Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

And that which was originally given had no errors in it, like the Alexandrian copies and editions based on them. If a "likely" reading has errors and creates internal discrepancies it is most certain that an erroneous reading is before your eyes. What kind of a Christology can I base upon modern texts and versions which make Christ into a liar. Such versions and texts make the Pauline words "all Scripture God-breathed" superfluous. What kind of textual criticism is that which does not reckon with providential preservation and absolute inerrancy and infallibility and verbal and plenary inspiration, and the analogousness of the Scriptures, and the harmony of the same. The new texts and versions do not reflect what the Bible testifies of its own nature and character as God's infallible Book. Now this is serious and alarming. If possible I want a Greek NT which reflects God's perfections in their entirety, and which is a faithful representative of the very originals. If you are content with something error-containing and fraught with contradictions then you may keep it to yourself. And I believe I have such an NT in Scrivener's 1894 TR. Proof positive has been produced of errant readings and contradictions in the Alexandrian codices, but who will produce the same as respects Scrivener's TR? If it has as "many errors" as the rationalists say why do they never show which they are? Then we might discuss them. It is easy to parrot-like repeat some cliches of past rationalists which say the TR is "fraught with multitudes of errors", but it is not so easy to actually prove it like has been proven of the modern editions. A fact is that God has blessed the TR in general all the way from Erasmus' and his TR editions. I see no such like blessing upon the Alexandrian modern editions. Go and look at the most Biblical groups of Baptist churches in modern centuries and you will see people who have shunned the Alexandrian text and its versions. I talk about the English Particular Baptists of 17th and 18th century, and the Gospel Standard Baptists of England of the 19th and the 20th century, and about the old Regular Baptists of USA of 1600's and 1700's, and the Predestinarian Baptists succeeding them in 1800's. Where the Holy Spirit wrought mightily in their midst there was no need for Alexandrian texts and versions based on the same. What they had were the Geneva Bible and the KJV and some had the TR and Masoretic text as well. And those Baptists were Scriptural and orthodox. Those Baptists never murmured nor complained they wanted newer or better versions. Never has England and USA seen such display of divine power as was in operation in their midst.
But today there is most pathetic apostasy among the Baptist universally. And the flood of versions and Alexandrian texts cannot help them any at all. To the contrary it just helps deepen the apostasy from the apostolic faith.

When the Roman whore church puts its imprimatur on modern versions and texts the alarm bells should ring for those who have a concern for the purity of God's word. A prudent man will be on guard against such most suspect versions.

Harald

 

Based on what? You admitted you know very little about textual criticism. You are basing your opinion of what is best by what personally sounds good to you. Suppose someone created a Bible where every third verse said "Jesus is awesome!" - that sounds great, affirms Christ, and doesn't contradict any other scripture - but should we then believe it accurately reflects what was originally written?

Was the TR first produced by a Baptist?

 

Reading the context in a state of belief in the text helps this problem. When you read it, you see that he sent his disciples alone and then later went up. That does not make him a liar. It appears to make you unbelieving in Jesus's words. I accept them for what they say. Verse 9 tells us that "having said that, he stayed in Galilee." So it is clear that he did not lie because he stayed behind. The "yet" was added by a scribe who tried to clarify something.

This is true only if you remove Eph 4 where it says to be angry and sin not. It is also true only if you believe that Jesus could sin. Since I do not believe that Jesus can sin, I have no problem with this text at all.

Your problem here again is one of not knowing the Scriptures. The divisive person according to Rom 16:17-18 is the one who teaches against the truth. Since Jesus was not teaching against the truth, he was not divisive in the sense that Titus 3:10 talks about.

Failing to read what the text says leads yet again to a problem. The omission of the phrase teaches us nothing contradictory to your point of omnipresence. We must remember that Jesus incarnate is not omnipresent however. He is localized, by virtue of being in a body.

You can believe with all your heart that these are infallibly God breathed words, but that makes not difference. Your heart, like mine, is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked. The Holy Spirit illumines our hearts to be sure but that does not make us infallible. You cannot substitute your belief for what is revealed. You cannot make your own personal feelings the test of truth. That is what you have done and it is unfortunate.

