Missing Scriptures - Why? and who's responsible?

[Richie_2uk]

For all those who read from the NIV - ESV - and NLT bibles. You may want to ask yourself why they completely missed out on these verses below:

1. Matthew 17: 21
2. Matthew 18: 11
3. Acts 8: 37

I'm sure there are more. The question is why? if you read those verses from a King James Bible. You will find those verses are in that bible. Why have they done that? and who is responsible? And whats the reason behind it?

I heard tons and tons of arguments about people running and confusing the minds of new Christians and lots of heckling and mocking and lies about the King James bible. Since these newer bible has come out, it has caused a huge stir, and again confusion as to who is right and wrong. which bible we need to read from and so on.

Many people suggest the verses taking out from the newer bibles are to do with the New World Order, I don't want to go into a deep debate or argument about it. But many will say it's the enemy ( Satan ) working in the world. As we all know as Christians that even Satan knows the scriptures.

I know what I make of this myself. so I'm not throwing this out there for arguments or derailment, or confusion and negative comments. But I myself there is something sinister about it, and Myself I think people need to be aware.

So what are your thoughts on this? Please no arguments, i know it's a lot to ask of you people who enjoy a good fight and argument. But lets be civil, and lets have a good convo on this.

 

[Richie_2uk]

Why are Matt 17: 21 - Matt 18: 11 and Acts 8: 11 missing from the NIV, NLT, and ESV Bibles?

 

[PoxEclipse]

The Light

Codex Sinaiticus

"A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased."

Codex Vaticanus

"The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).

In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus 237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75)."


And not to be outdone...the KJV1611...

Cursory Examination of Original 1611 KJV Title Page Reveals Blatant Obvious Rosicrucian Symbols

[SIZE=+1]"Title: Cursory Examination of Original 1611 KJV Title Page Reveals Blatant, Obvious Rosicrucian Symbols[/SIZE]

Subtitle: We shall look at a number of Title Page symbols in this article which are most definitely occult to the core -- Rosicrucian Occultism -- On the original KJV Title Page. You will see that the entire Title Page is nothing more than a Kabbalist Document, pretending to be Christian. -- Part 1"



And the moral of the story is...

TRUST THE SPIRIT, NOT THE TEXT.

The Father is true, man is not.


Peace.

 

[Richie_2uk]

Re: The Light

Codex Sinaiticus

"A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased."

Codex Vaticanus

"The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries." (The Great Unicals).

In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus 237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts (Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 75)."


And not to be outdone...the KJV1611...

Cursory Examination of Original 1611 KJV Title Page Reveals Blatant Obvious Rosicrucian Symbols

[SIZE=+1]"Title: Cursory Examination of Original 1611 KJV Title Page Reveals Blatant, Obvious Rosicrucian Symbols[/SIZE]

Subtitle: We shall look at a number of Title Page symbols in this article which are most definitely occult to the core -- Rosicrucian Occultism -- On the original KJV Title Page. You will see that the entire Title Page is nothing more than a Kabbalist Document, pretending to be Christian. -- Part 1"



And the moral of the story is...

TRUST THE SPIRIT, NOT THE TEXT.

The Father is true, man is not.


Peace.

Sounds sinister to me. I know the newer versions of the bible are money orientated and driving force. and many will say its to do with NEW WORLD ORDER AGENDA. I was watching a good documentary today about the new world order and bible versions. Was good, but I felt there was a lot of propaganda, and some truth and lies, So I felt after watching it. I was no closer to the real truth.

Codex Vaticanus, seems more on the Catholic side of things. and Even they themselves killed people who tried to read the Geneva bible. The Catholic then, wanted people to come to church to hear them. They didnt want people to have there own bible. So they would kill those who had one of there own.

Many translators were in on the band wagon to try deter people to have there own bible. King James, employed great translators and writers to study the original manuscripts. and authorised for the bible to be sold to anyone who wishes to have one.

There is a huge deep root to all this. and I think we in the modern world need to learn and be aware of the dangers lurking behind the newer bible translations and version. The enemy is not in a rush to cause mayhem, he doing it bit by bit. and we are living in end times.

