List of Totally and Partially Omitted Passages in the Modern Translations

[netchaplain]

In my opinion they are quite different from one another. The false reading could be suspected of claiming that God is a respecter of persons!


Scripture reiterates many things for our encouragement. It is still detracting from Scripture, regardless of ignoring it.



There are only two groups of manuscripts, and one group is corrupted. It's Satan's continuation of "Ye hath God said," attacking the Word.

I guess you missed the fact that the present day translators and publishers use the same manuscript tradition as Wescott and Hort. None of the modern translations (except NKJV) use the Traditional Text, they all use the only other manuscripts available--the Alexandrian tradition of texts instead. The other source is the Majority Text.

 

[miamited]

Hi netchaplain

That's a long list. Have you got the original MSS to verify that they are, in fact, omissions and not additions?

Look, without the Original MSS, you can't verify a single word of what is written today in our modern Scriptures as being the word or words that any of the biblical writers wrote when penning their accounts.

However, I'm guessing where this OP position is likely going, I'll give my understanding of the Scriptures and go.

God gave unto mankind His testimony of who He is and all that He has done through His love and His Son, that those who hear and believe might have eternal life. The best translation of the Scriptures, and all copies of the Scriptures that we hold in our hands today are translations, is the one that opens that person's heart and eyes to the life of faith and love that God, our Creator, calls us to share with Him.

Mine was the NIV.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Paul Timothy]

I guess you missed the fact that the present day translators and publishers use the same manuscript tradition as Wescott and Hort. None of the modern translations (except NKJV) use the Traditional Text, they all use the only other manuscripts available--the Alexandrian tradition of texts instead. The other source is the Majority Text.

And just because you use the same texts as a problem child did, does not mean you are basing your work on the problem child's work.

Have you translated the manuscripts yourself?
Have your own eyes seen the texts in discussion?
How do the manuscripts differ... not the translations?
Why are there differences?
Have the translators done their best to inform you of any conflicts in the text?

 

[Paul Timothy]

Hi netchaplain

That's a long list. Have you got the original MSS to verify that they are, in fact, omissions and not additions?

Look, without the Original MSS, you can't verify a single word of what is written today in our modern Scriptures as being the word or words that any of the biblical writers wrote when penning their accounts.

However, I'm guessing where this OP position is likely going, I'll give my understanding of the Scriptures and go.

God gave unto mankind His testimony of who He is and all that He has done through His love and His Son, that those who hear and believe might have eternal life. The best translation of the Scriptures, and all copies of the Scriptures that we hold in our hands today are translations, is the one that opens that person's heart and eyes to the life of faith and love that God, our Creator, calls us to share with Him.

Mine was the NIV.

God bless,
Ted

Just a note... instead of Original Manuscripts... I think you are referring to Autographs.
A manuscript is a copy.
An autograph is the authors original.

 

[miamited]

Hi again netchaplain

And knowing myself a number of people who have come to know the faith that God asks of us and being baptized after listening and reading an NIV, ESV, NAS, NKJV or KJV translation of the Scriptures, I'd encourage you to let your god out of the box so that you can come to know the big God who is wise enough to prick the hearts of men through all of the various good translations of His truth. I really doubt that God considers your waste of time about little 'possible' negligences that have come up in His truth over 4,000 years, nearly as important as taking it out and proclaiming its truth far and wide.

What do you think? Are you really fighting God's fight? Condemning some of the many good translations of His truth? I mean there was a time in history that that KJ translation was new and not much appreciated for the glory that it held. My God and His Spirit seem to have done a pretty fair job of keeping the recollections and writings of a group of faithful Israelites complete and fully satisfactory for some 4,000 years. If I hear an Israelite screaming about some issue of a few words missing or added to the Scriptures, then I might be inclined to listen.

