:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
677:list of Religion-related deletion discussions
8:
401:. Under-referenced with serious POV issues.
701:: This debate has been included in the
675:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
252:i.e., it skips from 18:10 to 18:12
24:
951:Textual differences in the Bible
498:Chapters and verses of the Bible
955:Verse differences in the Bible
869:Knowledge (XXG):Delete#Editing
1:
805:Authorized King James Version
577:Keep but tag for improvement
84:List of omitted Bible verses
76:List of omitted Bible verses
144:verses, or whether the KJV
1001:
967:21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
938:21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
912:20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
892:19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
856:19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
839:13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
821:13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
781:11:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
764:06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
741:22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
718:20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
692:20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
667:18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
643:14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
610:00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
593:12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
531:02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
356:02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
70:21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
809:New International Version
570:15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
556:13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
510:07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
485:04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
468:02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
451:18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
428:05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
411:02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
394:01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
332:03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
305:02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
282:01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
268:01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
243:00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
226:23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
205:23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
176:23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
158:22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
977:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
633:written all over it.
926:KJV-NIV differences
922:Textual Differences
546:- bad nomination -
494:Textual Differences
949:to soemthing like
627:Codex Alexandrinus
460:Minos P. Dautrieve
720:
706:
694:
680:
623:Codex Sinaiaticus
66:
992:
979:
761:
758:
755:
752:
707:
697:
681:
671:
664:
662:plz create stuff
656:
131:
125:
107:
67:
64:
59:
53:
44:The result was
34:
1000:
999:
995:
994:
993:
991:
990:
989:
988:
982:deletion review
975:
947:Keep and rename
759:
756:
753:
750:
660:
652:
619:Textus receptus
382:Textus Receptus
377:reliable source
191:in the KJV but
127:
98:
82:
79:
63:
57:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
998:
996:
987:
986:
970:
969:
943:
942:
941:
940:
915:
914:
880:
879:
873:
872:
858:
841:
823:
784:
783:
767:
766:
743:
721:
695:
669:
645:
615:Very weak keep
612:
595:
574:
573:
572:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
487:
470:
453:
430:
413:
396:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
285:
284:
245:
228:
210:
209:
208:
207:
179:
178:
138:
137:
78:
73:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
997:
985:
983:
978:
972:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
900:
896:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
878:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
840:
836:
832:
827:
824:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
789:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
765:
762:
747:
744:
742:
738:
734:
729:
725:
722:
719:
715:
711:
704:
700:
696:
693:
689:
685:
678:
674:
670:
668:
665:
663:
657:
655:
649:
646:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
611:
607:
603:
599:
596:
594:
590:
586:
585:Peterkingiron
582:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
532:
528:
524:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
492:. Rename it
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
439:
434:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
378:
374:
370:
367:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
329:
325:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
269:
265:
261:
257:
256:omitted from
253:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
135:
130:
123:
119:
115:
111:
106:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
80:
77:
74:
72:
71:
68:
60:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
976:
973:
946:
925:
921:
898:
881:
876:
864:
860:
843:
825:
800:
787:
745:
733:Shirahadasha
723:
698:
672:
661:
653:
647:
614:
597:
576:
548:David Gerard
543:
493:
489:
472:
455:
437:
432:
415:
398:
368:
322:
255:
247:
231:Weak Delete.
230:
213:
192:
188:
184:
163:
145:
141:
139:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
861:Strong Keep
844:Strong keep
826:Strong keep
403:Majoreditor
164:Strong Keep
831:Gorgonzola
562:Prosfilaes
386:Prosfilaes
324:Prosfilaes
274:Prosfilaes
65:Disclaimer
904:Klausness
773:Klausness
710:Pixelface
684:Pixelface
523:Mandsford
490:Weak Keep
477:Klausness
420:Prewitt81
348:Mandsford
297:Mandsford
260:Mandsford
930:jonathon
848:Celarnor
813:Minimaki
631:coatrack
602:StAnselm
502:jonathon
443:Valerius
433:Comment.
197:StAnselm
150:StAnselm
134:View log
959:Bearian
795:with a
724:Comment
598:Comment
218:EALacey
189:present
185:Comment
101:protect
96:history
797:WP:POV
788:Delete
654:Naerii
648:Delete
635:Xymmax
473:Delete
456:Delete
416:Delete
399:Delete
373:WP:POV
369:Delete
214:Delete
193:absent
148:them?
129:delete
105:delete
52:Keeper
801:could
793:WP:OR
235:Renee
168:Tavix
146:added
132:) – (
122:views
114:watch
110:links
16:<
963:talk
934:talk
908:talk
888:Talk
852:talk
835:talk
817:talk
811:. --
777:talk
746:Keep
737:talk
714:talk
699:Note
688:talk
673:Note
639:talk
625:and
621:vs.
606:talk
589:talk
566:talk
552:talk
544:Keep
527:talk
506:talk
500:. .
481:talk
464:talk
447:talk
424:talk
407:talk
390:talk
352:talk
328:talk
301:talk
278:talk
264:talk
248:Keep
239:talk
222:talk
201:talk
172:talk
154:talk
142:omit
118:logs
92:talk
88:edit
953:or
807:or
760:el
705:.
679:.
583:.
438:was
61:|
55:|
965:)
936:)
910:)
890:)
884:KV
854:)
837:)
819:)
779:)
757:er
739:)
716:)
690:)
658:·
641:)
608:)
591:)
568:)
554:)
529:)
508:)
483:)
466:)
449:)
426:)
409:)
392:)
354:)
330:)
303:)
280:)
266:)
241:)
224:)
203:)
174:)
156:)
120:|
116:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
58:76
961:(
932:(
906:(
886:(
871:.
850:(
833:(
815:(
775:(
754:P
751:M
735:(
712:(
708:—
686:(
682:—
637:(
604:(
587:(
564:(
550:(
525:(
504:(
479:(
462:(
445:(
422:(
405:(
388:(
350:(
326:(
299:(
276:(
262:(
237:(
220:(
199:(
170:(
152:(
136:)
126:(
124:)
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.