Missing verses?

The "missing verses" that should probably stay missing include the following:

Lk. 17:36
Ac. 8:37
Ac. 15:34
Ac. 24:6b-8a (but the MS tradition is relatively divided on this one)
1 Jn. 5:7-8

As for the others, such as, e.g., Mk. 16:9-20, Jn. 7:53-8:11, and a host of others, I'll defend them against anyone on this forum.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

For verses to be missing one must assume
that the people who first put numbers
on the verses are inspired of God.
Didn't the numbers get put there like
in the 13th century (1201-1200)?
By then there was already a variance in the
source material. What if the numbers were
wrongly placed on a bible source that
someone had added to? WOuldn't that invoke
the penalty of Revelation 22:20 on
both the verse numbering person and the
scriputre adding person?

 

Take Mk. 16:9-20, for example. Only 3 Greek MSS omit the verses, but yet in almost every modern version I've looked at the passage is included with a note that says the verses either are certainly or almost certainly spurious; which begs the question, if they're so spurious, why include them in the text? Who cares if tradition esteemed them so highly: if they're not the perfect Word of God then throw them out without a mention! But that would be denying the testimony of the hundreds of MSS that have always included the passage, including the Vulgate, whose chief architect incidentally is claimed to be a witness against the passage; which in itself indicates that he was not in the least convinced of its inauthenticity.

What I find amusing is that there is actually more Greek MS support for including 1 Jn. 5:7-8 than there is for excluding Mk. 16:9-20. Don't misread me, because I think the logic behind both camps ([a] those excluding Mk. 16:9-20 and those including 1 Jn. 5:7-8) is exceedingly fallacious.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Luther's German Bible, Tyndale's New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, and the 1537 Matthew's Bible do not have Mark 11:26 and Luke
17:36 if compared to the KJV. These two verses were also not in the Greek text of Erasmus. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's also do not have most of this verse (Revelation 21:26).
At Luke 17:36, the 1611 KJV has this marginal note: "This 36 verse is wanting [lacking] in most of the Greek copies."

The editions of Luther's German Bible published in Luther's lifetime did not have
1 John 5:7.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, and some edition of the Bishops' Bible have
additional verses at Psalm 14 that are not found in the KJV.

 

I concur as to the likely omission of Lk. 17:36 in the original autographs, but as for Mk. 11:26, the MS tradition is heavily in its favor, especially since the omission is easily accounted for by a common scribal error called homoioteleuton, i.e., an early scribe accidentally skipped from "your transgressions" (TA PARAPTWMATA UMWN) of 11:25 to "your transgressions" (TA PARAPTWMATA UMWN) at the end of 11:26 and thus all of 11:26 was omitted. Mt. 23:14 is also omitted in many of the same MSS due to the same kind of error. Egyptian witnesses in particular are notorious for this kind of error. Cf. my post on Codex Sinaiticus ("Bad stream of NT Greek manuscripts") for more such omissions.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

--------------------------------------------------
Can you prove they weren't ADDED to later manuscripts or to some Bible versions?
--------------------------------------------------


First I would like to suggest, that you read Hebrews 11. That is the first step.

Yep! It only takes belief in Gods word and his promises, and that the church is the pillar of truth. Those verses have been in the churches for thousands of years, even up until this day. So the historical proof is there. Then you have the actual TRUTH in those verses that dictate they are the word of God. Good ol, common sense also has it's take on this issue. If the churches have believed, taught, lived, and knew and know those verses centuries ago , and they have been preserved even until this day, that THOSE VERSES are supposed to be there, and the omittions were only recently accepted since the late 1800's when the texts that underline all modern versions today, do not have them.....Uh, it is pretty straightfoward, and God has not made it difficult for us to discern this.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Very good michelle. At very least there is no ad hominem attack upon any one in this post.

Not exactly, long before the King James Bible there was the Latin Vulgate which was the accepted Bible of the vast majority of the church for over 1000 years, to which even the KJV translators gave praise. It has verses both added and deleted when compared to the KJV.

The first English Bibles were derived directly from the Latin Vulgate. The King james Bible was influenced by the Vulgate (It included the Apocrypha for instance) but was taken directly from the original language manuscripts of their choosing. In the First Edition the KJV translators included marginal notes showing the variant readings from the varying apographs.

This Vulgate influence along with the other errors of the Church of England (because of their love-hate relationship with the Church of Rome) caused many Baptists to loose body parts as well as their lives when they complained about the romish influence the KJV translators infused into the English text.

So not everyone agreed with previous Church testimonny or King James and his translators, especially Baptists, dissenters and Puritans.

