Verses or Words Left out of MV Bibles

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Apr 12, 2004.

  1. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let us do a study on the actual verses which the KJVo groups claim to have been left out and let us see if any doctrine is effected.

    KJVo people would you please post specific verses where you have a problem and let us discuss these.

    Just start off by listing a few of the major areas, let's don't get bogged down with 100 verses that say: "Lord Jesus" rather than "Jesus Christ" or something to that effect. Let us look at real changes.

    Let us PLEASE stay away from the name-calling. Nobody is "ignorant" on this thread and nobody is "a fool", etc. Let us try to stick strictly to factual analysis. (I am not a moderator, so I humbly ask that we can keep this thread from becoming a personal emotional forum. This applies to BOTH sides. Please.....)

    Non-KJVo's--you are welcome to post verses changed, too.

    Thank you. This ought to be fun and a learning experience for all involved. [​IMG]
     
  2. Watchman

    Watchman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,706
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Non KJVO's--you are welcome to post verses changed too."

    Thank you, Phillip I did run accross one and I am curious if the change makes sense to anyone here.
    It has to do with the NKJV, which I have come to
    enjoy so much, that I would classify it as my new preferred. I like the changes that it has made to the KJV, until I came accross Romans 4:1.
    In the KJV:
    "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?"
    But the NKJV:
    "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?"
    Checking at biblegateway to see how all versions read, I see that all of them read similar to the KJV except, the KJV21, which also reads it like the NKJV.
    Perhaps the NKJV and KJV21 translators felt that it speaks of Abraham's experience while he was alive, that is, in the flesh.
    I just felt it was a curious change.
     
  3. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's the difference? Both say the same thing. The only difference is the word order.

    KJV: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?"

    KJV (word order changed): "What then shall we say that Abraham our father hath found as pertaining to the flesh?"

    NKJV: "What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?"

    NKJV (word order changed): "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, according to the flesh, has found?"

    Says exactly the same thing.
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Let's consider Matthew 17:21.

    I hope Michelle reads/posts in this thread. I still await her answer of how an older ms can OMIT something found in a newer ms without the presence of a "standard" from which both mss were copied.
     
  5. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because the ommited readings in the "oldest and best" unicals-Sinaiticus(trash can version)and Vaticanus(revelation 17)-can be found in the Old Latin for example;which predates those unicals by 150 years!


    The Bible(KJB)makes it quite clear that ommision is a factor when concerning God's word-like it or not:Gen 3-Eve,Numbers 22:12,13-Balaam,Jeremiah 36-Jehudi,and Luke 4:10-Satan..
     
  6. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Get a life, AA. Your 'backwards logic' is twisted, and tainted by your hatred for anything other than your KJV.

    So, are you trying to say that the OLDER manuscripts are wrong, because they didn't contain words and verses that appeared somewhere during the intervening centuries? So, what, did Paul, Peter, John, and the rest of the gang decide to take a stroll through the library a few hundred years after the were buried and just decided that they forgot to scribble something the first time? Where did the extra stuff come from?

    They are found in Old Latin, are they? Gee, and we all know that the Vulgate is the only word of God...no, wait, wrong translation...sorry. So, the Old Latin are the closest to the originals, then? A translation? Written by 'unbelieving and skeptical scholars'? Hmmm, it just gets deeper and deeper, don't it?

    Why should I expect anything less from the KJVO crowd? Of course the additions must be Scripture. I mean, otherwise people wouldn't have copied it down...over...and over...and over. Surely there couldn't have been some penny-ante scribe who thought that it would sound better if...but, no, surely not. Wait, could a translater have used extra words to clarify...no, no, that would be adding something, and we all know that is just not possible.

    Yeah, right.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  7. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0



    I just LOVE it when I type a LONG post and I get kicked offline and loose everything.

    So, I am typing this in my word processor and will clip and paste. This is too important to loose again.

    First, anti-alexandrian, it is against board rules to call other Bibles names. (trash can version) is your attempt to do such a thing. There are those of us who consider these manuscripts to contain the Word-of-God and we do not appreciate the insinuation that they are worthy of the trash can.

    Second, Let us look at some of your scriptures.

    I read the entire Genesis 3 using the KJV and the NIV, comparing verse for verse. Nowhere do I find any differences. Do you care to enlighten us?

    The same thing with Numbers 22:12,13. Do you care to enlighten us on this scripture?

    I am going to pass over Jeremiah right now because I do not have time to read the entire chapter, when I do I will respond.

    Now we get to the New Testament where the TR vs. other texts become an issue:


    Finally, I think you are mistaken about Luke 4:10—I think you are probably referring to Luke 4:8.

    This is the big famous “Get thee behind me Satan” that makes KJVo’s think they have really found something that is left out of the KJV. Let us look closer at the text:

    We are referring to the temptation of the Lord Jesus.

    Luke 4:8
    “Get thee behind me, Satan” is in the KJV, but not the NIV. Let’s look at some more scripture:


    First, let’s look at the same incident in the other two Synoptic Gospels:

    Matthew 4:10's account:
    Mark’s account only says that Jesus was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights. (Mark 1:12,13)


    Now let us look at the other accounts where “Get thee behind me Satan was used:

    Matthew 16:23
    Mark 8:33
    If you will notice the NIV and KJV match exactly on these particular verses. The question is: Does the difference between Luke’s account in the KJV and NIV have any doctrinal effect? Absolutely not. The NIV is extremely clear as to where Satan stands in Jesus’ eyes. The effect is not weaker ether.

