What are the main deciding factors for your main English Bible of choice?

[37818]

Maybe it was added to the KJV. Jesus gave His answer in verse 20. Looks like someone added verse 21. Jesus explained that faith was the issue. But you want us to believe that Jesus the added verse 21?
i.e. - Oh by the way, P.S. - Except this one. No faith required. "...., this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” (Sound like someone added verse 21 to ease their conscience because they lacked the faith Jesus was referring to in verse 20. IMHO)

Again our KJV was 1611. Tyndale 1534, "How be it this kynde goeth not oute but by prayer and fastinge." The first English from Greek. Wycliffe 1382, Latin to English, "but this kynde is not caste out, but bi preiyng and fastyng."

 

[37818]

@Mikoo,
FYI, re: Matthew 17:21, textual critic, Dr. Pickering's translation note on the omission of the versebwrote, "Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this whole verse (as in NIV, [NASB], LB, [TEV], etc.). I take it that this was true up until the Lord’s victory on the cross and the resurrection. Now we are in Christ at the Father’s right hand, far above all principality and power, etc., which includes Satan and all classes below him in rank—Ephesians 1:19-21, 2:6. (There is nothing wrong with Christ’s victory and authority, but our spiritual condition does not always permit us to make full use of that victory.)"

 

[Mikoo]

Again our KJV was 1611. Tyndale 1534, "How be it this kynde goeth not oute but by prayer and fastinge." The first English from Greek. Wycliffe 1382, Latin to English, "but this kynde is not caste out, but bi preiyng and fastyng."

You can continue to use the KJV (what version do you use by the way?). I believe my NASB 95 is the Word of God. Improved upon the KJV. More and more of God's Word revealed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm not asking you to believe it. If you want to deny that the Word of God I use is not His Word. That is on you. I've done my research. Older manuscripts do not contain verse 21. The KJV translators did not have the amount of manuscript evidence we have now. I believe verse 21 was added to the manuscript s the KJV translators used. (Even the KJV translators believed their translation could be improved upon, of course I've seen many KJVO persons ignore what the translators of the KJV wrote in the preface). I have an 'approved upon' version called NASB95.

 

[Mikoo]

@Mikoo,
FYI, re: Matthew 17:21, textual critic, Dr. Pickering's translation note on the omission of the versebwrote, "Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of inferior quality, omit this whole verse (as in NIV, [NASB], LB, [TEV], etc.). I take it that this was true up until the Lord’s victory on the cross and the resurrection. Now we are in Christ at the Father’s right hand, far above all principality and power, etc., which includes Satan and all classes below him in rank—Ephesians 1:19-21, 2:6. (There is nothing wrong with Christ’s victory and authority, but our spiritual condition does not always permit us to make full use of that victory.)"

His opinion of the quality. Anyway, it is in my Bible (NASB95) with a footnote. Just as there were many footnotes in the original KJV.

 

[37818]

I believe verse 21 was added to the manuscript s the KJV translators used.

When was it added? The KJV was not the first English translation to include it.

Again our KJV was 1611. Tyndale 1534, "How be it this kynde goeth not oute but by prayer and fastinge." The first English from Greek. Wycliffe 1382, Latin to English, "but this kynde is not caste out, but bi preiyng and fastyng."

I have used the NASB since the 1970's

Thank you for stating the reason you use it as your English copy of God's word.

 

[Mikoo]

When was it added? The KJV was not the first English translation to include it.



I have used the NASB since the 1970's

Thank you for stating the reason you use it as your English copy of God's word.

Must have been after the older manuscripts, since verse 21 is not in there.


You welcome.

 

[37818]

Must have been after the older manuscripts, since verse 21 is not in there.

That oldest manuscript that oy&mitted that verse is dated to the 4th century and it was in the Vatican library before 1475. Its image was not available until 1889-1890 and 1904. But Westcott and Hort published their Greek NT in 1881. It omitted that verse.

Of all the manuscripts of Matthew only 00.6% do not have the verse. That means 99.4% have the verse. The ASV which omits the verse has this translators note, "17:21 Many authorities, some ancient, insert v. 21. But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting."

The reading was in doubt by some in the early 1800's and before. See Adam Clarke commentary.

 

[Mikoo]

That oldest manuscript that omitted that verse is dated to the 4th century and it was in the Vatican library before 1475. Its image was not available until 1889-1890 and 1904. But Westcott and Hort published their Greek NT in 1881. It omitted that verse.

Of all the manuscripts of Matthew only 00.6% do not have the verse. That means 99.4% have the verse. The ASV which omits the verse has this translators note, "17:21 Many authorities, some ancient, insert v. 21. But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting."

