why is my bible missing acts 8:37?!?!

[Jason0047]

well you did put your foot in your mouth, no matter how hard it is (like how hard it is to read someone and come back with a reply like you did. especially when I states your reply was not the problem)

now to the problem.

the first two times, Jesus uses the greek word phileo ( a lower form of the word love) the third time, jesus uses the highest form of love "AGAPE" and peter could only reply by saying lord you know I "Phileo" you.

of course, you do not care that there is a hugely significant point being made here, which can not be made properly in the English language. so to you, this is insignificant, but I am sure to God. who wrote it, it makes a HUGE difference.

Sorry, you are placing your trust in some guy who is making you think there is a difference when no such difference actually exists in God's preserved Word for today. For God did not show you the men in history who were inspired by God to write out the correct view of what was to be the Word of God. The only true test is in looking at the fruit of what is in the different Bibles. There is no bad fruit in the KJV. But there is plenty of bad fruit in the Modern Versions, though. That is the test; And therein lies the difference.

 

[MarcR]

I'm like "what"about the Vaticanus and Sinticanus... Let's try to stick to basics in just the Word. I love the Bible and how Jesus used the simple to teach us. Even a child can understand it.

Angela,

I am not an apologist for the KJV; but I see another way of looking at the situation.

The 'older' manuscripts: 'Vaticanus', and 'Sinaticus' both come from Alexandria where allegorical interpretation of Scripture was practiced. You probably reject the rantings of the Alexandrian ECF for just that reason.
In addition, both Sinaticus and 'Vaticanus' have internal disagreements and don't agree with each other.

The Syriac, Coptic, and Byzantine texts all come from places where literal interpretation was practiced; and Scripture was treated with respect. These texts, from diverse geographical areas all include the disputed verses.

IMO more recent documents from diverse places all of which treated God's Word with respect are more reliable than two documents from a place that took liberties with God's Word regardless how old they purport to be.


That is why I favor both the Textus Receptus, and the Majority Text over both the Wescott & Hort and the Nestle edditions.

The ESV includes the disputed verses in either the text or the margins; while others like the NIV eliminate them.

LOL

I get this, because I was a bit dumbfounded too. BUT I know the Bible came down through the efforts of a lot of scholars over the years. The Latin Vulgate, was the first Bible written to put the Bible into modern language. The modern language was Latin, so, not so modern anymore. But, in like kind, scholars through the ages keep researching and updating the Bible according to the research they've discovered since the last efforts.

Sometimes the rewrites bring amazingly shocking new insight. (For instance, the guy who wrote the Vulgate, thought a Greek word was "Penance." That's where the Catholic Church got that whole Confession and then say five Our Fathers, three Hail Marys and a couple of Glory Bes was penance thingy. Later on, through archaeological discovers it was determined the word was "Repent." That changed everything.) Sometimes it's just changing language. (For instance, older Bibles say God is awful. Back then, he really was awful, because awful meant full of awe. But through time we changed what awful means, so it had to be updated.)

As it stands now, I can name several versions of the Bible off the top of my head: NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, and Genova. Marc is well studied in the Bible. He goes with older versions than I could possibly understand. It's not a different Bible. It is the Bible, but you have to remember, people in Spain that know Spanish only are not going to read the KJV. It's in English. Just like we're not going to read a Bible in Spanish.

Same kind of thing. Marc is talking the same Bible, just a more scholarly version.

Femalelamb,

The thread is about whether verses have been added to or removed from some versions of the Bible.

The New testament was originally written in Greek. In all Bibles in which the New Testament is written in languages other than Greek, a translation was done from the Greek.

Between the twelfth century and the twentieth century many very old Greek scrolls containing all or part of the New Testament have been found.

In order to determine whether something was added or left out; it is necessary to compare the English with the Greek.


The problem is that some Greek scrolls have more or less than other Greek scrolls.

All the Greek scrolls that have been found have names (much like the way people have names). This makes the individual scrolls easier to talk about.


The names of the two scrolls believed to be the oldest are Vaticanus and Sinaticus.

Some people assume that the older documents must be more trustworthy without looking at other considerations.


My post was meant to suggest that there may be a better way to evaluate which text is more reliable.

atwhatcost,

Thank you for a great attempt to explain all this.

 

[Willie-T]

LOL

I get this, because I was a bit dumbfounded too. BUT I know the Bible came down through the efforts of a lot of scholars over the years. The Latin Vulgate, was the first Bible written to put the Bible into modern language. The modern language was Latin, so, not so modern anymore. But, in like kind, scholars through the ages keep researching and updating the Bible according to the research they've discovered since the last efforts.

Sometimes the rewrites bring amazingly shocking new insight. (For instance, the guy who wrote the Vulgate, thought a Greek word was "Penance." That's where the Catholic Church got that whole Confession and then say five Our Fathers, three Hail Marys and a couple of Glory Bes was penance thingy. Later on, through archaeological discovers it was determined the word was "Repent." That changed everything.) Sometimes it's just changing language. (For instance, older Bibles say God is awful. Back then, he really was awful, because awful meant full of awe. But through time we changed what awful means, so it had to be updated.)