    In fact, there is a good chance that the quote actually came from a good meaning scribe who transferred it from the time He was talking with Peter. Either way, there is no effect on what the scripture says. Even Luke’s verse is extremely plain as to Jesus’ position. Therefore, the Word of God stands in both Bibles.

    [ April 14, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. Interesting, all of the Modern Versions do not attempt to hide the fact that later manuscripts do contain this verse:
    NIV postscript: 20. Some manuscripts you. 21. "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."

    This sounds an awful lot like a Catholic exorcism to me. Obviously a later-day addition. [​IMG]

    The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus' command is all it takes to make a demon listen and act.

    Jesus is also extremely clear in the earlier verse that "faith" is what is required and he rebukes his disciples for not having enough. Verse 21 does not fit in context. If verse 21 were not added later, then there would be a discrepancy between Jesus indicating that "faith" is what is required and then in verse 21 we have "works" (prayer and fasting) added to the list. No doubt prayer is in order, but "fasting" is definitely "works" oriented.
     
  9. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does it take away the Word of God from the KJV? NO.
     
  10. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, let's do that.
    The modern versions, for the most part, omit this verse, but only on the sketchiest of evidence. The ASV of 1901 contains a marginal note saying "Many authorities, some ancient, insert verse 21 But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting."

    The manuscript evidence is divided, but weighs heavily in favor of the inclusion of the reading.

    Aleph's original reading omits verse 21, but the corrector adds it. B, Theta, 33, the lemma of 892 all omit the verse.

    However, the verse is contained in a correctors hand in Aleph but with a variant, C, D, K, L, W, X, Delta, Pi, Family 1 (1, 118, 131, 209), Family 13 (13, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689), 28, 565, 700, 892 margin, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, all the Byzantine manuscripts of Matthew (about 400+), as well as all the Lectionaries containing the verses from Matthew.

    Due to the wide spread evidence both geographically and chronologically, it seems that the best evidence suggests the reading of verse 21 is genuine.
     
  11. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    No,you are mistaken.Luke 4:10-11 is what I'm talking about;it's talks about ommision.

    All of the Scripture(KJB) references I gave deals with omission-like it or not!

    The Old Latin predates the "oldest and best" mss. by 150 years,period...

    Again,OMISSION!!
     
  12. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    No,you are mistaken.Luke 4:10-11 is what I'm talking about;it's talks about ommision.

    All of the Scripture(KJB) references I gave deals with omission-like it or not!

    The Old Latin predates the "oldest and best" mss. by 150 years,period...

    Again,OMISSION!!
    </font>[/QUOTE]Luke 4:10-11
    NASB - 10 for it is written, `HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU TO GUARD YOU,' 11 and, `ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' "

    NLT - 10 For the Scriptures say, 'He orders his angels to protect and guard you. 11 And they will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your foot on a stone.'

    KJV - 10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

    They all say the same thing. What "omission" are you talking about?
     
  13. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate to be the one to point it out, but it is clear he doesn't know what he is talking about! :D :D :D
     
  14. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hate to be the one to point it out, but it is clear he doesn't know what he is talking about! :D :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you for the manuscript evidence on verse 21. Not knowing much about the manuscripts, plus not having time to look it up, that is good input. Thanks.

    Does he know what he is talking about in the other scriptures? I can't figure it out. I have read all the scriptures he quoted in KJV, NKJV, NIV and ESV. They all say the same thing. I can't find omissions (unless my brain is an omission.) :D
     
  15. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 17:21 is seen here:

    These 13 MSS omitted this verse.

    More than 50 MSS have this MSS.
     
  16. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Omission, Omission, Omission........

    Genesis 3. What are you talking about?

    Numbers 22:12,13-Balaam .. again, what are you talking about?

    (note that "are" in verse 12 is italicized.)
    I don't understand your two posts. The first, I thought you were showing an omission of text between the KJV and an MV. Obviously, from your second post, you are indicating that the verses themselves discuss 'omission'? Again....what? :confused:
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skanwmatos, What is your opinion of the last verses in Mark? Do they appear to be accurate?

    If so, are they to be taken literally? I would like to see your thoughts here.
    Thx,
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Almost every Greek text we find agrees on every word of Mark 16:1-8. Then there is a huge variety, with at least 20 different endings.

    Which one is ocorrect? Probably none. With such massive disagreement, the sermon of Peter (we call Mark) probably ended in v 8 and EVERYONE wanted to add stuff to it to make it like the other Gospel accounts (written later).
     
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the manuscript evidence in support of the verses is overwhelming. Even the major uncials leave room for the last 12 verses. The copyist of B left the next column entirely blank. It is the only blank column in the entire manuscript. This blank space seems to indicate that the copyist left a space for the last 12 verses which may have been damaged in the exemplar he was using.

    I believe they are to be taken literally, and they were fulfilled in the Apostolic ministry recounted in the book of Acts.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Bob,

    I have to say that I agree with you. My pastor also agrees with this theory. His remark was something to the effect that "it is obvious that the last verses in Mark are completely out of context and if we were to take the Bible literally; well, I don't carry snakes around, etc."

    Skan, isn't the manuscript for the book of Mark only? If so, doesn't it make sense that the scribe would quit writing when he comes to the end, regardless of the type of material and style of writing?

    How do you reconcile the passage itself? Are you saying this is something that occurred during the first century? If so, and we are take the words literally, then what happened?

    In following your statements, are you really a closet KJVo? :D

    Just curious.
     

Share This Page

Loading...