A little study would have cleared up all of these issues. As it is, you come to the Bible apparently with an unbelieving heart in the word of God. You have chosen not to believe in certain things. I believe what God's word says. Therefore, these are not problems for me.

 

BrianT. I would not accept a version which would say "Jesus is awesome", like the one you gave example of. Your words are meaningless to me, and obnoxious as well. It was an example of what those of old called cavilling.

The first TR was not produced by a Baptist, and I have not even claimed that. It was produced by Desiderius Erasmus, a papist by denominational affiliation. The whore church did not much like the TR and never has. Very little that has been produced by Baptists is worthwhile, because most Baptists of modern times have been apostates from the apostolic faith.

Harald

 

Larry. I do not believe Jesus Christ could sin. I do not believe He ever experienced temptation. He was and is impeccable, absolutely impeccable. I know there are many on this board that believe Jesus could have sinned, and they may say something like "but He did not". Some of them may add that He did not sin because the Holy Spirit was with Him and prevented Him. A person who believes Jesus Christ experienced temptation to sin within Himself is in darkness until now. I do not know if you believe it but many here and in general among professed Christians do. Nevertheless I do have problems with texts and versions which have such errors that they really or seemingly lend support to claims of such who would have it Christ Jesus was not absolutely holy and impeccable. Such versions and codices impeach the character of the inspiring Spirit of God and of the Lord of glory.

QUOTE:
"Failing to read what the text says leads yet again to a problem. The omission of the phrase teaches us nothing contradictory to your point of omnipresence. We must remember that Jesus incarnate is not omnipresent however. He is localized, by virtue of being in a body."

Now Larry, what in the text of the KJV or the TR makes you think about Christ's body being omnipresent. It is you who seemingly do not know the Scriptures, not me. The wording "the Son of Man ...being in the heaven" in no wise implies or refers to omnipresence of physical flesh. Do you not know what is meant by the epithet Son of Man? And the doctrine of the omnipresence of the Son of Man is no "my point", it is a cardinal Christian doctrine, part of the faith once delivered to the sanctified.

QUOTE:
"A little study would have cleared up all of these issues. As it is, you come to the Bible apparently with an unbelieving heart in the word of God. You have chosen not to believe in certain things. I believe what God's word says. Therefore, these are not problems for me. "

Now Larry, such slander as this from your mouth and pen is one of the reasons I did not joke when I mentioned 1Tim. 6:5. You are included in the group, just so as you know. That does not mean I cannot debate against you and earnestly contend for the faith as against the attacks against God's word and God's person which are seen on the part of the many. Just for your information there is to my knowledge not any thing or teaching in God's word I have problem with believing and accepting as the very revealed truth of God. But this conviction does not give me the right to accept errant texts and versions. The truth must be upheld and the truth must be said about them. Evil must be called evil and not good, and good must be called good and not evil, ( like you do all the time when it comes to the TR). Surely you know the Scripture teaches thusly.

Harald

 

But my point is that the text does not say this. You have read something into the text to support your preconceived position. I have no problem with the text as it was written. I believe Jesus was impeccable. The MVs does not impeach this in any way.

I am not sure that you can characterize the Son of Man as being omnipresent. You can characterize the Logos that way. The Son of Man means he partakes of the characteristics of man, one of which is localizaiton. If the "Son of man" can be omnipresent, then he was not fully human in that point. But regardless of that, this textual variant has no bearing on that. You are making a mountain out of nothing (it is not even a molehill yet).

So you can call me unbelieving and that is fine, but when I say you have an unbelieving heart I am slandering you??? Tell me how that works????

You misunderstood anyway. My point is that you do not believe that MVs are the word of God. Therefore you are unbelieving on that point. That is not slanderous. It is true. Unless you have changed your position.

You are in the wrong place if you are trying to contend for the word of God against attacks. No one on my side is attacking it. You have spent several posts attacking God's word, saying that it makes Jesus out to be a liar and a sinner. I do not believe that to be the case. I believe the word of God for what it says.

Then why do you keep attacking it??? You keep saying that certain things in God's word are not really God's word. I do not understand your logic. It makes no sense.

You are right. I refuse to call good evil and evil good. It is you who are slandering the word of God by calling it evil. The truth must be upheld and I will continue to do so.

