Verses or Words Left out of MV Bibles

No. I am talking about the Codices.

Context, context, context. In Mark 16:17 we read, "And these signs shall follow them that believe;" Who is the "them?" (Hint: Look at verse 15.) The "them" is the same "them" Jesus was talking to as He gave the Great Commission, and He extended that to those who would be won by those who were physically present. It was those first century Christians who cast out devils; spoke with new tongues; took up serpents; and if they drank any deadly thing, it did not hurt them; they laid hands on the sick, and they recovered.

The problem is a few crazymatic idiots claimed a promise that was not made to them, and a lot of other idiots decided to throw out the bible instead of throwing out the idiots who claimed a promise not made to them.

No. I am demonstrably the most anti-KJVO person on this list. I just avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater. An offense unfortunately common to anti-KJVOs who have a zeal but not according to knowledge.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


Phillip,

As much as I desire to provide to you what you have requested of me, I find that my efforts might be in vain, as I can clearly see from many posting here, yourself included, that you have already come to the conclusion that the oldest must be the most accurate. How can one reason with the other, when we both strongly believe our own points? This strong beliefs in our own points, has already been proven with the scriptures the mvo's give to prove the approval of other versions, to which I agree to a point on other translations, but I disagree that this scripture is approving of such a thing, because it is based upon an assumption, and prior self-concieved ideas, rather than letting the plain scriptures speak for themselves. Many see this as proof Jesus read from a different text than that of the Hebrew, I see it that Jesus read and said exactly what he said from the book of Isaiah. Not only that, but this proves nothing about whether or not we are to blindly accept the modern versions, just because they say they are God's words. It has been shown they are different, than what the churches have believed, taught, lived for hundreds of years. Some old manuscripts being elevated above what God has preserved for generations, based upon the fact that they are dated to be older, doesn't make them more accurate and reliable, and enouph to boldly claim that those things not included in them, that have been in the churches for hundreds of years to be additions, ecspecially in these last days that we are living in, is to be skeptical of indeed. Satan has always altered God's word, and subtley at that. It is not something where he clearly desires to decieve God's people, or potential christians in an obvious way, but rather to look like the truth, and sound like the truth, but not be the truth. He comes to decieve by giving the truth most of the time, and then slipping in, or taking away (not giving the whole truth) in order to decieve.

I do not believe this way (that older is more accurate), rather, I believe and have faith that God has preserved his words for hundreds of generations that included these verses, to now have those that would tell me they aren't supposed to be there, or to sow doubt in my mind whether they should. I would like to note, that some word changes that differ from the KJV in the modern versions, aren't a major concern for me, but my opinion is that the KJV translators gave the best and most accurate english words in most situations. My problems with modern versions, have been the subtle omittions that have weakened the doctrines of Christ, his deity and his blood, and his bodily resurrection, etc, or word changes that have affected this testimony. Even though these versions contain the message of the essential doctrines we christian believe, and contend for, they have indeed taken away good portions of scripture that have insured a good and strong testimony of these things, to which cannot be considered added to by the scribes of the day which was preserved for hundreds of years until this very day. This is calling these people liars, and those who believe it believing liars, and then therefore teaching/sharing lies, and ultimately calling Gods words lies. Would a liar glorify the Lord in such a manner? I tend to think not, for I know the testimony of the Spirit within my own faith, that the Holy Spirit gives to me to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, and not weaken, nor hinder him. He is elevated and glorified by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Why then would it had been any different for the Apostles, who were God's mouthpiece and establishers of the church? God repeats great truths, throughout his words, as we are commanded to rightly divide the word of God. God has repeated these truths for a reason, and this is what seems to be taken away in the modern versions. Many claim it doesn't matter how strong the testimony is, as long as it is there. I strongly disagree with this thinking/belief. The Lord has told us, out of two or three mouths, the thing shall be established. What is he telling us here? Many might say this isn't pertaining to the Bible version issue, but I say that all scripture is profitable to us all in all areas of our lives and ecspecially this issue. As I have said before, the stronger testimony benefits, not only the believer in sureness of faith, but also to the unbeliever who questions and doubts.