As it stands now, I can name several versions of the Bible off the top of my head: NIV, KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV, and Genova. Marc is well studied in the Bible. He goes with older versions than I could possibly understand. It's not a different Bible. It is the Bible, but you have to remember, people in Spain that know Spanish only are not going to read the KJV. It's in English. Just like we're not going to read a Bible in Spanish.

Same kind of thing. Marc is talking the same Bible, just a more scholarly version.

You're clearly a thinker. I like that.
And, let us not forget that when the Bible was compiled, (canon chosen), the church was not the controlling authority, the state (whish Jesus defied) was. Want to guess who had the final say about which Scripture was included, and which wasn't? The same that decides if abortion is legal today, or not.

 

[Jason0047]

What is dumb here is that people expect that God wants them to know Hebrew and Greek in order to understand Him better. But did God tell the Israelites to learn another language? No. Did Jesus speak in some alien tongue and ask them to seek out the understanding by lots of study? No. Did Paul's letters to the churches written in such a way that they had to learn an entirely new language? No. Yet, folks today like to change things and think God has changed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Sorry, you are placing your trust in some guy who is making think there is a difference when no such difference actually exists in God's preserved Word for today. For God did not show you the men in history who were inspired by God to write out the correct view of what was to be the Word of God. The only true test is in looking at the fruit of what is in the different Bibles. There is no bad fruit in the KJV. But there is plenty of bad fruit in the Modern Versions, though. That is the test; And therein lies the difference.

dude, you just lost any respect I might have even had for you. You are so stuck on your pride and refusing to see truth, you would never see it if it slapped you in the face.

There is a huge difference between the meaning of the words phileo love and agape love, it has nothing to do with how some people might have interpreted them in some greek lexicon. it is a known fact, there are 4 greek words (even in secular greek writtings) which are ALL translated love in any english interpretation of those words.

And, yet it is a HUGE ERROR.

Jesus told Peter. Even though right now, you can not come to say you "AGAPE" Me, I still trust you feed my sheep.

what a more powerful thing that jesus did. Peter needed this, he had just denied christ three times, he needed encouragement, Jesus gave it right here.

Pete could night rightfully say he agape'd jesus, how could he, he just denied him not days earlier. jesus said, thats ok peter. I still trust you,

and what a better way to show us all. even on those days we do not agape God (we can only find phileo, because of something we did causes guilt, or something we do not completely yet tust God in) thats ok. I still have a plan for you and a job for you. go do it.

sorry, the poorly translated english text of the KJV misses completely on this HUGE point Jesus was trying to make, not only to peter. but to us all.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What is dumb here is that people expect that God wants them to know Hebrew and Greek in order to understand Him better. But did God tell the Israelites to learn another language? No. Did Jesus speak in some alien tongue and ask them to seek out the understanding by lots of study? No. Did Paul's letters to the churches written in such a way that they had to learn an entirely new language? No. Yet, folks today like to change things and think God has changed.

what s dumb here is you trust men who wrote some transation 400 years ago who yu have never met, yet yell at us for trusting other men who we have never met who write greek english lexicons, who have studied the origional language in its true form.

thats call a hypocrite.

your trusting men, yet telling us not to trust men. and you are to blind to even realize your doing the very thing your condemning us for.

 

[Jeff_56]

when i devoured/studied/read through and through

during my "first love" of yahshua in yahweh, he taught me the hebrew meaning (the original true meaning) and TRUTH of those things that he wanted me to know that was best for him and best for me.

i didn't argue with him (not about that anyway). just simply trusted him and relied on him as it is written IN HIS WORD (NOT the way of men nor that men say).

and all i had was an RSV BIBLE. learned from the author directly more than any man has taught any man since then, practically.

((re 144))

 

[MarcR]

What is dumb here is that people expect that God wants them to know Hebrew and Greek in order to understand Him better. But did God tell the Israelites to learn another language? No. Did Jesus speak in some alien tongue and ask them to seek out the understanding by lots of study? No. Did Paul's letters to the churches written in such a way that they had to learn an entirely new language? No. Yet, folks today like to change things and think God has changed.

Jason,

Nobody, I am aware of, is suggesting that it is necessary to know Hebrew or Greek. On the other hand, if there were no value in knowing Hebrew and Greek all the publications which help us study these languages would have a much smaller market.

This thread is about whether verses have been added or deleted to some versions of the Bible.

Can you suggest how anyone can address that question without referring to the Greek?

 

[tourist]

My NKJV has that verse.

I am sure that God is fully aware what books the Holy Bible would contain and the minor differences between the various versions and translations. While there may exist slight differences that does not make one version or translation is inaccurate.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I randomly clicked on a YouTube religion video that sounded interesting, and I skipped forward 20 mins for no apparent reason, and it started talking about how a lot of the new bibles are missing passages, mostly dealing with Jesus Christ. A few of the more modern translations are missing up to 16 passages?!?!

