Missing Verses in the KJV

Welcome to the BB.

Ed

 

Deacon, the 114 colors do make this difficult for some of us old geezers to read.

Ed

 

Don't go to bed too early, C4K. You may yet get to act tonight, if this holds true to form.

Ed

 

Help me out, here, as I do not read Hebrew, at all.

What exactly is "11QPs"?

Ed

 

Which 'proves' what, exactly??

Likewise the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle fo Barnabas, the Epistle to the Laodecians, and the Epistles of Clement were considered inspired by some of the early Christians. Again, what does that prove? That did not "Make it so!"

And the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox churches also have books 'they' consider inspired. For the third time, what exactly does that prove?

Ed

 

Wouldn't hurt. ~O-O~

Ed

 

Cannon fodder, maybe??

Ed

 

This will be out there for some of you Im sure, but hopefully you are learning to expect that...

I would argue that the Lord left out that letter on purpose, just to mess iwth textual critics. The problem is, no one would think the Lord would do a thing like that... but why wouldn't he?
His ways/thoughts are not our ways.thoughts, and I wouldn't put it past him.

 

From a critical point of view, it is possible the composer began with an acrostic poem of David and intentionally left out the NUN strophe. Not only the NUN strophe, but much of the poem is edited to achieve a certain aim. It is uncertain why the composer added many non-poetic, i.e., "narrative" articles, like ET, HA, etc., to the poem, especially to the second half of the it.

The omission is hardly explainable unless the composer did it intentionally. Doing something like this could be considered compositional genius. It causes the reader to pause and consider the words before the omission. Faithful scribes dared not add what appear to be the intentionally missing words, which must have been well-known, back into the canonical text, but the temptation to "correct" the apparently mutilated acrostic was too great for some, and the NUN strophe found its way back into the text fairly early on.

So if the above scenario is correct, an interesting dilemma arises. Should we follow the compositional source (i.e., David's words, written ca. 1000 B.C.), or should we follow the completed compositional or canonical product, which was no doubt composed and arranged many hundreds of years later, as our inspired text? Of course Wellhausen went after the sources. I think such a direction is woefully misguided.

 

The proof for your statement would be in the pudding, but you didn't give any pudding. No tapioca, choclate, fudge, butterscotch, or even vanilla. Shame on you, having all that pudding and not sharing it. :tear:

 

It is not neccessarily true that the LXX was the ONLY text used by the early church.

Funny (to me) that many will decry KJVo yet will claim LXXo.


ha ha ha

Sorry Roger. I really could not and did not want to resist that one. My apologies in advance.

 

Is something left out in the following?

"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" (Acts 4:25 KJV)


"Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?" (Acts 4:25 NASB)

Here's the cross-reference verse:

​

"The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue." (2 Samuel 23:2 KJV) ​

 

No. Nothing was left out, but something was definitely ADDED!:laugh: :laugh:

 

Yes, something is definitely missing...the credit that should be given to the Holy Spirit!

 

It will be just like every section in heaven and hell. Some will be there and others will not.

Mt. 7:15-23, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "So then, you will know them by their fruits. "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven [will enter]. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

 

amen and amen

 

Actually something has been LEFT OUT of the sources
used by the KJV -- The 'Holy Spirit' is in the earlier manuscripts
available to the Translators of the NASB but not
available to the Translators of the KJV.
The NASB is the better translation
(not to mention better theology).

 

Ed Edwards:

Proverbs 30:6 (KJV1611 Edition):
Adde thou not vnto his words,
lest he reproue thee,
and thou be found a lyar.

Thou hast blasphemed mine Bible by
taking away an 'e', the blessed first letter of
both my first and last names.
Further thou hast taken a blessed
'y' in 'lyar' and, Lo, thou hast changed it into
a self-centered 'i'




Correct me if I'm wrong Ed, but the verse is talking about adding words, is it not? As you correctly pointed out, 'e' and 'i' are letters. You don't believe in divinely preserved spelling do you?