Missing verses?

[Bluefalcon]

Of course it is one's opinion that Mt. 17:21 has been added to the original, and another's (mine included) that it has been taken out of the original.

The facts: Only 3 Greek MSS (Aleph* B 0281) before the 9th c. omit Mt. 17:21, while 4 Greek MSS (Aleph2 C D W) before that time period contain the verse. Perhaps the "earliest" patristic witness to the situation is the ca. 250 witness of Origen, who includes the verse! Hundreds of Greek MSS testify to the originality of Mt. 17:21, and only a handful to its inauthenticity. And as we see in Mt. 27:49/50, hundreds of MSS copied after the 9th c. are actually more accurate than a few copied in the 4th/5th, which enhances these "later" MSS' testimony as more accurate (at least in that situation) than the "earliest and best" MSS.

As for the originality of "and fasting" in Mk. 9:29, the case is even more solid, with only 3 MSS before the 9th c. omitting the words and only 4 in the history of all Greek MSS (so far as we know), whereas the earliest Greek MS extant for this verse (P45) from the 3rd c. (!) includes the words.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[Ed Edwards]

Bluefalcon: "Of course it is one's opinion that Mt. 17:21 has been added to the original, and another's (mine included) that it has been taken out of the original."

Understood. There will be variance of opinion.
The KJV is NOT documented so you even know there might
be a difference.
The MV i used (and all faithful MVs) tell of the
source variance.
The growing cult of ignorance that is eating up our churches
insists that common Baptist Christians should not even
know that there is a variance in the sources and such
ignorant people would have their faith shaken if they knew
that there is a variance. Note that the KJV1611 with
margine notes by the translators showing variant sources
that those transaltors had -- those margine notes must
be surpressed and usually are in the preferred KJV1769.

So in this case, nothing is missing from the Bible in
the HCSB MV -- the HCSB has superior documenattion to the
KJVs.

 

[Ed Edwards]

With the HCSB you can get the full meaning of
this verse. WIth one of the KJVs only,
you cannot get the full meaning of this
verse. HCSB > KJV1769

 

[kjv34]

here's one site with a list of verses that have been omitted there's so many you should check this site out if you want to know the verses that are missing. I think also changed verses, you got the proof with this site here..... I know those who are against the KJV will argue against the site.

http://www.scionofzion.com/eyeopener.htm

 

[rsr]

Ah, the mythical TR again ...

 

[Phillip]

I honestly get so tired of these lists that have a few that are left out, but 90% are just different wording.

Let's cover a few of kjv34's eyeopener's:
=============================================
Matt. 1:25
Obviously, if he (Joseph) didn't have sex with her until she had a son and she was a virgin (covered in other verses.) then OBVIOUSLY it was her FIRSTBORN. DUH!

NEXT:

Anybody have any problems with these?
Mat 5:44

(ALT) but _I_ say to you*, be loving your* enemies; be blessing the ones cursing you*; be doing good to the ones hating you*, and be praying on behalf of the ones mistreating you* and persecuting you*,

(BBE) But I say to you, Have love for those who are against you, and make prayer for those who are cruel to you;

(CEV) But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for anyone who mistreats you.

(Darby) But *I* say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you,

(DRB) But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you:

(EMTV) But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,

(ESV) But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

(GB) But I say vnto you, Loue your enemies: blesse them that curse you: doe good to them that hate you, and pray for them which hurt you, and persecute you,

(GNT) ᾿Εγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τούς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς,

(GNT-TR) εγω δε λεγω υμιν αγαπατε τους εχθρους υμων ευλογειτε τους καταρωμενους υμας καλως ποιειτε τους μισουντας υμας και προσευχεσθε υπερ των επηρεαζοντων υμας και διωκοντων υμας

(GNT-WH+) εγω1473 P-1NS δε1161 CONJ λεγω3004 V-PAI-1S υμιν5213 P-2DP αγαπατε25 V-PAM-2P τους3588 T-APM εχθρους2190 A-APM υμων5216 P-2GP και2532 CONJ προσευχεσθε4336 V-PNM-2P υπερ5228 PREP των3588 T-GPM διωκοντων1377 V-PAP-GPM υμας5209 P-2AP

(KJV+) But1161 I1473 say3004 unto you,5213 Love25 your5216 enemies,2190 bless2127 them that curse2672 you,5209 do4160 good2573 to them that hate3404 you,5209 and2532 pray4336 for5228 them which despitefully use1908 you,5209 and2532 persecute1377 you;5209

(LITV) but I say to you, Love your enemies; bless those cursing you, do well to those hating you; and pray for those abusing and persecuting you,

(UPDV) but I say to you+, love your+ enemies, and pray for those that persecute you+;

(YLT) but I--I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,
=====================================

Another, wow you got a few words there. First, I ask do any of them change doctrine when looking at the Bible as a whole? Second, prove they were not added. I agree that some will say they are added, some say they are left out. Have you seen those original manuscripts anywhere lately?