Now, don't misunderstand and claim that I don't hold the Scriptures, the very words of my God and Creator as precious and Holy. I believe that they absolutely are. I believe them clear down to the aging of the creation event. The parting of a sea through which thousands of people passed through with a wall of water standing on either side of them. I believe that the shadow of the sun actually went back 10 steps. I believe every syllable and verse in the Scriptures, but do allow that over 4,000 years some word or passage might be argumentative as to its authenticity.

As has been already mentioned, do you honestly have such a small god that he can only prick the hearts of people who only read one version of his word that didn't even exist for 1600 years after the death of Jesus? Really???

My God is a powerful and wise God and He can keep His word current for the generations that come and go. Always fresh and always easy to understand...for those with such a heart. And of all the 'reliable' translations that I've read, and they are a few, I haven't come across a single translation that leaves me wondering what the point of God's writing to me was.

Preach the good news! In season and out of season. For the master will return at a day and time you know not when.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Just a note... instead of Original Manuscripts... I think you are referring to Autographs.
A manuscript is a copy.
An autograph is the authors original.

Hi Paul Timothy
I'm not really a studied man in the regards of the actual parchments and other velum type surfaces that men have written on nor what word one has to write to mean the actual piece of such surface and the quill or pen or colored rock that was used by the person who actually wrote the words the very first time they came to be written. I guess I had always 'assumed' that when a writer turned in his work to his publisher it was called the 'manuscript' and was actually written by the author, or some ghost writer.

Thanks for the info. So, what I'm referring to is called an 'autograph' and not a manuscript?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

That's a long list. Have you got the original MSS to verify that they are, in fact, omissions and not additions?

Look, without the Original MSS, you can't verify a single word of what is written today in our modern Scriptures as being the word or words that any of the biblical writers wrote when penning their accounts.

HI all,

I went back to correct this post, but the time limit has expired. For anyone reading this, I should have written 'Autographs' instead of 'Original MSS'.

God bless,
Ted

 

[netchaplain]

Hi netchaplain

That's a long list. Have you got the original MSS to verify that they are, in fact, omissions and not additions?

The readings from the Traditional Text (KJV) are from the original manuscripts copied from copies, because there are no known extant original autographs of the Bible writers. Only translations from the Majority Text are copied down from the original manuscripts. None of the translations deriving from the Minority Text come from this source but from the only other source--the Alexandrian tradition, which are only three manuscript codices.

Look, without the Original MSS, you can't verify a single word of what is written today in our modern Scriptures as being the word or words that any of the biblical writers wrote when penning their accounts.

There are only two sources of manuscripts all Bibles are translated from: The Majority Text, which contains thousands of manuscript evidence; or the Minority Text, which contains primarily only three manuscript evidences. Of the two sources we can only trust one, for the other is false.

 

[miamited]

Hi netchaplain

Only translations from the Majority Text are copied down from the original manuscripts.

If all the Autographs are lost...wouldn't it then be a prudent question for one to wonder how then, you can make the claim that any translation or version is actually true to the Autographs. Can you show me 'how' you know that the majority text was copied word for word what Matthew wrote to us in his work?

A piece you may find interesting:

The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org

Editor's Note:1

bible.org

God bless,
Ted

 

[atpollard]

If I search all the libraries for a copy of "Hop on Pop" (by Dr. Seuss) and I collect 300 Fifth Printing copies and 2 Second Printing copies of the book to compare. While comparing them, I discover that there is a line appearing in the 300 Fifth Printing books that does not appear in the Second Printing books.

• Is it more likely that this line was in the First Printing and was only missing from the Second Printing?
• Is it more likely that this line was added after the Second and before the Fifth printing (and was, therefore not in the First printing).

The "Majority Text" says include the line because MOST COPIES have it.
"Textural Criticism" suggests that OLDER IS BETTER.

 

[Paul Timothy]

If I search all the libraries for a copy of "Hop on Pop" (by Dr. Seuss) and I collect 300 Fifth Printing copies and 2 Second Printing copies of the book to compare. While comparing them, I discover that there is a line appearing in the 300 Fifth Printing books that does not appear in the Second Printing books.

