Missing Verses -- What's the Big Deal?

What papryrus manuscripts?

 

Got a quote?

Anyway, the last time I checked, disagreeing with *a certain interpretation* of some secondary passage did not render someone an unbeliever. "By grace are you saved, through faith and a specific interpretation of Genesis 1"? I don't see that in my Bible. Heck, even Martin Luther wanted to chuck James and Revelation from the Bible altogether, and no one here questions his salvation.

If you would read any of W & H's books, you would see that they were indeed believers. But alas, I doubt you'll be doing that any time soon, eh?

 

Got quotes? Or just hot air?

BTW, I have quotes to the contrary. Wanna see them?

Not believe the Bible??? These men spent decades dedicating their lives to the Bible. Read a book once in a while.

 

Yes, I forgot - you doubt the salvation of a great many people, including the KJV translators. OK, I was wrong to say "no one here questions his salvation." I should have said "no one here questions his salvation, except Harald who questions almost everyone's salvation".

 

I was looking specifically at P75 and P66, the
first 10 verses of the Gospel of John and comparing them with the TR. They look almost
identical..word order...etc...everything. I think
P66 left out an "in" in one place..

What a rich, doctrinal section of God's Word!
I find it hard to believe if heretics were
monkeying around with these early Egyptian
manuscripts they would leave those versus
alone (see example of JW's).

I've also done some perusing of P46.

Like I said..there are differences..but overall there is an amazing agreement that I find nothing
short of miraculous.

If you are interested..the book is The Text
of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts by Philip Comfort and contains all the early
papyrus from 100-300AD.

-kman

 

Got quotes? Or just hot air?

BTW, I have quotes to the contrary. Wanna see them?

Not believe the Bible??? These men spent decades dedicating their lives to the Bible. Read a book once in a while. </font>[/QUOTE]I have many lists of what W/H wrote due to their unbelief. Hort wrote on Rev. 1:2, "John's conveyance of the revelation to the churches, just as he had received it from the angel, and the angel from Christ and Christ from God."

Here is what Hort denied that Christ was God.

Westcott wrote, "(John 14:1) (believe in also in me) The belief is 'in Christ,' and NOT in any propositions about Christ."

Did Westcott believe this verse?

 

First, if we're going to do this, you're going to have to provide references (book and page number) so we can examine context.

Saying "and Christ from God" does not deny Christ was also God. Numerous times in the Gospels, Christ says he is "from God" (John 8:42, 13:3, 16:27). 2 Pet 1:17 says Christ received honour and glory "from God". What Hort is referring to in this quote is the immediately prior verse, Rev 1:1, which (in the KJV) says "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" - in other words, the revelation that Jesus gave John, was given to Jesus from God in the first place. Does the KJV deny that Christ is God?

What exactly is the problem?

Read this excerpt from one of his books and decide for yourself.

 

Do not be decieved,Jerome's Vulgate came directly from Vaticanus;bibles from the RCC and from 1881 on has it's roots in those manuscripts,and they line up with the Vulgate.Like I said PAPAL </font>[/QUOTE]Beg pardon? Jerome was never pope.

Haruo

 

In my thread introducing myself as co-moderator on this forum I asked that people not use quotes that they knew were offensive until a mod has time to clean them up. Sadly several of you have done this on this thread. That makes my job more difficult so Don't do it anymore.
Murph

 

Not to move this topic back on-track or anything, but I think that missing verses should be of concern, and we should not throw anything out of the Bible arbitrarily. Hey, take John 3:16 out and you can still prove that God love the world and sent his Son to die for us that we would have eternal life, but an integral part of the Bible would be missing.

Also, the word "hell" appears in 54 verses in the KJV. If all of these verses were taken out, the doctrine of Hell would be obliterated, but this would only be a change of well less than 1/2%.

Take into consideration the Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a Bible that is largely the same as any other version, probably better than 99 percent, but it is the quality of the changes that matters, not the percentage.

Missing verses - big deal? I believe they can be.

Jason

 

Actually, by referring to the JWs, you illustrate a key point: doctrine is based not simply on words, but on *interpretation* of those words. The JW's use the KJV. It's not the words of the Bible that JW's use that sets them apart doctrinally, it's the *interpretation* they have of those words.

 

I don't think you are saying that the NWT is an okay version, are you? They used to use the KJV, but I've never met a JW witnessing from a KJV. The NWT was a deliberate corruption to suit their theology.