Matt:6:25 kingdom, power, glory

===========================

Next one, obviously a little disagreement here, but I think the point is quite obvious to anybody who can read: Personally, I think life-span is a little more dramatic and means more to me than my height (that I could care less about)

Mat 6:27

(ALT) "But which of you*, by being anxious, is able to add on his height one cubit?

(BBE) And which of you by taking thought is able to make himself a cubit taller?

(CEV) Can worry make you live longer?

(Darby) But which of you by carefulness can add to his growth one cubit?

(DRB) And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?

(EMTV) Which of you by worrying is able to add one cubit to his stature?

(ESV) And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?

(GB) Which of you by taking care is able to adde one cubite vnto his stature?

(GNT) τίς δὲ ἐξ ὑμῶν μεριμνῶν δύναται προσθεῖναι ἐπὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν αὐτοῦ πῆχυν ἕνα;

(GNT-TR) τις δε εξ υμων μεριμνων δυναται προσθειναι επι την ηλικιαν αυτου πηχυν ενα

(GNT-WH+) τις5101 I-NSM δε1161 CONJ εξ1537 PREP υμων5216 P-2GP μεριμνων3309 V-PAP-NSM δυναται1410 V-PNI-3S προσθειναι4369 V-2AAN επι1909 PREP την3588 T-ASF ηλικιαν2244 N-ASF αυτου846 P-GSM πηχυν4083 N-ASM ενα1520 A-ASM

(KJV+) (1161) Which5101 of1537 you5216 by taking thought3309 can1410 add4369 one1520 cubit4083 unto1909 his848 stature?2244

(LITV) But who of you by being anxious is able to add one cubit onto his stature?

(UPDV) And which of you+ by being anxious can add one cubit to the measure of his life?

(YLT) `And who of you, being anxious, is able to add to his age one cubit?

=========================================

That should cover a few. Since I don't want to post ten pages, this should make a point. If not, we can cover the rest.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Point is clear to me, but then . . .

 

[robycop3]

As I've said before...I believe we have the AV translators(and later KJV revisers) trying to make sure nothing is left out, while we have other translators trying to be sure not to ADD anything. It seems the AV men(and many of the revisers of the TR) said to themselves, "If it's in this one manuscript, it belongs in the Bible, since this one ms matches most of the others in most respects...the different mss were written by different scribes"-while OTOH, some other translators said to themselves, "I believe most of those scribes were men of God, and they therefore sometimes sought to embellish their writings a little bit to praise God all the more, especially when a certain reading is found only in a few mss. One scribe coulda written it and another copied his addition 30 years later, not realizing it was an addition. Therefore I won't use material in my translation that isn't well-supported in multiple mss."

Maybe modern scientific inspection of some of the mss will shed some light on which is the correct scenario for them.

 

[robycop3]

Michelle: WE are commanded to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints, and that, my dear brother, is what I am doing.

In the manner of a blind person shooting a rifle. Can you please provide any proof that some verses found in the KJV are actually OMITTED from later versions and that they actually should be in them?

What does THAT hafta do with contending for the faith? Actually, we're studying as the Bereans did, to try our best to see what God's prophets and apostles actually wrote instead of sometimes just guessing. Just because it "sounds scriptural" doesn't actually make it Scripture, does it?

Michelle, Logos 1560 recently posted the "Lord's Prayer" as found in the KJV in both Matthew 6 and Luke 11. Now, did Luke omit some words? Did Matthew add words? "Things that are different are not the same."

 

[Ed Edwards]

I have a list of a couple of dozen
(well maybe only one dozen

) "missing
verses". I have to work for a living
and can only do one per day OR LESS.
I cannot post them very easy if topics
keep dying. Thank you in advance for keeping
this topic open.