• Is it more likely that this line was in the First Printing and was only missing from the Second Printing?
• Is it more likely that this line was added after the Second and before the Fifth printing (and was, therefore not in the First printing).

The "Majority Text" says include the line because MOST COPIES have it.
"Textural Criticism" suggests that OLDER IS BETTER.

And the third option of include it all and note the differences so that people can see the whole picture.

Nice analogy atpollard ... I think the comparison works fairly well.

 

[miamited]

Hi again netchaplain

I think it should also be considered that your argument is against the current translation of the new covenant writings, and not the old covenant, so much.

The old covenant was canonized and established as the 'Scriptures', before Jesus even came to visit us. We do have copies of much of the old covenant writings that we know to be older than Jesus in our discovery of the scrolls found in several caves in the Qumran area of Israel. However, while we pretty well accept that they are accurate, we really can't prove that any word of those writings is actually the word, phrase, sentence written by the writer of the old covenant Autographs. All we can do, by comparison, is to say that what we read today is in exceptional agreement with what has been found in those caves.

We then trust, on faith, most of us because we believe that the Holy Spirit of God has always overseen the work of God's testimony among mankind, that the Qumran 'copies' were faithful to the Autographs of the old covenant writers.

So, let's set everyone's mind at ease that all that is in dispute, in your long list of such disputed words and passages, is only the new covenant writings. Let's also make it clear that while you argue this point, you really don't have any factual proof that one version of the new covenant writings today is or isn't any more or less faithful to the Autographs written by the Jewish new covenant writers (except for possibly Luke, the Acts of the Apostles and maybe Hebrews).

The God I know really isn't worried about a few niggling 'possible' changes or mistranslations, so much as He's concerned that His promise, which is what the new covenant writings tell us about, is spread as far and wide as we can spread it by mouth and deed. I believe that my God is bigger than your god. My God allows that salvation doesn't come from reading the word only, but by doing what it says. Is there some disagreement between you and the fellowship of believers as to what the writings of the new covenant tell us to do or tell us what Jesus has done, between the various translations? If so, please post those and we'll discuss. But in translating such an old piece of work, for which we don't have a single Autograph, I haven't found one of the reliable translations that would fail at doing what God has sent His word to do. Conquer the hearts of mankind.

The white horse of John's account from the Revelation of Jesus, has been riding around now conquering the hearts of men for some 2,000 years. It conquered the hearts of men before the translation that you're espousing was ever written and it has been conquering steady on since, through various other 'new' translations, just as at one time the translation that you're espousing was a 'new' translation.

Do you remember that Jesus said that God sought for us to be merciful more than sacrificial. Yet pretty much the entire old covenant law was about sacrificing animals for our sin. But the point is that sometimes man gets into arguments, as in this case the Jewish leaders focused on the sacrifice part more than the mercy part, that really aren't doing God's work any good, but are merely distractions from His truth.

They also had come up with a bunch of specific parameters that defined the Sabbath and what could be done. Trust me, they thought that they were doing the work of God, yet Jesus was pretty clear to condemn them for such wasted efforts.

God bless,
Ted

 

[atpollard]

And the third option of include it all and note the differences so that people can see the whole picture.

Nice analogy atpollard ... I think the comparison works fairly well.

The irony is that BOTH will have footnotes. One translation will include the words and add a footnote that they are missing in the oldest manuscripts and the other translation will omit the words from the body and insert a footnote that some manuscripts add (followed by the words at the bottom of the page). The translators are not being sneaky or dishonest ... they are just following different "starting rules" for what goes in the text and what goes in the footnote. Each is TRYING to create what they think is as close as possible to the missing MANUSCRIPT (Experts just disagree on some small details.)

[Not a surprise where PEOPLE and 2000 years of copying are involved.]

 

[netchaplain]

Hi netchaplain

If all the Autographs are lost...wouldn't it then be a prudent question for one to wonder how then, you can make the claim that any translation or version is actually true to the Autographs. Can you show me 'how' you know that the majority text was copied word for word what Matthew wrote to us in his work?

