It's not really a matter of the NIV leaving out passages, for it can be 
suggested that the KJV adds them as well, as the KJV is not the standard by 
which all translations rise and fall...it was neither the first nor the last 
of English translations.  It's a matter of manuscripts.  The NIV translators 
didn't get together and say, "Hmmm, let's take this out.  It's not 
important."  They looked at the manuscripts they had and found that the 
oldest manuscripts omit the passage.  In which case we can say it was not 
really "omitted" by the manuscript, but added later by a pious
scribe, hence 
it is found in the younger manuscripts, upon which the KJV was based.  Now, 
I'm not an NIV fan, though I think it is a decent translation, not accurate 
in all places, but no common translation is 100% accurate, for if they were, 
they would not be in readable English.  But the NIV, in my opinion, is a 
decent translation, as is the KJV, though I think we should make use of 
manuscripts the KJV translators did not have access to, and make use of the 
better knowledge we have today of the original languages.  After all, the 
KJV translators themselves did not see the KJV as the final translation for 
all time, and not even a good one, but the making of a good one better. 
They added that the work of translation was a progressive one, never ending.

Peace!

Phillip 

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/11/05 10:54:31 AM