For instance King James ordered one anabaptist to have his ears chopped off because he complained about the unscriptural word "bishop" as an office in the church (as opposed to the two "pastor" and "deacon").

John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison because he ignored the anglo-romish doctrine that only those approved by the apostolic Anglo Catholic "bishopric" and admitted into the CofE "priesthood" were sanctioned/licensed to preach the Gospel.

HankD

 

Explain this verse:

2 Corinthians 6:12 (KJV1611)
Yee are not straitened in vs,
but yee are straitned in your owne bowels.

Michelle: "Those verses have been in the churches for
thousands of years, even up until this day. So the
historical proof is there. Then you have the actual TRUTH
in those verses that dictate they are the word of God."

Yet it is much easier to understand in a mv:

2 Corinthians 6:12 (HCSB):
You are not limited by us,
but you are limited by your own affections.

 

--------------------------------------------------
For instance King James ordered one anabaptist to have his ears chopped off because he complained about the unscriptural word "bishop" as an office in the church (as opposed to the two "pastor" and "deacon").

John Bunyan spent 12 years in prison because he ignored the anglo-romish doctrine that only those approved by the apostolic Anglo Catholic "bishopric" and admitted into the CofE "priesthood" were sanctioned/licensed to preach the Gospel.

--------------------------------------------------


These things have NOTHING to do with the word of God, nor do they indicate that the KJB is not the perfect word of God. You try to compare two completely separate issues and make them the same thing, when they are not. In comparison of the KJB, which was from the correct texts and from those that came from many areas of the world, and from the churches, to the modern versions of today, which came from corrupt texts, from one region only in the whole realm of the world, what you and many others claim about the KJB is meaningless. I rather put faith in God, and trust what He has provided not only generations past, but even up until this present day, his word of truth found perfectly in the KJB and hold fast to that which HE has provided even against those things today that have changed it - and indeed they have.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ed,

I nor, anyone I know has had a problem with that verse, and this in NO WAY constitutes, nor justifies the obvious alterations and errors that have been done, just because in a few places it seems easier for some to understand. Why? Because many today are LAZY and do not desire strong study of God's word, and the TRUTH and precious understanding that comes from personal study. Everyone wants to be taught by others today, rather than learning from God Almighty himself through their desire to know.


Everyone today seems to do that which is right in his own eyes, even at the neglect of God's truth. I for one, will not go there, nor will I encourage others to do so.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

In reference to 2 Corinthians 6:12 Sister Michelle says:

//I nor, anyone I know has had a problem with that verse,
and this in NO WAY constitutes, nor justifies the obvious
alterations and errors that have been done,
just because in a few places it seems easier for some to understand.//

I have a problem with that verse. You know me.
So the first part of your statement is in error.
The judgemental and accusatory second part of your sentence
is in bad error. There is no case where faithful mv = modern versions,
do as you have said. Sorry, but i'm not one to have
loose bowels over someone who blatenly disrespects my version
of the Bible.

BTW, did the loose bowels = compassion and the bound bowels
meaning non-compassionate come from the original Greek text
or the Midevil English culture?

Michelle: "Because many today are LAZY and do not desire
strong study of God's word, and the TRUTH and precious
understanding that comes from personal study."

Amen, Sister Michelle -- Preach it!
I do note though that this isn't applicable to most who post on
this forum. So it probably isn't worth preaching here on
this forum, there being a lack of those here who need the message.

 

I said...

michelle responded...

You have falsely accused me publicly. Go back and read my post. What I said above was an illustration of Baptists and Puritans complaints coming forth and the responses of King James and the committee to those complaints concerning the mistranslations of the KJV translators.

It therefore has everything to do with the Word of God because it shows the violent responses to the Bible believers who pointed out the flaws the translators made when they took the Word of God “out of the Originall tongues” into 17th century English. It is the effect after the cause.

For instance, the use of the word “bishop” in the KJV, an office in the Church of England (an extra-biblical romish office). one which they inherited from their parent, the Church of Rome. According to the CofE this office has been transmitted down from the original apostles and carries their authority. It would seem that some/many Baptists agree with this in that they give apostolic authority to the works of their (KJV translators and Bishops) hands, apostolic authority of underived inspiration to the very words in the 17th century English language.

Another is the mistranslation of the koine word en in the following passage:

KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Should be:

ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

This mistranslation is no doubt because the heretical Church of England sacerdotal “bishops” (high-priests) were primarily sprinklers and baby baptizers reflecting King James intense dislike of believers' baptism.

Yes michelle we know how spiritual you are, it seems that you tell us about it almost every day you post and have posted here at the BB.

2 Corinthians 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.


HankD

 

BTW michelle,

I have some unfinished business with you.

