Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by aefting, Jun 29, 2003.

  1. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    David Cloud, who writes in favor of the KJV-Only position, lists 45 verses on his website that are omitted or seriously questioned in modern versions. He specifically mentions the NIV but his comments are apropos to all conservative versions based on the ET. Let’s just think about these 45 verses for a moment. If there are 41,173 verses in a KJV Bible (7959 in the NT), then the entire controversy involves less than ½ of 1% (actually, 0.36%) of all the verses in our Bible. Even if you limit your data to the NT, we’re still talking about less than 1% of the verses in the NT. When you consider that we must reconcile the data from 5000 manuscripts, none of which are exactly the same, that we have boiled down the missing verse controversy to only 45 verses is remarkable. Surely God has providentially preserved His Word.

    I realize, however, that even ½ of 1% can be troubling to some. Nevertheless, I claim that conservative modern translations leave nothing of importance out and provide everything necessary to know God completely, despite the fact that they are based on a text that contains fewer verses than the Textus Receptus (TR).

    First note that many of the questionable verses occur elsewhere in parallel accounts or within other passages. Consequently, we are not dealing with the loss of information, only a possible lack of emphasis or nuance.

    1. Matthew 12:47 (see parallel in Matthew 12:46)
    2. Matthew 17:21 (see parallel in Mark 9:29)
    3. Matthew 18:11 (see parallel in Luke 19:10)
    4. Matthew 21:44 (see parallel in Luke 20:18)
    5. Matthew 23:14 (see parallel in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47)
    6. Mark 7:16 (see parallel in Matthew 11:15 and 13:9,43)
    7. Mark 9:44 (see parallel in Mark 9:48)
    8. Mark 9:46 (see parallel in Mark 9:48)
    9. Mark 11:26 (see parallel in Matthew 6:15, 18:35)
    10. Mark 15:28 (see parallel in Luke 22:37)
    11. Luke 17:36 (see parallel in Matthew 24:40)
    12. Luke 23:17 (see parallel in Matthew 27:15)
    13. Romans 16:24 (see parallel in Romans 16:20)

    The remaining 32 verses do not occur in parallel accounts or passages. Four of these verses (Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, and 1 John 5:7) only have support in TR texts. They have no support in the Majority Text (MT), let alone the earlier ET, and therefore their genuineness is extremely doubtful. Twenty-four verses occur in just two passages, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. The remaining four verses are Luke 22:43-44, John 5:4, and Acts 28:29.

    In every case, modern versions such as the NAS and the ESV translate these verses and include them in their respective translations, either bracketed in the text or in a footnote. Thus with passages that are doubtful due to their exclusion from the ET, conservative modern translations still provide the reader with a modern-day translation of those verses. It should be noted that certain versions of the KJV, including the original 1611 version, also contain marginal notes that question the textual evidence for some of these verses.

    A person’s view of the preservation of Scripture does not change the fact that there is not unanimous agreement among the extant manuscripts concerning these passages. The good news is that conservative modern versions give their readers the ability to read those doubtful texts, with an appropriate caution, and gain the benefit that God intends us to get from them. Such cautions are proper, even recommended, just as a careful expositor will caution his people about his interpretation of a difficult or controversial passage. Ultimately, our understanding of God and the Bible is dependant upon our method of interpretation rather than any slight difference in underlying text.

    With these facts in mind, namely, (1) the number of questionable verses is very small in comparison to the total number of verses, (2) many of the questionable verses occur elsewhere in the NT, and (3) conservative modern versions such as the NAS and ESV translate the remaining questionable verses anyway, I contend that the so-called missing verses in the Eclectic Text is a non issue. This issue should not prevent any Christian from reading or studying from a conservative modern English Bible that he can easily understand.

    Andy
     
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post, Andy. I like numbers, it puts things in perspective. [​IMG]
     
  4. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    why is it that KJBOs like Cloud n Waite never worry over the verses changed between TR editions n evern more between the TR editions n the Majority text?

    they seem always to harp on TR vs Alexandrian.

    any KJBO wants to take a stab at this?
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Even a small change is bad, right? Then what about the 5000 changes from the AV1611 to the KJV1769 that I use?

    Appreciate the reminder that there are very few differences between Erasmus' Greek compilations and those of modern versions. And none are doctrine bearing. Most are simple scribal additions of overzealous Byzantines.

    Thank God for the Vaticanus and Alexandrian texts to put it all in perspective! [​IMG]
     
  6. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Imagine that,thanking God for corrupt Papal manuscripts!

    " Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "
     
  8. kman

    kman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    0
    WHAAAAAT IS THIS????

    A well reasoned, sound, edifying post on the
    bible version forum???? Wow...

