Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of omitted Bible verses


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus 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. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List of omitted Bible verses

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Hopelessly POV. Who is to say whether the modern versions omit verses, or whether the KJV added them? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep 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? Tavix (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not referenced at all - that is to say, all it demonstrates is that the verses are present in the KJV but absent in modern versions - not the same thing as omission! StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Prosfilaes (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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). EALacey (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. 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). Renee (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I was surprised to learn that the New International Version actually omits verses like Matthew 18:11 | i.e., it skips from 18:10 to 18:12.  This should probably be moved to "List of Bible verses omitted from not included in the New Interantional Version" and have the commentary removed.  Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Mandsford (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.--
 * 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 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.  Mandsford (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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 WP:POV; see Matthew 18:11 for one example that assumes the verse was removed to change the meaning on the bible. (The quote-unquote reliable source 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 Textus Receptus does a decent start on this. But neither the title nor the contents of this article are encyclopedic or NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Under-referenced with serious POV issues. Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. "they tried to delete Matthew 18:11". The article seems to imply an ulterior motive on the part of biblical translators since the KJV.  Prewitt81 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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 was 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. Valerius (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As others have pointed out already, this is hopelessly POV. Klausness (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Rename it Textual Differences,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 Chapters and verses of the Bible.  .jonathon (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. Mandsford (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, !voting here. "bad nomination" tells us nothing about why you disagree with it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag for improvement - 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 Bible verses not included in modern translations.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Recent changes have made the article a lot better. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. 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 (Textus receptus vs. Codex Sinaiaticus and Codex Alexandrinus to provide context for the differences, and go from there. However, I am pessimistic - this has coatrack written all over it. Xymmax (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, 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. -- Naerii  ·  plz create stuff  18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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. List of King James Bible verses not in contemporary versions 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 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, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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. -- M P er el  06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Klausness (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete 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 WP:OR with a WP:POV 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 could have an article. If that seems better than having the information e.g. in Authorized King James Version or New International Version. --Minimaki (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep 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 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. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, 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. Celarnor (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Work on NPOVing the article and consider a more NPOV name such as Bible Verses found only in the King James version. No article should be deleted if the problem can be fixed through editing as per Delete.
 * If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.

This article has the potential to have the POV removed from it, so it is a clear example of keep. KV(Talk) 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that it does have that potential. The POV starts with the title, which is not a good sign. And Bible Verses found only in the King James version 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 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. Klausness (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In reading the comments, it is obvious that the title of the article is wrong. It either should be Textual Differences, and cover the differences between all of the various editions of the Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Old Church Slavonic, Armenian, Coptic, etc) or KJV-NIV differences, and focus exclusively on the differences between the KJV and NIV. [Since there are a dozen versions of the KJV (in English), and half a dozen versions of the NIV (in English) it is theoretically possible to write an article encyclopedic quality on just those two translations --- assuming that Oxford University Press, Cambridge Universe Press, and Zondervan (copyright holders/administrators of the texts in question) don't object on the grounds that the quotes exceed "fair use".] 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.jonathon (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to soemthing like Textual differences in the Bible or Verse differences in the Bible or whatever. Seems notable, of research interest to college students, and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.