I will maybe some other day, give you some references to the verses to which give me reason to reject the modern versions, as I have many things to do today, and would like to be able to give my full attention to this matter. I just wanted to explain my somewhat hestitation in doing this, and why I am hestitant in doing it, as it was quite evident to me as I was reading this thread.

May the Lord Jesus Christ richly bless you all and your families and loved ones, and may the Lord also continue to lead you in his glorious truth to all truth and and my you grow in his grace.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Then answer his question for myself, HankD, and Skanwmatos. We all believe that the traditional or majority text is more like the originals than the CT.

 

I have great respect for the NKJV, the KJVII, the 21Century KJV, and the BTM. Any bible based on the Byzantine text type is, in my opinion, superior to any bible based on the Alexandrian text type. However, there are several Alexandrian text based bible which I believe are excellent translations of that text type, and they would include the ASV, the NASB, the and ESV.

 

RE: Mark ending:

Again, FWIW, I agree.

Also they were "confirmed" (past tense) in Hebrews 2:3-4

How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

HankD

 

Bible for the Third Millennium, also called the Third Millennium Bible or TMB.

I can't make a definitive statement for the subject is just too complicated. However, over all I believe the Byzantine text type most likely represents the autographs because of antiquity, agreement of witnesses, variety of evidence, respectability of witnesses, continuity of use, evidence from context, and reasonableness. These criteria proffered by Burgon, are superior to, in my opinion, the rules formulated by Bengel, Griesbach, Lachmann, Westcot and Hort, and others.

Start with Robinson and Pierpont's work on the subject.

There is a pretty good, if terribly biased, website put up by Islamics trying to discredit the bible, but the list of manuscripts, their character, and even pictures of some of them can be found at http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/

 

What about Mark 9:44 and 46? I know some think they were added to strengthen the point and that they are identical to verse 48. What is the manuscript evidence for or against?

 

Verse 44 is omitted in Aleph, B, C, L, W, Delta, Phi, f1 (a family of 4 related mss), 28, 565, 892, and 1365.

It is present in A, D, K, X, Th, Pi, f13 (a family of 12 related mss), 700, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195 with a variant, 1216 with a variant, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1546 with a variant, 1646, 2148, 2174, all the Byzantine mss of Mark, all the Lectionaires containing that passage of Mark, as well as heavy attestation by the Church Fathers and early translations.

Verse 46 is omitted by Aleph, B, C, L, W, Delta, Phi, f1 (a family of 4 related mss), 28, 565, 892, 1365.

It is present in A, D, K, X, Th, Pi, f13 (a family of 12 related mss), 700, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241 with a variant, 1242, 1253 with a variant, 1344, 1546, 1646, 2148, 2174, all the Byzantine mss, and all the Lectionaries containing the passage as well as the Diatessaron and is cited by Augustine and is attested to by the early translations.

This appears to be another instance of overwhelming evidence in support of the readings being omitted due to anti-Byzantine bias.

 

Michelle:As much as I desire to provide to you what you have requested of me, I find that my efforts might be in vain, as I can clearly see from many posting here, yourself included, that you have already come to the conclusion that the oldest must be the most accurate.

if you believe differently, why don't you post some EVIDENCE supporting your view instead of dogmatically stating, "The MVs have omitted some material"?

How can one reason with the other, when we both strongly believe our own points?

By providing PROOF that you're right.


This strong beliefs in our own points, has already been proven with the scriptures the mvo's give to prove the approval of other versions, to which I agree to a point on other translations, but I disagree that this scripture is approving of such a thing, because it is based upon an assumption, and prior self-concieved ideas, rather than letting the plain scriptures speak for themselves.

