...
I don't agree to there being reasons for any missing text. There is a reason it was written in the first place and it's not up to us to change it according to what we feel should or shouldn't be included. After all its God's word.
Take a look at this verse that has been removed. Mat23:14 .... Now just give me one reason for removing it. Instead it should have been emphasized.
I don't agree to there being reasons for any missing text. There is a reason it was written in the first place and it's not up to us to change it according to what we feel should or shouldn't be included. After all its God's word.
Take a look at this verse that has been removed. Mat23:14 .... Now just give me one reason for removing it. Instead it should have been emphasized.
Another disputed passage is in 1 John 5:7. The verse is not found in early manuscripts, and only appears in certain Latin translations. It is therefore included as a footnote in many newer versions rather than in the main text as in the KJV, even though what it says is consistent with the Bible's teaching on the Trinity.
Many people who are accustomed to the KJV (or have been taught by KJV-only proponents) believe that it is the standard and/or that it was translated from the originals. In fact, the KJV was translated from published Greek editions collated in the 1500's and lacks the benefit of research and discovery in the past 400 years. If you assume that the KJV is perfect, you will naturally reject anything different. If you compare both the KJV and the newer translations to an external standard (the original language manuscripts) you will better understand the reasons for the differences.