What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study Why Bible Verses Are Missing In The New Versions

Lewis

Lewis

Member
Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?




Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"


Answer: If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (i.e. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) - you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are: John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have there verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?

The answer is that the translators did not believe these verse should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in 1611 A.D., many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences we added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not it truly belong in the Bible.

Recommended Resource: Essential Guide to Bible Versions by Philip Comfort.
http://www.gotquestions.org/missing-verses.html
 
This post has been edited due to a Rule 9 infraction. Consider this a warning.

Do not retaliate with an emotional response when corrected according to the TOS. A post that is made to disrupt the harmony and peace of this forum will not be tolerated; nor will posts that make derogatory remarks toward the Christian Word of God.


Rule 9 - No Public Posts about Specific Moderator Actions:
You will not post questions or comments about the specific actions of a moderator in a public forum (e.g. editing a post, deleting a thread, banning a member), as this remains a private matter between the member and the staff involved. However, members may PM or email a moderator at anytime. General questions about staff and feedback about moderators are allowed, just not specific questions about a particular moderator action.
 
The answer is that the translators did not believe these verse should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in 1611 A.D., many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences we added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not it truly belong in the Bible.


................................................................. :o :o :o :o :o
 
So, what happened to the inerrent Word of God? Is that dependent upon the abilities of men to compile an accurate Bible to begin with? What kind of a Bible do we finish up with in the end ...one that DID contain errors that are now corrected or one that STILL possibly contains the errors of men? How can we be sure?
 
It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences we added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not it truly belong in the Bible.
Click to expand...

And just what are the "oldest and Best mss"? I know the answer to that. They are called Aleph and B...the Vaticanus and Sinaitcus brought to you by Rome via the Gnostics of Egypt. Found in a trash can (Sinaiticus) at a monastery or sitting on a dusty shelf in the Vatican (Vaticanus) they really have a lot of credence don't they. With entire verses deleted or altered they make for fine textual criticism considering where they came from. They are certainly not the oldest and for sure, not the best. These two books from satan have infiltrated every modern day translation of the only true word of God, the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. What of Colossians 1:14...what happened to "the blood" in this verse? Striken out entirely by many new versions or explained away in a footnote or in the margin. I John 5:13 is gone as well in most new revisions since the turn of the century. Why? translations from the "oldest and best" of course.

These two "oldest and best mss" have their roots in Egyptian Gnostic philosophy in Alexandria and have deleted, added to and in some cases, totally eliminated entire books such as Revelation and most of Hebrews. Oldest and best? These two are nothing but garbage from Hell to deceive the believers and to taint the word of God. The translation committee for the King James Bible had the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus available to them, but had the good sense not to use these corrupt manuscripts.

So, what happened to the inerrent Word of God?
Click to expand...

Simple-pick up and read a King James Bible and you have the inerrent word of God, not corrupted with the textual critics of Westcott and Hort who went on a marking binge to eliminate words, verses and add to scripture in other places. If you have a King James bible translated using the Textus Receptus, you have an inerrent bible. It don't get any better!! All others are sinking sand and lies to perpetrate the philosophical ideas of Clement and Origen... unbelieving Gnostics, and; Westcott and Hort are right up there with them.
 
Revelation 1:11 (KJV) Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Matthew 18:11' not found for version "New International Version" Why?

The NASB may have this verse in some versions but the one I have explains this verse away in a foot note reading, "not found in the most ancient mss" Again, we all know what these "oldest and best" or "most ancient" mss are now just in case you didn't know before.


1John 5:13 (KJV) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Why was this left out in the NIV? Neither does it appear in the NASB. No explaination why.

1 John 5:13 (New International Version)
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Luke 4:4 (KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luke 4:4 (New International Version)
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone. Where's the rest of it? Completely gone without explaination also in the NASB

Romans 13:9 (KJV) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Romans 13:9 (New International Version)
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

What happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness? It's not in the NASB either.

Beginning to get the picture? These modern versions are from the old school of Alexandria where scoffers first started tainting the true word of God. The Lord in three different books of the bible sternly warns against deleting his word or adding to it. Thanks to Westcott and Hort-so hightly lauded for their "scholastic knowledge" we now have a slew of corrupt bibles in the Christian book store and many of those selling these bibles don't have a clue who Clement and Origin or Westcott and Hort were nor had they ever heard of Eusebius or Jerome....I've asked them and they had no knowledge of them. They did before I left.

Are we to believe that Satan, a sworn enemy of Truth, is not going to attempt to disrupt the travel of God's Word through history? Would he dare let the only tangible item which God has left us remain unattacked? No, Satan cannot afford to allow the Holy Scriptures to be unmolested. He will obviously be heard to be its loudest textual critic and will attempt to eliminate God's true Word while replacing it with his own Satanic counterfeit. Unfortunately, he's done an admirable job in todays "modern" bibles.