With all due respect, M'am, the scriptures couldn't speak more plainly! The Book of Isaiah reads one way in 42:7-8 & in 61:1-3 while Luke 4 :16-21 reads another way where we see that the above verses of Isaiah are the ones Jesus read aloud. While neither set of Scriptures mentions one version or another, there cannot be more empirical proof that JESUS HIMSELF read from another version, & that the version He read from was then the "standard" version for at least that synagogue, most likely standard in ALL synagogues, given Nazareth's nearness to the Temple in Jerusalem.


Many see this as proof Jesus read from a different text than that of the Hebrew, I see it that Jesus read and said exactly what he said from the book of Isaiah.

Yes, He did. And it's different from what the version of Isaiah that's translated into our Old Testaments reads.


Not only that, but this proves nothing about whether or not we are to blindly accept the modern versions, just because they say they are God's words. It has been shown they are different, than what the churches have believed, taught, lived for hundreds of years.

It shows that Jesus read from a version of Isaiah then in common use. Whether that which He read was the original version, I don't know. But I DO know it's plainly different from that which is translated into our common Bibles.

Some old manuscripts being elevated above what God has preserved for generations, based upon the fact that they are dated to be older, doesn't make them more accurate and reliable, and enouph to boldly claim that those things not included in them, that have been in the churches for hundreds of years to be additions, ecspecially in these last days that we are living in, is to be skeptical of indeed.

Then, where did the extra material in the newer mss come from? Not one of'em claims to have been directly commissioned by GOD.


Satan has always altered God's word, and subtley at that. It is not something where he clearly desires to decieve God's people, or potential christians in an obvious way, but rather to look like the truth, and sound like the truth, but not be the truth. He comes to decieve by giving the truth most of the time, and then slipping in, or taking away (not giving the whole truth) in order to decieve.

But you seem to ignore the possibility that Satan could've caused ADDITIONS to God's word to slip in. God says additions are as wrong as omissions. Once again, you haven't proven that what you say are omissions in older mss actually belonged in them, nor proven that the material found in newer mss & not in older ones, wasn't actually ADDED to newer mss.

I do not believe this way (that older is more accurate), rather, I believe and have faith that God has preserved his words for hundreds of generations that included these verses, to now have those that would tell me they aren't supposed to be there, or to sow doubt in my mind whether they should.

There were quite a few generations between the time John received the Revelation & the time when the later mss were written. And for that matter, there were several generations between John's time & the time when the oldest extant mss were written. Some time between the writing of the oldest and the newest mss, some material was added. Where did it come from?


I would like to note, that some word changes that differ from the KJV in the modern versions, aren't a major concern for me, but my opinion is that the KJV translators gave the best and most accurate english words in most situations.

Same as do all valid versions.

There are some rather wild variations in the renderings of the names of the musical instruments in Daniel 3:5. For example, the KJV renders the Aramaic 'sabbaka', which is a triangular four-stringed instrument commonly called "trigon" after its shape as "sackbut", a medieval trombone, which didn't exist in Daniel's time. Then, there's another Aramaic name for a musical instrument, ' ciyphonaya' its absolute meaning is unknown, but it's rendered "dulcimer" in the AV, while the NASB renders it "bagpipe"! NONE of this alters the message in the first part of Daniel 3-that when the band began to play, the people were to bow down to nebuchadnezzar's idol. But it leaves the question of close-as-possible accuracy open.


My problems with modern versions, have been the subtle omittions that have weakened the doctrines of Christ, his deity and his blood, and his bodily resurrection, etc, or word changes that have affected this testimony.

Once again, you haven't proven that there haven't been subtle ADDITIONS to God's word in some newer mss.


Even though these versions contain the message of the essential doctrines we christian believe, and contend for, they have indeed taken away good portions of scripture that have insured a good and strong testimony of these things, to which cannot be considered added to by the scribes of the day which was preserved for hundreds of years until this very day.

Evidently that's not true, as we don't find the material in question in the oldest known mss.