My point here in saying this is simple: You believe you are defending God's word. You point out textual variants that affect no doctrine, that have valid evidential weight, and then pretend like those who disagree with you are heretics. That is unsound argumentation and even worse theology. You cannot point to one doctrine that is affected the MVs. I can point to many verses that are more clearly understood, to many texts that are more accurate because of the modern textual discoveries. You are simply barking up the wrong tree on this one.

Harald [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

So you don't believe in the perfection of hte TR?? What parts of it do you believe are imperfect?? How should they be changed to make it perfect??

 

I do think it is a big deal that verses are missing. I mean the Bible(KJV) itself is clear on that in Revelation 22:18-19 says- For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. (vs19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

Murphy. I did not mention you or any one by name. I gave a general characteristic. This is what Baptists of old called discriminating preaching. Now I do not claim to be preaching, but I have propoundend some things in a discriminating manner. If you take offense it is your problem. Christ and the apostles and the prophets of old were discriminating in their declarations and preaching. I see nothing in the word of God forbidding me to imitate Paul and the other men of God. If God's word does not forbid me to contend earnestly for the faith using lawful biblical measures why should I listen to a mere man. I must obey God rather than men.

I will not compromise such a grand truth as Christ's absolute impeccability. A person who believes in a peccable Jesus has no JESUS but has only a jesus. If you be of those who believe in a peccable Jesus I can but pity you, Jude 22, and pray for you as the Lord may grant me, hoping he would grant you repentance to the full acknowledging of the truth so you may recover yourself out of the fowler's net. If you do not believe in a peccable Jesus then my words will cause no offense whatsoever to you. The truth is offensive to such who have erroneous beliefs. If these my very words are unbiblical then you prove it and show it, BEFORE you come with some complaining PM's about my being this and that. When you charge me of unChristlike-ness, whether by saying it plainly or by implying it, then you are the one duty bound to show by Scripture I militate against Scriptural examples or principles. If you be in the right and I have not rightly divided the word of the truth I must of course repent in the sight of Almighty God, and if I have wronged you I must likewise ask your forgiveness. But if what lawful truths I have stated should offend you if you hold to erroneous or unbiblical notions in your heart it is you who are a problem unto your own self.

I have spoken plainly, and not by smooth words and flattering speeches. I hope at least this is OK with you.

Harald

 

Larry. I have never attacked God's inspired words. Why are you so dishonest. I have attacked translations of the same where and when it is called for, i.e. when the same are IN ERROR. Versions and translations are not above criticism. They are not divinely inspired, yet they partake of inspiration derivatively where and when (in places where) they accurately and faithfully translate the God-breathed words of the original tongues. Surely you must know this?
I do not attack divinely inspired readings, nor accurate renderings of the same. I am not a fool in this matter, as you seem to hold me to be. It is almost as you have made MV's another God. Now God the Lord is above criticism, but not idols, and if an MV or an ancient versions is an idol for a person then that is his or her problem. Don't come anymore charging me with attacking God-breathed words and accurate renderings of the same, because that is not my style. You make me look like a vile criminal by thus charging me unfoundedly.

Harald

 

The verses in the KJV and the TR which MV defenders call "added verses" in no wise militate against the rest of the body of revealed truth. And when there is no other reason for calling them "added" but pure conjecture I say why not let them be intact. They enrich the Bible and open up certain doctrines more than if taken out. An example is the end of John 3:13, which clearly testifies of the omnipresence of the Son of Man. And the phrase "the Son of Man (the one) being in the heaven" does not as some unwisely suggest or infer have reference to the flesh of Christ Jesus as omnipresent. The title Son of Man as applied to the Lord of glory means the Divine Son characterized by or possessed of human flesh. When Christ uttered those God-breathed words "the Son of Man being in the heaven" He of course uttered the truth that He was ever present in the third heaven as to His Deity, while at the same time being on earth united to His humanity in one indivisible person. If a person still will cavil against the ending of John 3:13 as being an addition let him remain deprived of understanding, 1Cor. 14:38.

Harald

 

I never said you attacked God's inspired words. So you are the one being dishonest here, or at least disingenuous. However, any faithful translation of the Word of God is the Word of God. When you attack faithful translations such as the NASB, ESV, and NIV, you are attacking God's word, whether you intend to or not.