Proverbs 19:27 (KJV) Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth to err from the words of knowledge.

One of the most deadly perils to which we are exposed, is false doctrine in respect to the principles of religion and morals. It meetsus everywhere, in unprincipled associates, public teachers of error, and corrupt publications. Without constant vigilance and prayerfulness, we cannot escape its fatal influence.
 
Right on David. The only translations that I use are KJV, and the Amplified version. but I have a NIV, and a NASB which this one is a Catholic Bible, and a Masoretic Text, and a NRSV and had many more that I gave away, the last one being the Living Bible, and boy was it corrupted badly, oh and I still have a Good News Bible, Today's English Version, but I don't use it anymore, and I still have my Lost Books Of The Bible, which I keep around to know why certain books were omitted from the Bible, like, The Book Of Infancy Of Jesus Christ, 3rd Corinthians, and much ,much more in that book. But anyway I gave most of them other translations away, to people who did not have a Bible at all, now I am wondering did I do them a injustice. Many people in my church use all kinds of translations, and then you have us that won't budge, off the KJV, I do like the NKJV though, and the Amplified I always use. I gave away my NKJV, and I might get another one, I don't know for sure. For those who want to view the Lost Books Of The Bible, check out these sites. Remember some of these books were omitted from the Bible, and some of them were held in high esteem at one time. But anyway here are some sites, that I found.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/project ... count.html

http://www.carm.org/questions/lost_books.htm

http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
 
I believe the bottom line is this, Lewis. God promised to preserve his word and he didn't make that promise knowinig how heretics and textual critics of his word would get corrupted over the centuries. There is not one positive identification with Egypt or of Alexandria in the bible. All are of a negative connotation for the scriptures declare it.

Genesis 26:2, 47:29-30, Exodus 3:9-10, Numbers 15:41, Deuteronomy 8:14, etc

Who kept the Israelites captive as slaves for 400 years? Egypt. Who had every first born murdered? The Pharaoh of Egypt. There are many instances of people "coming OUT of Eqypt" in the Old Testament. It was a house of bondage, lies and mayhem. Even the New Testament speaks unkindly of Egypt.

Matthew 2:15, Acts 7:34, Hebrews 8:9, Revelation 11:8, etc. The point I'm making is that the modern day versions of the bible have their roots in Egypt-Alexandria to be more specific and it was from here that the Sinaiticus(Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) was developed and the very sources of the so called new Greek text of heretics Westcott and Hort who were instrumental in bringing about all the underlying corruption seen in the NASB, NIV, NWT, and all the others. Would God preserve his word in a country that was identified with the world such as Egypt or Rome? I think not.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbcdarks.htm
 
In my KJ Jesus says that not one jot or tittle will pass away.

And the KJ is over 400 yrs old.

And we have people just now finding fault with it.
Right when the bible says that they will not endure sound doctrine, but change it into fables.

I am so thankful that my God is big enough to have kept His word for me to have.
 
I like the KJV with the so-called apocrypha. The so-called apocrypha did not get there because of Latin tradition, it was from the Septuagint- the Old Covenant scriptures of the Hellenic Jews and the early Christians.

Taking those out is worse than removing certain portions of the TR which are not found in the oldest fragments, and I'll tell you why: The portions of which the critical text edits, removes, or footnotes have legitimate, scholarly counter-evidence.

The removal of the so-called Apocrypha, however, is not based upon evidence, but opinion...and in truth, reactionarianism.

Saint Jerome, one of the greatest scholars of all time, and a true doctor of the Western church, called the books of which I am speaking "apocrypha" or hidden. They were hidden to him because he was reading the Hebrew texts of the Old Covenant. They were not hidden to us in the East because they were our Old Covenant canon right from the first century. Many, many NT quotes, especially from Christ, are Septuagint quotes.

There was essentially no controversy about these books until the 16th century, and then only in the West. Of course, the fact that the West referred to these books as deutero-canonicals (secondary canon, ie lesser) is cause for pause anyway. What exactly does secondary canon mean? Either the books are the measure of truth, or they are not. Plain and simple.

BTW: A little quiz for KJV-only adherents: Why is the second gospel called "the gospel of Mark?"

I'll give you a hint: the source of this is NOT the scriptures.
Now, if you believe that KJV 1611 is the truly inspired English bible, then the translators were absolutely correct in calling this gospel "the gospel according to Mark."

Just food for thought.
Iakovos
 
Again, if the meaning of scripture hasn't been changed by the omission or addition of phrases, then how is the Word of God corrupted? The newer versions, for example, try to make the bible more understandable by the use of today's language. I find very few, if any, of the meaning compromised or contradicted by the newer versions of the bible. But new bibles which paraphrase the Word of God can and do corrupt God's word because they don't leave the interpretation up to the individual but interpret it for the individual.