BTW, it is not very scholarly to say
to a verse is missing from an mv when you
don't have a copy of the mv to check it out.
I still have yet to find an mv
that is actually MISSING any verses.
Of course, some who don't want to admit that
the KJV translators in 1611 left actual
margin notes denoting variances in the
source Scriputre they had available --
such a person HAS to say that margin notes
don't count. Sorry, there are counting
margin notes (translator notes) and
non-counting margin notes -- learn to
tell the difference.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
As for the originality of "and fasting" in Mk. 9:29, the case is even more solid, with only 3 MSS before the 9th c. omitting the words and only 4 in the history of all Greek MSS (so far as we know), whereas the earliest Greek MS extant for this verse (P45) from the 3rd c. (!) includes the words.

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


Also to mention, outside of manuscipts, that the TRUTH WITHIN that scripture ITSELF is the truth! We find fasting and prayer part of a godly life throughout the entirety of the scriptures!


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

There is mention of "fasting and prayer" in the footnote, stating that SOME manuscripts have it. So, to say it is "left out" of the MV's is, in fact, incorrect.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
What does THAT hafta do with contending for the faith? Actually, we're studying as the Bereans did, to try our best to see what God's prophets and apostles actually wrote instead of sometimes just guessing. Just because it "sounds scriptural" doesn't actually make it Scripture, does it?
--------------------------------------------------


Robycop, and to all. I love you all dearly as my brothers in Christ, and I do learn much from you and am so blessed by you all, many times. However, this above statement is not exactly true. The bereans did study to be sure. But what is it that they studied?


Acts 17

5. But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
6. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
7. Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
8. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
9. And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
10. And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
13. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.


You see, it was not to see if the "scriptures" themselves were true, and right, but Paul's "teachings" were correct against the "scriptures". There was no dispute about what was, and was NOT the scriptures, as they KNEW them. It has EVERYTHING to do with contending for the faith, for the apostles were not only our eye-witness testimony, but the written one (the scriptures) also. Without the word of God, we could led away with every wind of doctrine.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

The problem with your statment, Michelle, is that the MV's hold the doctrines in tact. They, too, are the Scriptures, and people study them out daily and live Holy, Godly lives, and serve God. They contend for the faith using these same MV's you constantly blast with lies stating that they remove from God's Word, change the meanings, etc. This is not a good position for you to hold since it is built on the falsehood of the KJV being the only acceptable translation of the Word, especially since it has been pointed out that there were constant changes to the KJV (not only spelling and grammar) to the same over a period of 150-200 years.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, Logos 1560 recently posted the "Lord's Prayer" as found in the KJV in both Matthew 6 and Luke 11. Now, did Luke omit some words? Did Matthew add words? "Things that are different are not the same."
--------------------------------------------------


The gospel accounts have given more information in some than others, but we are COMMANDED to:

2 Tim. 2

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.


We are not commanded to DOUBT the gospel accounts as God's word, if it "seems" as though it is contradictory, or if it seems it has holes in it. This is why we are commanded to STUDY THE SCRIPTURES, and the TRUTH within, not study which scripture is scripture. God provides that, and has provided it, and ALWAYS WILL provide it and will also show us by His Spririt upon our hearts as we read. He does not leave this up to man alone. Otherwise, we would all be in big trouble. The gospel accounts are the very words of God, and He has preserved them accurately and purely. Your belief on this, is not any different than the unbelievers, and atheists who argue against the truth that the Holy Bible is God's word. How is this kind of statement you made a good witness to them of one's faith?

Just because God's word is more informative in one account than another - which is not just in the gospels, but the entirety of scripture - does in no way JUSTIFY using this as an EXCUSE to justify this being done in a translation. Not in any way, shape or form. Translators do not have this authority, nor do we have this authority to say because God did this, it is justified when man has done this. This is faulty and futile thinking.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

By the very same reasoning, then, Michelle, the MV's are the same as the KJV in the fact that they give the same accounts but in todays venacular instead of the Kings English. They would both be correct. Your lack of discernment of truth is showing by your contradictory statements.