I'm persuaded 17:21 is not original. But Mark 9:28-29 is. So it's there, just not in Matt 17:21.

 

[37818]

Jesus answered His disciples in verse Matt 17:20. He answered their Why and He answered Because...No need for verse 21(Not found in earliest manuscripts). He didn't answer their Why with, "This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting'. Nope answered them is verse 20. You can believe all that you want that Jesus just randomly talked about faith and not to answer their Why and waited until verse 21 to really answer their question. I'm done with this discussion. I know my NASB95 is the Word of God, if you don't, don't read it. I'm good with the research I have done. Enjoy your KJV of the Word of God.
19 Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why could we not drive it out?” 20 And He *said to them, “Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith a]" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[a]the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. 21 " style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: normal; position: relative; vertical-align: text-top; top: auto; display: inline;">[b]But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”]

That is how you understand it. Presonally I am persuaded the reading in 17:21 to be original.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree with the translators of the KJV when they wrote, 'We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ....... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.'

My translation of choice is the NKJV, for the following reasons:
1. I believe the Majority Text is likely to be closer to the original that the Critical Text. The Textus Receptus is much closer to the Majority Text than other modern versions.
2. I want a modern language translation. I respect the KJV, but the language is often difficult. For example, what does 'leasing' mean in Psalms 5:6? It's not in any dictionary and you have to compare with a modern language translation to find out.
3. I prefer Formal Equivalence Translations to Dynamic Equivalence.
4. I find that the NKJV preserves much of the style and beauty of the KJV.
5. I read a lot of older Christian writers and they use the KJV; having the NKJV at my side is helpful.
6. I find I can use Young's Technical Concordance with the NKJV.
7. It is helpful to know where the T.R. differs from the M.T. and the C.T. The NKJV tells me.

 

[Conan]

17:21 Soðlice þis kyn ne beoð ut-adrifen buten þurh gebed & fæsten

The verse is also in the Anglo Saxon.

 

[37818]

I'm persuaded 17:21 is not original. But Mark 9:28-29 is. So it's there, just not in Matt 17:21.

Can you give the reasons you are persuaded those two are additions, so are not the original, not being God's give words?

 

[robycop3]

For me, the deciding factors are:

1.) Being accurate & error-free as possible. as possible.

2.) Being in understandable, everyday language as possible while maintaining accuracy.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Regarding Matthew 17:21, the NET note quotes Dr. Metzger.

"Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mark 9:29."

D.A. Carson, R.T. France, William Henrickson have the same position.

It is not present in Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the 4th century.

 

[37818]

Regarding Matthew 17:21, the NET note quotes Dr. Metzger.

"Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mark 9:29."

D.A. Carson, R.T. France, William Henrickson have the same position.

It is not present in Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the 4th century.

Of the copies of the New Testament Greek of Matthew it is only 00.6% of them that omit the reading. 99.4% of Greek New Testament of Matthew have the reading. Is the evidence that verse 17:21 is not original?

 

[Conan]

It is not present in Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the 4th century.

Which is the only reason it is missing from modern Critical Texts and Bibles. The 2 4th century Unical manuscripts are vastly overrated. They both are missing words and groups of words because of eye skip. The known mistakes of these 2 manuscripts are great. That they are still overvalued in this century is a crime. They are valuable manuscripts. But it is time to not reproduce their many errors.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Of all the manuscripts of Matthew only 00.6% do not have the verse. That means 99.4% have the verse.

Cite your source. Even Pickering didn't state that.

Regarding the 'manuscripts' you mentioned --what percentage are dated after the 9th century?

 

[37818]

Cite your source. Even Pickering didn't state that.

Regarding the 'manuscripts' you mentioned --what percentage are dated after the 9th century?

F35GNT apparatus for the percentages of current Greek mss for Matthew's text reading. The Pickering quote was from his footnote in his New Testament translation.

Looking at my copy of NA26, the textual evidence split dates to in the early third century. For both Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29. If we assume the critical text reading to be the original, Mark would have been changed prior to Matthew.

Again, I am of the persuasion the common Greek text readings for Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29 are from the original.

The issue is believing God's actual word, Deuteronomy 8:3.

 

[Jec81]

I personally am a TR man, so I use KJV and NKJV, I do have an nasb as well as several ESVs. In my counseling ministry if the counselee is more comfortable with ESV then we will use that and I am fine with it.

 

[37818]

FYI, evey 66 book Bible use the same Biblical texts. The two main differences are the translator's chosen text variants and methods of translation into the English text of one's chosen English Bible.

Where believers differ is not limited to one's different Bible of choice but how one understands particular teachings.

The bottom line, most of the underlying Biblical text are identical. The differences are what we notice.