The lies in that video should convince you to never click on "KJV Onlyist" drivel again.

The passage are not missing. They are (in the NASB) bracketed because their origins are questionable. In other translations, they are quoted at the bottom of the page, or in the margins. But missing? That's nonsense.

 

[Jason0047]

Jason,

Nobody, I am aware of, is suggesting that it is necessary to know Hebrew or Greek. On the other hand, if there were no value in knowing Hebrew and Greek all the publications which help us study these languages would have a much smaller market.

This thread is about whether verses have been added or deleted to some versions of the Bible.

Can you suggest how anyone can address that question without referring to the Greek?

By doing a huge side by side comparison between the KJV and the Modern Translations. You will see the changes are for the better and not for the worse. In other words, there is bad fruit in the Modern Translations. However, this is not the case with the KJV, though.

 

[MarcR]

By doing a huge side by side comparison between the KJV and the Modern Translations. You will see the changes are for the better and not for the worse. In other words, there is bad fruit in the Modern Translations. However, this is not the case with the KJV, though.

That presumes that we will all come to the same conclusion; and if that were so we would not have this discussion.

in any case, while that might answer whether the changes were justified; it would NOT answer verses were added or deleted.

 

[ivanc0]

This is great material for bible critics, .... keep it secret.

 

[Femalelamb]

Ok wouldn't it serve better if you guys debated privately, and remember to be generous and kind...

http://christianchat.com/blogs/femalelamb/7616-one-church-one-bride-one-god-one-love.html

 

[MarcR]

This is great material for bible critics, .... keep it secret.

You are neither required to discuss it; nor authorized to censure our discussing it.

 

[Jason0047]

God does not lead His people to think they can sin and still be saved. That would not be the Spirit of God leading you, but another spirit.

Dear Bowhunter:

Please take note that I what I said here is in context to IF... you believe you can sin and still be saved type belief. I am not saying you believe that unless of course you hold to any of the deadly 7 beliefs that is commonly held by OSAS proponents.

Do you believe in any of the deadly 7?

Why are you silent on this point?

I sent you a PM of the deadly 7 and would like a response as to what you think on them. If you do not agree with the deadly 7, then you have my deepest apologies (of course). I was saying IF.... you were being led by spirit that was telling to sin and still be saved it is not of God. That is what I was saying. Surely, I am not implying that God would tell you to do wrong. I believe God is good.

 

[Femalelamb]

I realized that but maybe a new bible student wouldn't. Let's be clear is all I'm saying.

 

[p_rehbein]

My NKJV has that verse.

I am sure that God is fully aware what books the Holy Bible would contain and the minor differences between the various versions and translations. While there may exist slight differences that does not make one version or translation is inaccurate.

Silly you............don't you KNOW that God IS NOT capable of preserving His Written Word? Man can corrupt it and God is helpless to do anything about it..............silly you........

What? Well, that's what a lot of folks here believe, don't you?

 

[ctc1989]

Wow, I guess I stirred up a debate... First off I'm not a bot, I'm just a 26 yr old guy who finally, after many years of sin and pain wants to learn about Jesus and god, and sometimes I have questions that I think people on this forum might be able to answer. Sometimes I get really great and informative replies that really help me, and sometimes I get less than stellar replies from people thinking I'm some kind of algorithm generated to screw with people,anyway if any of you still think I'm a bot, please come up to Arlington wi, I'll take you out for coffee.

so I've spent most of my day at the dr. Office, and when I came home I've been looking into this... And I've found a few interesting things..

in one of my comparisons and research (not to be named, look into it for yourself, just google it) I've found that in one of my comparisons that one of the modern bibles I compared it to was missing 17 entire passages and a ton of words changed or missing, words like hell, devil, satan,evil, heaven. I mean those are pretty important words aren't they?

In my opinion after looking at just the surface of this issue, my belief is that this has to be done on purpose.. By who or what its your decision to make. If you think this is all just bull then that's totally fine, that's your decision to make. I had had a question that I asked and some of you were really helpful and encouraged me to do my own research and I think I've found my own answer.

Now for the record I have absolutely no attachment to any particular bible, I've read a few diffrent ones and haven't decided on which one to go with yet, ive gotta do some more research before deciding. I'm not a millionaire so I won't be able to go to an auction and pick up one written in the years after Jesus.

so that's my input on it, I did rewrite this a couple of times, the first couple of drafts were super harsh snd filled with specifics but I figure if someone is super invested in one version or the other who am I to tell them there's something wrong, maybe it would be better if I just said that they might want to do there own research.

 

[p_rehbein]

ctc1989 sez: Wow, I guess I stirred up a debate... First off I'm not a bot


May I ask if you have any Biblical evidence to prove you are not a bot?