 

[michelle]

Well, AVL, you can take a version, or translation from unbelieving scholars and translators, who do not view God's word as being Holy and preserved, but who in fact have doubted it, and who have given many a translation from one region in Egypt for thier sole authority, to which is against in many cases (to thier own discretions)all other evidence from the living churches from history throughout ALL REGIONS, based on faulty logic and thinking, that oldest means best or more accurate. These translations are a weaker testimony, and leave out and contort much truth within because of poor understanding of the languages being translated and/or lack of knowledge of our own, apostate beliefs of the translators, and yes, those who would tamper the word of God to suit thier personal beliefs/agendas. Why do I say this? Because anyone who loves the Lord Jesus Christ and who is in Him, EXHALTS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, and does not choose to take the weaker testimony of him, but the stronger. God did not give us a weak testimony of His Son, but the very strongest. This alone proves it. But, you can so desire to use, and recommend use, of these versions that have weakened the strong testimony that God has provided. Not only this, but they also encourage many to DOUBT the authority and preservation of God's Holy word, and has given that power to men only and disregard of God's power and control and care and concern over his word, and for his faithful people. I will not go there, and I will be obediant to our Lord's commands, and clear warning about the word of God itself and continue in my FAITH and trust in HIM, and not man only to provide his word. God is a personal and loving God, and HE is my personal redeemer and my best friend. He cares about us, and his word of truth, and is not just distant up there in heaven, without any concern over his word of truth. Oh, He cares very much.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[AVL1984]

You say you're not trusting in a man, yet you trust the KJV, the Kings version, filled with Anglican doctrines, differing from the very translations that it was taken from. The testimonies of the MV's are not in any wise weaker. There are many strong Christians using these versions, and to imply that they lead to doubt about God's preservation of His Word is not only ludicrous, but, false. To say that the KJV is the strongest "and that proves it" doesn't PROVE anything. It is opinion and conjecture on your part. Nobody is doubting your faith in God, and to us another translation isn't doubting God or His ability to keep His Word. To say that just because the MV's come from Egypt makes them bad or suspect is like saying that Jesus was suspect, because he was taken out of Egypt also. Your reasoning is flawed. The MV's have the same scriptures, no doctrine or fundamental left out. In saying that verses are deleted or added, you are comparing apples to oranges since the underlying texts are different. Yet, they point to the same thing...Jesus Christ, salvation, living a Godly life. You're continually saying that FAITH has to do with it all is true, and, in fact, these people who use the MV's do have faith. Yet, you would have us believe because they do so, they have an incomplete word of God, no faith and are blinded. How sad that you would distort the truth, willingly or unwillingly. You still have yet to post or repost the alleged missing verses and to give an explanation as to why they belong or don't.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
By the very same reasoning, then, Michelle, the MV's are the same as the KJV in the fact that they give the same accounts but in todays venacular instead of the Kings English. They would both be correct. Your lack of discernment of truth is showing by your contradictory statements.
--------------------------------------------------

But you are very wrong AVL. The mv's have revealed that they are NOT. They are lacking. They are missing things that weaken the truth of Jesus Christ our Lord, and have sown doubt as to the authority of God's words. How can we tell? Against the truth that God has already provided. You are being misled by the enticing tool that has been used, of easier to understand/read, and in our modern language. I am not that stupid, nor am I a fool, to believe this lie. Oh, and it is indeed a lie. The scriptures in the language of the KJB are just as understandable today, as they were back then and as much, if not moreso with the mv's, with the exception of a few archaic words, that doesn't take long to search out thier meanings from research, or from understanding contextual truth. What has been done, is long standing, long understood verses have been changed to something totally foriegn and different. Hell is no longer Hell, but hades. Who in the world, knows Hades better than Hell? Every person, believer or not, in this English speaking country is WELL AWARE OF HELL, but not so much with HADES. The usage of the word Hades, might be correct, but it has damaged the conviction of many who do not really know what it is, as EVERYONE most CERTAINLY understands and KNOWS what HELL is. This is just one of the MANY things that have been done, that are great cause for concern. The Lord tells us to stay in the old paths, not make new ones.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by AVL1984:
There is mention of "fasting and prayer" in the footnote, stating that SOME manuscripts have it. So, to say it is "left out" of the MV's is, in fact, incorrect.

I completely disagree. In scholarly circles the terms "omited" and "deleted" are used to describe what is not in the text, although contained in the apparatus as inauthentic. E.g., in reference to Rom. 16:24, "The synopsis will frequently make the source of the deleted verse obvious" (The Text of the New Testament, K. & B. Aland, p. 301); in reference to Mt. 17:21, "...are more than adequate evidence for the originality of the omission of verse 21 from Matthew's text" (p. 301); etc., etc., etc. In every instance the verses are contained in the apparatus but are considered authentic "omissions" by scholars. The fact that a version doesn't include a verse in the TEXT, but rather in a FOOTNOTE, shows that the verse is to be considered "missing" from the original manuscripts. If it were otherwise, the "missing verse" would be in the TEXT, and the FOOTNOTE would mention that the verse is missing in some manuscripts.

Yours,

Bluefalcon