This is calling these people liars, and those who believe it believing liars, and then therefore teaching/sharing lies, and ultimately calling Gods words lies.

Is a human addition to God's word a lie or not?


Would a liar glorify the Lord in such a manner? I tend to think not, for I know the testimony of the Spirit within my own faith, that the Holy Spirit gives to me to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, and not weaken, nor hinder him.

I heard Jim Bakker glorify the Lord many times, as I've heard more than one Mormon missionary do.


He is elevated and glorified by those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Why then would it had been any different for the Apostles, who were God's mouthpiece and establishers of the church? God repeats great truths, throughout his words, as we are commanded to rightly divide the word of God. God has repeated these truths for a reason, and this is what seems to be taken away in the modern versions.

Once again, can you *PROVE* that the additional material found in later mss wasn't ADDED by PEOPLE?

Many claim it doesn't matter how strong the testimony is, as long as it is there. I strongly disagree with this thinking/belief. The Lord has told us, out of two or three mouths, the thing shall be established. What is he telling us here? Many might say this isn't pertaining to the Bible version issue, but I say that all scripture is profitable to us all in all areas of our lives and ecspecially this issue. As I have said before, the stronger testimony benefits, not only the believer in sureness of faith, but also to the unbeliever who questions and doubts.

While your mind remains closed to the possibility that some of the material in some of the mss could be "true lies".

I will maybe some other day, give you some references to the verses to which give me reason to reject the modern versions, as I have many things to do today, and would like to be able to give my full attention to this matter. I just wanted to explain my somewhat hestitation in doing this, and why I am hestitant in doing it, as it was quite evident to me as I was reading this thread.

The fact is, you either have them or you don't. No rocket science required, there are no other possibilities. Your hesitancy to post'em after taking the time to write such a long, convoluted post tells us that you're guessing & that you really have nothing to prove your point.

1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

Well, Michelle?

 

.

Michelle did do good answering some of my questions a long time ago, you might refer to some of the answers to my questions much lower in the threads. But, the answers were still based on faith that the Holy Spirit gave her.

</font>[/QUOTE]The Holy Spirit has been credited with many things that are straight from the pits of hell too.

I will never forget what homiletics professor told a class I was in, “Just remember the Holy Spirit is no substitute for preparation.”

Often the Holy Spirit answer must be examined by the question, “Who’s spirit?”

1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

 

For some strange reason KJVo's get flustered and eventually quit posting.

And sometimes the reason is due to being fed-up with trying to reason with y'all and/or being banned. Many good soldiers of the cross have been posting here not only for those of you in err, but for those shy souls who read only. Only the Lord can convict one's heart.

I get so tired of the never-ending cycle of circular reasoning & decided to get out my vacuum a long time ago. Y'all just simply choose to avoid the plain truth. You seem lukewarm or just don't care.

There were those who fought a good fight, here, others elsewhere on the Board...but were tossed out for standing for Truth. It doesn't bother me when you mock me...God will deal with you in His own time. I will always continue to pray for each of you, tho' some I question if they deserve prayer.

I was Bible, before kjBible was such a hit...there was no other to read or be found anywhere in my neck of the woods. I lack the knowledge of all the stuff you talk about here, what does that make me..."willfully ignorant", you say? So be it.

Granny~an unworthy servant, as well as an unsissy Christian.

 

Romans 14:19 (HCSB = The Holman Christian Standard Bible) 14 words,

So then, we must pursue what
promotes peace and what builds up one another.

Romans 14:19 (KJV1769): 18 words,

Let us therefore follow after the things
which make for peace, and things wherewith
one may edify another.

Romanes XIIII:19 (KJV1611): 19 words,

Let vs therefore follow after the
things which make for peace, and things
wherewith one may edifie an other.



Notice the word reduction:
1 word lost from the KJV1611 to KJV1769.
5 words lost from the KJV1769 to the MV.