in more accurate translations using better and more recent manuscripts such as the NIV/ESV.
The two manuscripts that the modern critical texts like Nestle Aland
and the UBS texts are based on are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:
These two manuscripts differ from each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone,
Just because they are older does not mean they are better, yet this is how many scholars think. this is absurd, For example:
I have the NWT in my library, I NEVER use it, so it does not wear out, my King James however I use every day, The NWT is going to last longer, some scholar finds it 1000 years from now, and then everyone accepts the readings it has because it is older and therefore "better".
Many people think older means better when it comes to manuscripts but this is not always the case.
There are numerous places where the critical texts have readings or omissions that are based one a handful of manuscripts that are all VERY CONTRADICTORY to each other in many other places.
It's very hypocritical for people to bash on 1 John 5:7 in the KJV because it is based on a small handful of manuscripts when text behind their modern translations have NUMEROUS places where they do the same thing with a Reading found in 5 or less Greek manuscripts.
Here's an old post I made in an older thread:
Here's one more:
Matthew 18:11(NIV): Non Existent
Footnote reads: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.
Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
Revision Revised pg 92
"The blessed declaration, “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except b א l, and every known cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333 the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—p ope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse?"
Since when does some mean all except 6? this is an outright lie.
Here is another post I made concerning the longer ending of Mark:
As To MANUSCRIPTS, there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive MSS. which contain the Gospel of Mark) contain these twelve verses.
There are also some very curious irregularities with both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. As Dean Burgon testifies, the Vatican manuscript has only one blank space in the entire manuscript and it is here at the ending of Mark 16:8. He says "it is amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Volume 1, page 298.
As for Sinaticus, according to Dean Burgon pages 298-299, even Tischendorf (who discovered this codex) believed this whole section was originally canceled out and written over by a different scribe than the one who wrote most of the manuscript. Suddenly the letters in the columns become much larger than at any other place in the codex, either before or after. Dean Burgon points out that if the letters had been written in the normal size, there would be ample room for these missing 12 verses.
The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms : the "Peshitto" (cent. 2), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek MS. in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (cent. 5) and the "Jerusalem" (cent. 5).
THE LATIN VERSIONS. JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.
THE GOTHIC VERSION (A.D. 350) contains them.
THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "COPTIC"), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the "THEBAIC" (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "SAHIDIC"), belonging to cent. 3.
THE ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.
THE FATHERS. Whatever may be their value as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual word or their form, or sequence their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions. There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.
1. PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).
2. JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).
3. IRENAEUS (A.D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).
4. HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).
5. VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN.
6. The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1852, pp. 243, 351).
7. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.
8. EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.
9. APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i. p. 21).
10. AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).
11. CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".
12. JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.
13. AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.
14. NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20 and
15. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.
16. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.
Mark 13:3
3New International Version (NIV)33 Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts alert and pray
English Standard Version (ESV)33 Be on guard, keep awake.[a] For you do not know when the time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts add and pray
A.V.-Mark 13:33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
The word and pray according to this book is found in Aleph,A,C,E,F,G,H,K,L,M,S,U,V,W,X,Y,Gamma,Delta,Th eta,Pi,Sigma,Psi,Omega,0104, 0116, in the Cursives is found in the majority of families 1 and 13, In the Old Latin:aur,f,ff2,g1,2,i,l,q,rl, and the Vulgate, in the Syriac: Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harclean, ,in the Coptic:Sahidic, Bohairic, also extant in Phi 047, 055, 0211.
Some manuscripts really?
the omissions of such that the NIV and ESV hold to are only supported by: B,D, the cursives p and C, The old latin a,c,k, and the Coptic Fayyumic. (Early MSS, Church Fathers, and the A.V., Moorman pg 166)