Jason

 

No, I'm not saying the NWT is OK. But the JWs were founded using the KJV, and they produced the NWT later. Their doctrines were established while they used the KJV. My point is that two people using the exact same version can come to very different doctrinal positions, while two other people using different versions can come to the same doctrinal position. "Affected doctrine" is not simply about the words themselves, it's mostly about interpretation.

 

They also differ from the TR. Doesn't that make the TR corrupt by your own standard of argumentation?? Of course it does, but you have decided ex cathedra to declare the TR perfect and then you argue from there. The evidence is clear and abundant. The TR is the worst of all possible textual choices. Having said that, it is a faithful preservation. It is just not the best.

The fact that things are different means they are different. They are not "corrupt" in the sense that false doctrine has made its way into the eclectic text.

You don't believe in parts of the Bible either ... like the parts where it affirms that things other than the KJV are the word of God. Does that mean you are not a Christian??

I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.

But the bigger issue is that no one has demonstrated how the spiritual condition of someone qualifies them as a textual critic. We have seen here on the board that some apparently spiritual people have no idea what they are talking about on this issue. And for the most part, they admit it and stay out of here. Simply put, spiritual qualifications are not fundamental to textual criticism and no one has ever shown them to be.

For Refreshed who said that missing verses can be a big deal, I agree. But no one has showed that the verses that are actually missing are a big deal. That is the difference between "can be" and "is."

 

I have. But, when I took the NASB and showed her verses that clearly call Christ, God, she retreated in a hurry.

Yes it was. Therefore, it has no bearing on MV's and there is no guilt by association.

 

Yes, I know you Alexandrian version proponents do not care about missing verses. But how about erroneous and heretical and blasphemous readings in modern version. Are you indifferent as to them also. Example: the passage in some versions of late where Jesus the Lord is portrayed as a liar when he purportedly said He was not going up to the feast, and then he went nevertheless. The true wording has it that He said He does not go "yet". That does not make Him a liar like the versions which has the former reading. Then what about the versions which makes Jesus appear like a sinner when he is portrayed as having taught that being angry is sin. Jesus Christ was angry. According to some MV's Christ then was an offender. But the true reading says "angry ... without a cause".

Then what about a modern version which lends support to the fact that Christ was sinning and self condemned and perverted inasmuch as it renders Titus 3:10 as "divisive man" or some similar. Christ said in some place He would cause division. According to such a MV Christ is condemned, sinning, perverted. But the proper rendering in the verse mentioned is "heretical man". Christ was no heretical man, but He is one who causes division according to His own testimony.

I do not need versions which cast shame upon the person of the Lord Christ in such manner.

Nor do I have need of versions which remove a clear testimony to the omnipresence of the Son of Man, John 3:13. The Son of Man being in heaven, "being in heaven" not found in most MV's. Do you think some scribe added this divinely revealed truth? I do not think so. I believe with all my heart these are infallibly God-breathed words.

Harald

 

Did you show her where the NASB supports the heresy of Arianism in John 1:18?

 

No. Actually, I took that verse, correctly interpretted it, and showed her how it was a clear declaration of Christ's deity. All you have to do in this case is to connect the dots between John 1:1, 14, 18, and 3:13 (the last vs I didn't at the time).

In your effort to see something that isn't there, you totally miss a strong proof for sound doctrine. It is a shame that you are so determined to cling to a false man-made doctrine that you will not allow yourself to appreciate the value of a scriptural proof for sound doctrine.

 

It's not about "not caring about missing verses" - it's about manuscript evidence pointing to whether such verses were added or deleted when *compared to the evidence*. This is a simple concept, Harald - why are you not getting it?

Have you even considered the possibility that there is an explanation you have not personally thought of, and that some scribe in centuries past also thought like you, and *added* the word 'yet' because we wanted to 'fix' what he thought was an error?

Several points:
- "without a cause" is NOT the same as "without a GOOD cause".
- "in danger of the judgment" is NOT the same as "in sin".
- the previous verse does NOT have "without a cause" when talking about killing, yet God killed (e.g. Acts 5:1-10). Does that make God an offender?
- the phrase "without a cause" is not present when talking about calling someone a fool, yet God calls someone a fool in Luke 12:20. Does that make God an offender?

Do you have need of versions which remove the clear testimony of the preexistence of Jesus, like Jude 1:25? Come on Harald, pay attention: ****textual criticism is NOT about what you personally think sounds better****. It is about what the manuscript evidence supports as likely being what was originally written.