    Great post Andy [​IMG]

    I recently bought a book that has all the early
    Papyrus Manuscripts in it from 100-300 AD. I've been comparing some of them to TR and CT texts. The amount of agreement I've seen so far is absolutely incredible. Of course not in every case..but overall I've been absolutely astounded. Some of these papyrus were (apparently) hidden in Jars away from the Churches to protect them from Diocletians persecution and Bible destruction in 302 AD. And to dig them up..and find such agreement with manuscripts from the 13th - 14th century is another testimony to God's preservation IMHO.

    -kman
     
  9. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow, but it's ok to have the KJB1611 n KJB1769 REMOVE all the jots n tittles fr God's words?

    n u dare pick others' eyes for motes.

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    MV-neverist [​IMG] about the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
    "Imagine that,thanking God for corrupt Papal manuscripts! "

    Whatever is wrong with those texts, they aren't 'Papal' in the slightest. The Vaticanus is kept in the Vatican library, but so is the original Heidelberger Catechismus and nobody thinks of that as a 'Papal' document.
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do not be decieved,Jerome's Vulgate came directly from Vaticanus;bibles from the RCC and from 1881 on has it's roots in those manuscripts,and they line up with the Vulgate.Like I said PAPAL
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harald, be careful of your words. If this was my forum, this would earn you a formal warning. You don't have to agree with W & H's conclusions or respect their work. But outright, unsupported and false slander is completely uncalled for. I have read many of their books, and I assure you they were the exact opposite of "manifest servants of Satan". How many of their books have you read? One day, you will have to apologize to their faces for such words. Luckily, they will forgive you. [​IMG]

    And I'm pretty sure that to say that those who accept W/H's work have swallowed the "strong delusion" is against board rules. But we're used to KJV-onlies taking scripture out of context, so no biggie. [​IMG]
     
  13. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It ain't,so you can't.
    I don't and definatly WON'T!
    [​IMG] [​IMG] Dont bet the farm on that one.
    At least we believe we have the Scriptures!


    Harald,for once I agree with you 100%!!!
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know this?? Did you find the autographs to compare them to?? Or are you simply comparing them against your preference??? Of course, we all know the latter is the case. These categorical statements are foolish and uncalled for.

    And how in the world do you know this??? This is the type of rhetoric that gets us nowhere. Aside from the fact that you can't know this, it simply makes no difference. We are not followers of Westcott and Hort and the sooner you learn this, the sooner you will be able to offer some reasonable contributions to this thread.

    So now you are doubting whether or not people who use hte general principles of modern textual criticism are really saved?? Come on now Harald. You know better. You cannot prove this is a delusion. There is more evidence that you are the one following the delusion by following a Greek text that has very little support in a number of places.

    This is totally out of line and you know better. In all of your posts on this forum, this is absolutely the worst one you have ever come up with. It is a horrible attempt at supporting your position.

    You took the words right out of my mouth.

    Come back to reality Harald. Contribute positively to this discussion.
     
  15. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless you can provide proof (which you can't), you slander. Again, how many of their books have you actually read? Or are you just believing Riplinger's and other's butchered quotes and false assumptions?

    Since they are unable (and/or unwilling) to provide evidence of heresy, I would say so.

    See if you can fathom this: I own 14 books written by Westcott and/or Hort. I research supposed "quotes" others put forth, and I've yet to see a negative-sounding quote that stood up to scrutiny, if you consider things like context, etc. My opinion of them is based on *what I read from their own words, in context*. Are you able to say the same? I think not.

    I find that before people open their mouth boldly, they should open a few books boldly, and check things for themselves. Usually the only good thing that opening your mouth does, without first checking the evidence for yourself, is provide a place to put your foot.
     
  16. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harald, I hope this is not an indication that you are abandoning godly, reasoned discretion. I disagree with your take on the TR but have admired some of your thoughts and certainly admired your spirit in general.

    As far as the "lies and falsehoods" go, I was not aware there had been a conclusion of the matter of whose side the evidence falls on. If I missed it along the way, please tell me where :confused: :confused: .

    I personally favor the majority position over the CT. But as you know the TR does not equal the MT in several places. In those places, I find the TR suspect and almost certainly not original.

    The disappointment for me is not and would not be that you take a strong, reasoned position different than mine or Brian's. It would be if you arbitrarily concluded that your position was correct and that anyone who disagreed with you was under satanic deception or worse.
     
  17. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    All I can say is, what wonderous grace! If only people had eyes to see.

    Andy
     
  18. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly, can't many naturalistic scholars see your point here?
     
  19. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Respect unbelievers' work? Why did W & H and Jesus disagree with the book of Genesis?
     
  20. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you know this?? </font>[/QUOTE]Hoskier examined them and found these MSS disagreeing each other in the Gospels alone 3,000 times!

    They did not believe in parts of the Bible as the Words of God. They did not believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ in the Bible. How could you call them, "christians" IF these men did NOT believe the Bible?

    John 5:46-47 said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
     

Share This Page

Loading...