1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthew 23 grievous to be borne

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 8, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney New Member

    May 15, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Matthew 23:4 "and grievous to be borne"

    There are hundreds of examples of inconsistency and contradictions found in the modern day bible versions. What one gives, another takes away. There is no rhyme nor reason to their constant changes, and if you believe them, you will be tossed to and fro by every wind of uncertainty.

    There are several examples of this in Matthew 23. In verse four we read of the scribes and Pharisees that "they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders."

    This phrase "and grievous to be borne" (kai dusbastakta) is found in the vast Majority of all manuscripts including D and, more importantly for our present discussion, in Vaticanus. It is also found in the Old Latin version which predates anything we have in the Greek copies, and in the Syriac Harkelian, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic ancient versions.

    The phrase "and grievous to be borne" is included in the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Catholic Douay and St. Joseph bibles, the RSV, NRSV, and the brand new 2001 ESV (English Standard Version). There are presently two new bible versions coming out on the ever changing Bible of the Month Club scene. The Holman Christian Standard version and the ISV or International Standard Version. Both of these contain the phrase "and grievous to be borne".

    However, this phrase is not found in Sinaticus and the NASB and NIV versions omit it. You see how the scholars do not agree with each other? Every man does that which is right in his own eyes. Sinaticus alone excludes "and grievous to be borne" and yet Sinaticus has a peculiar reading in itself which was not followed by the NASB and NIV. Sinaticus adds another word to the previous phrase "heavy burdens". It says "GREAT (megala) heavy burdens' yet the NASB and NIV did not translate this peculiarity into their bibles.

    In this one verse, the NASB, NIV follow Vaticanus in omitting the extra word "great" which is in Sinaiticus, and then these two versions do a switcheroo and follow the Sinaiticus omission instead of Vaticanus which has the reading "and grievous to be borne". Also the earlier Nestle-Aland Greek text omitted these words, but now the latest ones again include the reading!

    In Matthew 23:5 the words "enlarge the borders OF THEIR GARMENTS" are omitted again by both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though found in the Majority of all texts. Here the NASB puts the words "of their garments" in italics, as though added to the text, and the NIV includes the words not in italics as though part of the text. The RSV, NRSV, and the ESV all omit "of their garments", BUT the newer ISV and Holman Standard put them back in!

    In Matthew 23:14 the entire verse is omitted by the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, the ESV, and modern paraphrase called The Message. This verse is missing in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus though it is found in the Majority of all texts, plus 22 uncials, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Curetonian, Coptic Boharic, Ethiopian, Slavonic and some Old Latin copies. The NIV, RV, ESV etc. just skip from Matthew 23:13 to 23:15, and then have a footnote "SOME manuscripts read..." Some?! This is a slight understatement to say the least. Why aren't they honest and say "MOST manuscripts and ancient versions read..."?

    However, the entire verse of Matthew 23:14 "WOE UNTO YOU, SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, HYPOCRITES! FOR YE DEVOUR WIDOW'S HOUSES, AND FOR A PRETENCE MAKE LONG PRAYER: THEREFORE YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GREATER DAMNATION." is placed in brackets in the NASB and the new Holman Christian Standard, and the new International Standard Version again includes the whole verse with no brackets!

    The entire verse has always been found in such versions as Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, and is in the NKJV 1982, Young's, World English Bible, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Luther's German, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    In Matthew 23:19 the Lord Jesus calls the Pharisees "YE FOOLS, and blind". In this verse the words "ye fools" are omitted from the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV because not found in Sinaiticus. However they are found in the majority of all texts, many ancient versions like the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian, in manuscript C AND in Vaticanus! Maybe the modern scholars don't like references to the scribes being told by the Lord that they devour the money of the poor, put on a show of being spiritual, but in reality are fools.

    Lastly in this chapter, in verse 38 the Lord says: "Behold, your house is left unto you DESOLATE." The word desolate is eremos and Vaticanus omits this word, but it is found in Sinaiticus and this time the NASB, NIV, ESV, ISV etc. include the word in their translations.

    What we see in this one chapter is representative of the constant disagreements between the two so called "oldest and best manuscripts", and the modern versions themselves regarding the text of God's inspired words.

    Will Kinney
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    May 4, 2001
    Likes Received:
    All manuscripts disagree with each other in places, Will. There are not two manuscripts that match perfectly. That means somebody, somewhere is deciding what teh word of God is. The KJV translators did it on numerous occasions and had the honesty to admit they didn't know it all by using marginal notes to note differences in the text.

    How in the world did you manage to write this much and say absolutely nothing of value? The fact is that these "disagreements" are because the manuscripts God has preserved for us have the disagreements.

    You should have availed yourself of The Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament for starters. Then you could have answered a lot of these questions that you are putting forth. What you have successfully shown is what we all knew already ... that the KJV does not match other versions and that the KJV does not match all the Greek texts. What you failed to do was show us why you think the KJV got it right. Sources such as the Textual Commentary give this kind of information in a nutshell. It provides a good starting point for discussions such as these.
  3. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Apr 25, 2001
    Likes Received:
    Before we consider anything else, let's take a look at the logic of your argument.

    For instance, since the KJV is a modern day Bible version... why shouldn't it be included when considering these "hundreds of examples of inconsistency and contradictions"? Answer: There is no reason it shouldn't.

    If containing "hundreds" of inconsistencies and contradictions is unacceptable... then what do we say about the evidence used by Erasmus to create his text?... how about the different revisions of that text?... how about the hundreds of differences between the versions and texts used by the KJV translators?... how about the differences between revisions of the KJV?

    The most inconsistent and contradictory things demonstrated by your post... are your own (il)logical progressions and standards.

    Then you ask us to believe you when you say that modern scholars have no rhyme or reason for their choices. You are not that naive so one can only conclude that you are being intentionally deceptive.

    The only ones being tossed to and fro are you and those who give credence to your baseless posts. When you decide on a single set of balances then your proofs can be taken seriously. Until then you are doing nothing more than deceiving yourself and others with sophisticated double standards and posts so wordy that they impress those who don't take the time to examine your premises.