I do know this and I have no problem with it. But when you use the language you have, you have crossed the line with respect to God's word. You need ot use more restraint in your rhetoric about matters on which there is no clear answer. I have no problem saying that a translation could be different or better. I have a problem with the type of things that you are saying.

In no way. I simply like to stand up for God's word when it is under attack. It would be a wonderful board if we could discuss this kind of thing with the attacks from those who do not know what they are talking about or do not understand the issues involved. But it always turns into a "corruption" discussion or a "take away from God's word" discussion or something like that. We need to put a lid on the trouble makers and the troublemaking so we can simply discuss God's word.

When you say that God's word makes Jesus to be a liar, you have attacked it. You are the one who said that, not me. So do not blame me when it is your words that are the problem. Your looking like a "vile criminal" was the result of your own poor choice of words. But I cannot stand by and let you attack God's word by saying that it makes the perfect Savior a liar.

 

And the one supposedly "taken out" of the MVs do not change any revealed truth.

YOu forgot to mention the manuscript evidence which is hard and fast evidence, not simple conjecture. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we take a verse or words out because of simple conjecture. That is a little disingenuous, don't you think?? Or do you have some proof to the contrary??

This is a poor reason to choose a variant. Our task is not to write a theology book but rather to have God's word. If he wanted something included, it is his decision. OUr view of an enriched or opened up doctrine is not a valid criteria for inclusion.

Why must you attack those of us who disagree with you???? Why must you accuse us of being deprived of understanding?? You make a reasonable post and then include this kind of comment. That is a shame. Believe it or not, one can disagree with you about the ending of John 3:13 without having a lack of understanding. It may well be that you are the one who lacks understanding.

[ July 02, 2003, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Faithful translations such as NASB, ESV, and NIV? Nida denied the blood atonement. Faith? No! Metzger rejected Moses's writings. faith? No! W/H denied many doctrines of the Bible. Faith? No! DE translations, faith? No!

 

Larry. I repeat. I have nowhere said God's word makes Jesus a liar, nor that God's word makes Him look like a liar. What makes Him look like a liar are corrupt codices and GNT editions based on the same, which repeat those errors (omission of "yet" in this case). And any versions based on the same erroneous texts which repeat the error(s) impugn the Lord of glory and the Holy Spirit who verily inspired an inerrant Bible. There must not be found in a translation of the word of God any passage which can be taken or used as support for wicked claims that Christ was a liar. Some MV's lend support to this by omitting the said "yet". These are not "the word of God" in an absolute sense inasmuch as God's word is infallible and inerrant, but they contain God's words where and when they may have accurately translated God's inspired words. Just like the Holy Spirit of God gave a perfect and absolutely inerrant Bible initially you can count on it He does therefore never condone errors in versions. NEVER! He is not the spirit of error, but on the contrary of TRUTH. God is not mocked.

It is unfounded and vain jangling on your part to keep on accusing me of "attacking God's word". Nothing but populistic "evangelical" cliches.

As for John 3:13 the end the most likely explanation for the omission of this inspired clause is that a scribe without understanding removed it. Perhaps because he did not understand what "Son of Man" meant, or perhaps he was one of those who did not believe in the absolute deity of Christ Jesus the Lord, including the attribute of the omnipresence of the divine Son. A person who has some Scriptural knowledge sees no problem with the glorious reading "the Son of Man being in the heaven". It is a parallell truth of the likewise inspired reading "the only begotten Son (he) being in the bosom of the Father", John 1:18.

Satan has been very active in that he has had these two glorious readings removed from some copies, modern editions, and defect versions based on the same.

Harald

 

Quotes? References?

About DE, chew on these statements, by KJV-O extremist Gail Riplinger:

"The use of the name 'Diana', a dynamic equivalency (translating a word as meant and not as written), shows the breadth of scholarship of the KJV translators." (page 241 of 'New Age Bible Versions', electronic edition)

"Scholar Rudolf Bultmann reminds Greek-o-philes that "faith is obedience" and the KJV consequently renders the word apeitheo as a 'dynamic equivalent' within the context of Christianity" (page 515 of 'New Age Bible Versions', electronic edition) - (BTW, Riplinger using Bultmann for support is extremely funny in itself. )