But those who want to study the bible in more depth are, of course, free to use earlier texts. :) It's much like watching a movie 50 or 100 times. But unfortunately, many times what happens is that the overall meaning is lost because of too much focus on background material. This can happen with bible reading or reading any book, for that matter. We don't want to lose the forest through the trees. :)
 
Heidi said:
Again, if the meaning of scripture hasn't been changed by the omission or addition of phrases, then how is the Word of God corrupted? The newer versions, for example, try to make the bible more understandable by the use of today's language. I find very few, if any, of the meaning compromised or contradicted by the newer versions of the bible. But new bibles which paraphrase the Word of God can and do corrupt God's word because they don't leave the interpretation up to the individual but interpret it for the individual.

But those who want to study the bible in more depth are, of course, free to use earlier texts. :) It's much like watching a movie 50 or 100 times. But unfortunately, many times what happens is that the overall meaning is lost because of too much focus on background material. This can happen with bible reading or reading any book, for that matter. We don't want to lose the forest through the trees. :)
Click to expand...
That's a very balanced statement, but considering you anathemized those who either added to or took away from God's words, or altered them in any way on this very forum last week, you might say I'm a bit confused as to where exactly you stand on the matter.
 
I like the KJV with the so-called apocrypha. The so-called apocrypha did not get there because of Latin tradition, it was from the Septuagint- the Old Covenant scriptures of the Hellenic Jews and the early Christians.

Taking those out is worse than removing certain portions of the TR which are not found in the oldest fragments, and I'll tell you why: The portions of which the critical text edits, removes, or footnotes have legitimate, scholarly counter-evidence.

The removal of the so-called Apocrypha, however, is not based upon evidence, but opinion...and in truth, reactionarianism.
Click to expand...

Excellent point....

The "word" as Protestants claim is only as is after 1611.....

Before that it was a totally different ballgame...

How do we explain this away of God is preserving it?
 
Orthodox Christian their are some Hebrews here in Philadelphia, that believe Jesus is Lord and they preach in center city Philadelphia and they use versions of the Bible that have the apocrypha, I have the omitted apocrypha here myself, I don't use them but from time to time I take a look at them.
And I want to get into a more in depth study of why they were omitted. I have some information here at home, but I want to find some newer information. So sometime today I am going to surf for it. My mother and her mother and my brother and a few more on my mothers side, Are Hebrews, but they don't use the apocrypha, nor do they believe that Jesus is the son of God. They stay in the Torah the most.
 
All these so-called "missing" verses, are generally included in the footnotes.
 
All these so-called "missing" verses, are generally included in the footnotes.
Click to expand...

No thery're not. I have a NIV and a NASB and neither of them have a footnote as to what happened with "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. They both omit that phrase altogether without any further explaination...not even a footnote mention. How many people who deligently search the scriptures read footnotes every five minutes? Why should we have to read footnotes to see what could have been/should have been in the text. People read the text and most will never know if a particular verse has been omitted or changed at all. Even if an explaination is given in the footnote, it's always of a negative connotation..."not found in the latest mss" or "the best authorities omit verse such and such", maybe you'll see, "the two best mss omit this verse".

Why does everyone line up in opposition against the King James bible? Why not attack each other...NIV vs NASB, etc. That's easy enough-satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Matthew 12:26) His desire is to discredit the word of God, not himself, so;he attacks only one book God's book-the KJ bible. It the KJ be not the word of God, why is it the standard all others use for comparison? Are they afraid of it?

Romans 13:9 is another that bears no footnote in the NIV or the NASB that I have. "thou shalt not bear false witness..." complete missing and is NOT in the footnotes.

Matthew 1:25 (KJV) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Yet another area of confusion and elimination. "her firstborn" is omitted. That Jesus was her firstborn indicates that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that others were born of her. The omission here seeks to add credence to the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Bible is clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Well, I could go on but; I can only say that the evidence is substantial if all were listed that's not in the modern bibles. The two I mention have over 17 verses totally eliminated and thousands of word deletions which is why they have less in them. It's sort of like taking out I and 2 Peter...about that much if all were tallied up.
 
You know what Dave, not everybody can read the King James Bible, a lot of people today act like the vernacular of the KJV is to hard to read, I will admit
that some of that vernacular takes some getting use to. Like the words Divers Lust, or Sundry Times, just to name a couple. But by far it is the best Bible, the King James, and the Amplified is all that I use. I want to buy a King James and Amplified parallel Bible, I like those. I had a parallel with four versions in it. It had the KJV, and the Williams version, and the Beck version, and the NASB version, I gave it to my wife's mother. Wish I had kept it just for my collection, because you don't get to see many Williams or Beck versions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top