When you first started posting again after your long absence, I said the following in another thread...

You responded...

It is only meaningless to argue over one word when it doesn’t suit your purpose michelle. You grant yourself a plenary indulgence by saying it “does not do anything to change the truth” but close your ears to those who say the same thing about added/deleted words in the MVs.

And in fact it would seem that this word (the definite article "the") would make a significant difference to you michelle who once said words to the effect that the phrase “the Christ” is a signature signal of the “New Age” writings, which is why I asked if perhaps this was another example of “advanced revelation”, foreseeing that which was to come.

But then that would be putting their (KJV men) stamp of approval on "New Age" theology/philosophy.

Or perhaps God forgot the “the” and only remembered it after 100 plus years later?

Either you argue consistently for every word michelle (although you have never told us which KJV revision contains the “very words of God”) and be willing to apply your MV criteria arguments consistently and fairly across the Bible versions or your words will indeed be ignored and rightfully so.

Also, you always seem eventually to get into the equivocating mode of the greater degree of the quantity and/or quality of errors and mistranslations of the MVs vs. The KJV.

Might I remind you michelle that God is incapable of even the smallest error (such as forgetting the word “the” in Matthew 16:16).

That there are/have been errors in the KJV is undeniably made evident by the historical fact that the King James Bible has had a several hundred year history of correction(s) starting in 1613 by none other than the very KJV translators themselves.


HankD

 

Of course, if the KJV said "the Christ", and a non-KJV said "Christ", then KJVO's would be all over that like white on rice. However, if we are to give michelle some leeway here, and subscribe to her line of thinking, then it is perfectly acceptible to chance "ye" and "thee" to "you", and "suffer" to "let" without changing the truth. But KJVO's, in typical double-standard fashion, are flatly against that, which completely and successfully nullifies michelle's arguement.

Add to that the fact that I am waiting for someon to post scriptural support for KJVOism (this is offiically my 54th request). All previous requests have gone unanswered.

 

I can accept and agree with this. In fact I agree with it so much that I think it would be an excellent idea to teach Greek and maybe Hebrew (but especially Greek) in Sunday School classes. I'm serious, not tongue-in-cheek here.

If people want to study God's Word, let's study it in the language it was written. In fact, by doing this we will get rid of a lot of false ideas that float around regarding how the process of translation works.

There is nothing like reading the Bible in its original language.

 

--------------------------------------------------
Of course, if the KJV said "the Christ", and a non-KJV said "Christ", then KJVO's would be all over that like white on rice. However, if we are to give michelle some leeway here, and subscribe to her line of thinking, then it is perfectly acceptible to chance "ye" and "thee" to "you", and "suffer" to "let" without changing the truth. But KJVO's, in typical double-standard fashion, are flatly against that, which completely and successfully nullifies michelle's arguement.

--------------------------------------------------

As I have said in the past, that there are certain word changes that have occurred that causes not a problem, nor reason for concern. However, there are other word changes to which it does. The thee's and thou's being changed can be a problem if they are not accurately depicting the "who" being addressed, to which the use of thee's and thou's and ye's provide, and has sometimes not been accurately presented in the change. I however do not base my rejection of modern versions on this, or the word changes that have same meanings. There are much worse that has been done, and to which is the sole reason to reject them, however, add these little things in also that can make a difference, just adds even more to it.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Studying God's word in a language that one cannot grasp nor understand, without years of learning would defeat the whole purpose. Why not learn our native English language better to which we already have a good grasp on, and study God's word that HE has given to us first in our own language, and understand what God has said, rather than confuse ourselves with not only two different languages, with various opinions on the meanings, but with lack of understanding the scriptures themeselves first and the various steps it takes to get to the point one does not need to go in the first place? We do not speak Hebrew and Greek, and many do not understand their own native language perfectly itself nor the scriptures, why then does it make sense to turn to languages that are foriegn, and take years of learning to understand it? NO, this makes absolutely no sense - no offense to you.


We need to study God's word that he has provided for us already, and not confuse ourselves with foriegn tongues to which we have not an intimate relationship with, as we do our own.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

nmichelle: "We do not speak Hebrew and Greek, and many do not understand their own native language perfectly itself nor the scriptures, why then does it make sense to turn to languages that are foriegn, and take years of learning to understand it? NO, this makes absolutely no sense."

Agreed, Michelle. Our missionaries and Wycliffe translators should *not* have to "take years of learning" to study foreign languages and then attempt -- ever so poorly -- to render the scriptures into those primitive native languages.

We rather need to *teach* those unlettered foreigners ENGLISH in order that they can then learn to read the Bible in its most perfect form.


(Sarcasm button now off).