That's where faith works the most for believers, is believing that God has preserved His Word in one of the two available sources. The two primary sources of manuscripts for all Bible translations are: Majority Text (contains most of extant manuscripts --5000 plus); Minority Text (contains only a handful of manuscripts, primarily only three manuscripts).

The Minority Text was abandoned for 1500 years by early scribes as being too corrupted for copying usage, for they contained so many variants from most that they were considered unusable; which answers to the reason for them being the oldest manuscripts--they didn't wear out from the repetitious usage of copying like the Majority Text did. Dependable copying is what preserved the original autographs of the NT writers.

 

[miamited]

Hi netchaplain

That's where faith works the most for believers, is believing that God has preserved His Word in one of the two available sources. The two primary sources of manuscripts for all Bible translations are: Majority Text (contains most of extant manuscripts --5000 plus); Minority Text (contains only a handful of manuscripts, primarily only three manuscripts).

Exactly! We believe on faith that the words we read in, well for me any good translation, are faithful in all ways with the intent and understanding of the Autographs. But we really don't know, nor can we prove that any particular word, sentence or phrase was actually written among the words of the Autographs. That's all by faith.

My faith in the God who not only created me, but also loves me, is that He has made it possible that any thinking person can come to find the truth about Him in His word. He has done this by having His Holy Spirit work in and through faithful men and women, just as the late King James did, to produce a copy of His word that speaks to every tribe and tongue and nation. Praise God! Son, he's wiser and smarter than you could ever think to imagine and if He wants us to know Him through His word, He's going to get it out there any way that He can. He's a lot bigger God than the one who can only be found by reading and perusing one manmade translation of His word. Thankfully, He can be found in any number of copies of His word in many different nations and cities with many different tribes and tongues. God is faithful.

Mine was the NIV.

God bless,
Ted

 

[netchaplain]

Exactly! We believe on faith that the words we read in, well for me any good translation, are faithful in all ways with the intent and understanding of the Autographs. But we really don't know, nor can we prove that any particular word, sentence or phrase was actually written among the words of the Autographs. That's all by faith.

We have believe that the Majority Text has preserved the Word of God, even with a few textual problems it also has, but not near as many as the Minority Text has. Only one source is accurate and the other is errant; there are no other sources than these two.

 

[miamited]

Hi netchaplain

There are only two sources of manuscripts all Bibles are translated from: The Majority Text, which contains thousands of manuscript evidence; or the Minority Text, which contains primarily only three manuscript evidences. Of the two sources we can only trust one, for the other is false.

I'm curious why it would be that one must be true and the other must be false when they really both say the same thing, but use some slightly different words, phrases, sentences, etc. Is there some 'fact' that is taught or missed in the Alexandrian text that makes it unworthy to bring people to the knowledge and work of Jesus?

If not, then why can't they both be right, but different?

God bless,
Ted

 

[netchaplain]

Hi netchaplain

I'm curious why it would be that one must be true and the other must be false when they really both say the same thing,

But they in substance, and more than not, do not say the same thing. The detractors must mix true Word with false to be able to deceive, which is the goal of Satan continued from when he said "yea, hath God said." He mixed God Words with his to Eve. Similar to a harvest of wheat containing chaff with it; and similar to rat poison which is 10% arsenic and 90% corn meal.

This has been a behind-the-door activity all through time--attacking God's Word to the believer, because it's the only tangible item from God that Satan can attack. It's the only source believers have for God's guidance!

 

[miamited]

Hi netchaplain

But they in substance, and more than not, do not say the same thing.