And it going to get worse, especially when this NEW WORLD ORDER, which the enemy is fully behind. Its already started in some countries, Certain symbols on bank notes has given some clues. Example: on American dollars, you will see a pyramid with suggested the eye of Horus, but its claimed to be the eye of satan. And certain symbols within governmental properties hidden in there flags or logo's for what ever department they are in.

Why Egypt is the crowned place, for evil? This NEW WORLD ORDER relates to the pyramids with that eye? So something sinister is going to go down. and I think we going to see a lot more of it even in our life time.

There will be a great fall, and thats before the return of Christ. that's were all this NEW WORLD ORDER will fall, but by then, many people will have fallen to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

Scary stuff. Keep your focus on God close. Pray daily that you will not fall for satan's plans.

 

[Richie_2uk]

Watch this vid. a little teaser about the New World order Agenda. Up to you to believe it or not. But I think some truths are there in the video, I have a mixed veiw on it. But that's me. I got what I wanted from the video. See what you think,

[video=youtube;BKVRUadV1ns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKVRUadV1ns[/video]

 

[Richie_2uk]

Here is the full version of the video. I know, I know its an hour long, but im sure 10 minutes of your time won't go a miss of your life. its a good watch if you find the time to watch it all, it may surprise you and learn some truths.

[video=youtube;kFtI_mVOXbQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ[/video]

 

[Deadtosin]

Amen brother "those who have ears"

 

[djness]

I guess the same could be asked about John 7:53-8:11.
Most every bible I have seen says

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

So was it added as a feel good story or did it actually happen. It's probably one of the most referenced biblical stories but what if it never actually happened?​

 

[RickyZ]

Why are Matt 17: 21 - Matt 18: 11 and Acts 8: 11 missing from the NIV, NLT, and ESV Bibles?

They aren't, because I don't read from any one version exclusively. And honestly if you're going to be that undiscerning you need to toss your KJV into the pile and learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/et all.

 

[Deadtosin]

I guess the same could be asked about John 7:53-8:11.
Most every bible I have seen says

The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

So was it added as a feel good story or did it actually happen. It's probably one of the most referenced biblical stories but what if it never actually happened?​

that's the lie... the manuscripts they are talking about are the vaticanus and sinaiticus.. (tainted texts) think of it like this 25000 ancient manuscripts have them... 2 do not.. one in the Vatican.. and one that was found of questionable origin in a questionable manner.. which would you trust?

 

[Deadtosin]

They aren't, because I don't read from any one version exclusively. And honestly if you're going to be that undiscerning you need to toss your KJV into the pile and learn Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/et all.

Ricky, I'll take a bible that has accidental translational errors any day over a bible that intentionally distorts Gods Word.

 

[Deadtosin]

[h=3]Acts 8:35-37[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]35 [/SUP]Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

[SUP]37 [/SUP]And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

COMPARISSON



[h=3]Acts 8:35-38[/h]New International Version (NIV)

[SUP]35 [/SUP]Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [SUP][37] [/SUP][SUP][a][/SUP] [SUP]38 [/SUP]And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.




whats missing?

[SUP]37 [/SUP]And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said,
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I will never accept any "version" that omits things like this..

 

[Tintin]

News Flash: the KJV Bible contains some things that aren't in the original language texts. Therefore, the modern versions just remove those. There's no conspiracy. Nothing here but a lack of discernment and the need to jump to conclusions.

 

[Deadtosin]

News Flash: the KJV Bible contains some things that aren't in the original language texts. Therefore, the modern versions just remove those. There's no conspiracy. Nothing here but a lack of discernment and the need to jump to conclusions.

what things? ohhhh you are talking about the vaticanus and sinaiticus.. SMH

 

[Deadtosin]

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief. Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.

 

[TrustInJesus]

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief. Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.

You really appear to know your Textus Receptus.

 

[Deadtosin]

thanks trust, I do like to believe I know quite a bit about it but my brain doesn't maintain tedious facts like that. That particular information is from here.