Well, could you get to the point? I mean two of us have been asking you what point it is concerning the work of God's salvation for mankind that one can only glean from your 'true' translation. What is it specifically that they say different that detracts from the works ability to pierce the heart of a man and give him the knowledge of God's salvation. I mean, come on, that's the reason God spent 1500 years having His testimony written down. Beginning with Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses and the prophets and then the finished work of His Son for our redemption and ultimate salvation is what the Scriptures are all about. It concludes with telling us how the promise of God, now made complete in Jesus, was then spread among all of the peoples and nations of the time in which Jesus was crucified and resurrected as the first born among many who are faithful to the God of the Scriptures. And finally concludes with an account of 'how' this is all going to work out til we are resurrected and live eternally with Him.

What is it!!!!!????????? That one can't find in your preferred translation that would prevent the work for which God gave us His Scriptures? What is it? I need to know because now you've convinced me that I just have missed all the promise that God has for me because I didn't come to faith using your favorite translation. Please!!! I beg of you. Have mercy on me, a sinner, and explain to me what I'm missing in order to have true faith that I can only get from your translation.

I have no idea what you're actually saying by writing: "But they in substance, and more than that...What? What is the substance and whatever the 'more than that' is do not say the same thing. Explain to me that place of substance in your translation that I can't get from any of the other reliable translations? Tell me what the 'and more than that' is. What is there that is 'more than that' in your translation and not mine?

Why don't you accept that God is bigger than you and that He has already established that His word will endure forever in many different languages and faithful translations. His Holy Spirit is still at work overseeing the work of the great men and women who cobbled together some of the newer translations, as he was when King James assigned that group that he picked to cobble together a translation in his day. What? Did the Holy Spirit just bring us 1600 years out from Jesus and have one final translation done...and then walked off the job?

But really, and I'm not joking or trying to make light of this. I really want to know what piece of substance I'm not getting from God's word using any other translation?

God bless,
Ted

 

[netchaplain]

Hi netchaplain

Well, could you get to the point? I mean two of us have been asking you what point it is concerning the work of God's salvation for mankind that one can only glean from your 'true' translation. What is it specifically that they say different that detracts from the works ability to pierce the heart of a man and give him the knowledge of God's salvation. I mean, come on, that's the reason God spent 1500 years having His testimony written down. Beginning with Adam and Eve and Abraham and Moses and the prophets and then the finished work of His Son for our redemption and ultimate salvation is what the Scriptures are all about. It concludes with telling us how the promise of God, now made complete in Jesus, was then spread among all of the peoples and nations of the time in which Jesus was crucified and resurrected as the first born among many who are faithful to the God of the Scriptures. And finally concludes with an account of 'how' this is all going to work out til we are resurrected and live eternally with Him.

What is it!!!!!????????? That one can't find in your preferred translation that would prevent the work for which God gave us His Scriptures? What is it? I need to know because now you've convinced me that I just have missed all the promise that God has for me because I didn't come to faith using your favorite translation. Please!!! I beg of you. Have mercy on me, a sinner, and explain to me what I'm missing in order to have true faith that I can only get from your translation.

I have no idea what you're actually saying by writing: "But they in substance, and more than that...What? What is the substance and whatever the 'more than that' is do not say the same thing. Explain to me that place of substance in your translation that I can't get from any of the other reliable translations? Tell me what the 'and more than that' is. What is there that is 'more than that' in your translation and not mine?

Why don't you accept that God is bigger than you and that He has already established that His word will endure forever in many different languages and faithful translations. His Holy Spirit is still at work overseeing the work of the great men and women who cobbled together some of the newer translations, as he was when King James assigned that group that he picked to cobble together a translation in his day. What? Did the Holy Spirit just bring us 1600 years out from Jesus and have one final translation done...and then walked off the job?

But really, and I'm not joking or trying to make light of this. I really want to know what piece of substance I'm not getting from God's word using any other translation?

God bless,
Ted

It's ok if you don't believe that all the modern translations removed much Scripture, and changed many passages from what they are supposed to say. All those omissions were proof enough for me that they mixed false doctrine with true doctrine. I'm not on a Bible vendetta but just sharing what I believe is the truth to attempt to help others. Most do not read much of the Word anyway, that's why most don't understand the travesty of this issue!