TEXTUS RECEPTUS…THE MAJORITY TEXT

Before we consider the King James Version (KJV) and a few of the modern translations in use today, let us first consider certain Greek texts from which all New Testament translations are derived. Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These extant manuscripts (MSS) were brought together by various editors such as Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers to form the text known as Textus Receptus, the name given to the Majority Text in the 17[SUP]th[/SUP] century. The most notable editor of all was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) one of the greatest scholars the world has ever known. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries decided to translate the Scriptures directly from Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document. It is vitally important to understand why they did so.

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant:

"The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)

Two Bibles
In his book Which Bible? David Otis Fuller says this about Textus Receptus. Carefully note Fuller's first point that all churches (we could now add all Bible students) fall into one of two basic study categories:

• Those who use a variety of Bibles influenced by the Minority Text (the Nestle/Aland Text). For 45 years I was in this camp: but I thank God I had my eyes opened.
• Those who only study Bibles based on the Received Text (Textus Receptus). I have now joined this camp.

Fuller writes :

"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church. All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)

Why did the early churches of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 16[SUP]th[/SUP] and 17[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text? The answer is because:

• Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
• Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
• Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
• Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
• Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, his miracles, his bodily resurrection and literal return.
• Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

Reverend Gipp comments further:

"The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents themajority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3)

Continuing from page 66 in Gipp's book:

"Professor Hodges concludes, 'Thus the Majority text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text. This claim is quite independent of any shifting consensus of scholarly judgment about its readings and is based on the objective reality of its dominance in the transmissional history of the New Testament text.' " (Ref:B4)

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus:

"Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus Receptus. All criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref3)

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:

"For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC… "Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text… If the critic of your King James Bible is correct in his rejection of the underlying Textus Receptus, then he is also under the greatest pressure to account for its existence. To complain of fabrication is one thing, but to account for its universal prevalence is quite another. Whenever a large body of ancient documents are seen to be in agreement, this inexplicable harmony becomes their greatest evidence for legitimacy. Simple arithmetic confirms that the nearer a particular reading is to the original, the longer the time span will be for descendants to follow. The longer the family is, the older the original source must be." (Ref: E1)

TEXTUS RECEPTUS...THE MAJORITY TEXT

 

[Oncefallen]

[SUP]36 [/SUP]As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [SUP][37] [a][/SUP] [SUP]38 [/SUP]And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.




whats missing?

Typical KJV only rhetoric.......they took verses out.

Quite clearly the number for verse 37 is there with a footnote designation. When you look at the bottom of the page there is the footnote and the explanation.

1. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

The NIV and some other versions simply make it clear that some verses are not in ALL the ancient manuscripts, thus they may (or may not) have been in the original text. Interestingly enough archaeology has unearthed a boatload of ancient manuscripts in the 500 years since the KJV was translated just KJV onlyers choose to be intellectually dishonest and reject the concept that there is a possibility that the KJV may contain verses that were ADDED after the fact. At least the NIV and others inform their readers of the possibility that those specific verses may not have originally been in the text.

 

[Deadtosin]

Typical KJV only rhetoric.......they took verses out.

Quite clearly the number for verse 37 is there with a footnote designation. When you look at the bottom of the page there is the footnote and the explanation.

1. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

The NIV and some other versions simply make it clear that some verses are not in ALL the ancient manuscripts, thus they may (or may not) have been in the original text. Interestingly enough archaeology has unearthed a boatload of ancient manuscripts in the 500 years since the KJV was translated just KJV onlyers choose to be intellectually dishonest and reject the concept that there is a possibility that the KJV may contain verses that were ADDED after the fact. At least the NIV and others inform their readers of the possibility that those specific verses may not have originally been in the text.

yes, IF you catch it you can look at the bottom and you can question if it is really Gods word. I don't WANT to have to back up any one bible. I don't have any stake in this save the fact that there is a real problem. Did you not look at anything else in that? did you not see that there are other bibles from before the minority texts in their completion? did you not see its 5'000 plus? can you think of a single reason to remove that or anything that has to do with Jesus Christ because a couple of guys who despised the textus receptus and dedicated their lives to making something different decided to use a few texts that didn't agree with any of the others even eachother? It's appalling.

 

[Deadtosin]

Once fallen, the boatload of ancient manuscripts they keep finding keep agreeing with the majority texts. The more they find the more it supports the Textus Receptus. That's the amazing thing and you know who gets the credit for maintaining that? GOD.