Bible Problem

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
13,044
3,848
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase , due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).
Some do, some don't. Depending on the publisher and writers. the original translations had no "italics". Once again it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true, but not in enough reliable older manuscripts as to be inserted in more modern literal translations. Some add it as a footnote but then explain why it is not part of the text.

Most people do not realize that entire New Testament can be reproduced but 27 verses from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Evidentially there was enough Greek manuscripts to include the "Johannine Comma" by the KJV translators, because none of it is italicized. You may know that these translators used italics to identify words not found in the manuscripts. It is so the translators could not be accused of trying to add to Scripture, but yet make the translation read correctly. Hence they italicized "the brother of" to show that there are no extant manuscripts that contain this phrase, due to scribal error. The almost all the modern translations retain the omission, and they read that "Elhanan killed goliath" which contradicts 1Chron 20:5, a reiteration that shows "Elhanan killed Lamhi, the brother of Goliath" (no italics here).
Let me repeat. the Greek manuscripts contained no "italics".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grailhunter

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,387
5,362
113
67
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Some do, some don't. Depending on the publisher and writers. the original translations had no "italics". Once again it is a controversial passage. It is 100% true, but not in enough reliable older manuscripts as to be inserted in more modern literal translations. Some add it as a footnote but then explain why it is not part of the text.

Most people do not realize that entire New Testament can be reproduced but 27 verses from the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Let me repeat. the Greek manuscripts contained no "italics".
The Johannine Comma was modified to support the false doctrine of the one God formula of the Trinity.
There are over a hundred scriptures that prove the one God formula wrong.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
13,044
3,848
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The modern translations have about 3000 differences from the Traditional translations by the usage of omissions (most serious), transpositions and interpolations. There is much less Scripture in the modern translations. Most aren't aware that they are a plot to disunify the Body.
Then I await you posting some as you said you would. To make it easy, list just what you consider the most egregious ones.
When we don't read the same Bible that has the entire Word, we won't learn as much. It can't affect our salvation, but severely affects growth in the Lord Jesus (Eph 4:15); and the importance of increasing in the Lord Jesus' walk is so we can be used more by God to strengthen the saved and draw the lost!
No English bible has the entire word, with the exception of Kittles 10 volume. They pick a word and many times do not express the intent of the verb.
Many the omissions are due to the Gnostic writers of these manuscripts attempts to distort the Deity of Christ, e.g. discredits to Christ's omnipresence: the phrase "even the Son of man which is in heaven," showing He's present in heaven while on the earth, is omitted.

Eph 3:9 omits "who created all things by Jesus Christ." Though there are many other passages that teach Jesus is the Creator (God did it through the Word or Jesus) it is of no less significance to omit any Scripture, especially if it reiterates the Lord Jesus' Deified attributes.

There are hundreds of omissions. Very serious!
And what is your evidence that these were deliberate and not just transmissions from a differing source? Yes gnosticism was alive and well and origen and Arius were anti Christo deists, but the RCC was a firm believer in teh deity of Jesus and the vulgate does not have that in their manuscript evidence.

I would like to see some more of the omissions yo consider egregious.
All translations have to use many words that were not found in the manuscripts (the translation isn't perfect but the Word of God in it is). The King James translators were laborious enough to indicate to the reader what were not in the manuscripts by italicization. A highly significant advantage!
YOu need to look at the original KJV bibles. they contain no italics. Those were added much later. And the honest translations use words in English that are single words in the Greek example- storge in English has to be written lover of money, So they are in the originals, just in the language of the day that requires added words to translate properly. It is not adding words per se as using English words to accurately defining the Greek

I know that there are several lousy translations.

but I also know that there are many translations denounced by many that are excellent translations. Example: the NIV.

I had a KJV only guy give me a pamphlet showing th esupremacy of the KJV (which I almost exclusively use) over the NIV. I picked 20 of the verses, placed them side by side with teh NIV and used Strongs Concordance tied to the KJV. The results were 16-3-1 The NIIV translated it into English better 16 times, the KJV 3 and th ey were tied once.
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Johannine Comma was modified to support the false doctrine of the one God formula of the Trinity.
There are over a hundred scriptures that prove the one God formula wrong.
What do you mean by "one God formula?"
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,387
5,362
113
67
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What do you mean by "one God formula?"
Three Gods in one person
It is Pagan....a god having three aspects is common within Greco-Roman Mythology.

I believe in…

God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Full fledged God......Creator of Heaven and Earth.

God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God.....Full fledged God…Messiah…Savior.

God the Holy Spirit…the unnamed God....Full fledged God.…helper….guide….teacher….strengthener

Separate presence, separate minds, three beings.

 

dev553344

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
14,580
17,276
113
USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Which translation of the Bible do you use? Many are unaware that the manuscripts used for the modern translations are highly spurious, because of the numerous differences between them and the Traditional Text (TT). The manuscripts used for the TT (Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, or Received Text) are much latter (5 century and latter) than those used for the modern translations (MT). The MT manuscripts were not used for copying purposes like those of the TT, because they had too many errors and therefore were rejected and did not wear out. This is what allowed the modern text to gain much ascendancy in popularity, due to their antiquity (3-4th century). As there are many differences between the manuscripts use for the MT, due to omissions, transpositions and interpolations, the early church would not use them (Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus).

What we have today now is that there are so many differences in these modern translations that attempting to memorize Scripture is impossible; and you can’t use a concordance with them because of the above problems stated. This produces a much less significant text that many do not know which should be followed, and thus the usual response is not reading them very much.

In the Hebrew text there are no manuscripts that contain the phrase “the brother of” in 2Sam 21:19. But instead of adding this phrase to make it a truthful reading, the MT’s have omitted it as well, making it an errant reading. Thus, it should read “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath.” But the MT has it “Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath,” making it an errant reading in conflict with 1Chron 20:5, which states that “Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath” (the NIV had this omission until correcting it recently).

In David Fuller’s book ”Which Bible,” he states that in the winter of 1928 there was a prominent publication company that had a newspaper come out saying “Who Killed Goliath.” He continues to say that “a cablegram came from the most learned and devout scholars of the Church of England” and they “said in substance, that the Revised Version was correct, that Elhanan and not David killed Goliath; and that there were many other things in the Bible which were the product of exaggeration, such as the story of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, the garden of Eden and the longevity of Methuselah.”

The Three manuscripts mentioned above are pretty much the ones these detractors use for their translations (compared to thousands of manuscripts used for the TT). The Vaticanus was found on a shelf in the Vatican library, which was there unused for 1500 years; the Sinaticus was found at monastery, where a monk was using some of the parchments for kindling to get a fire started. Both of these codexes are the oldest manuscripts (3rd century), and this is why they are given too much attention.

A greater harm these MT’s produce is from their omitting Scripture. For one of hundreds of examples, they omitted the entire passage of 1Jn 5:7, which is the primary Trinity doctrine.

Hope this is enough to get others interested in this problem, and I have a great deal more omissions to share on this if you are interested, just let me know.

God bless and always guide us to truth!

NC
I use the NKJV. I used to use the KJV but noticed it had some problems with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. SteVen

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then I await you posting some as you said you would. To make it easy, list just what you consider the most egregious ones.
Though there are times when there may be only a few manuscript evidence of a passage, it doesn't matter how many manuscripts that do not have a certain reading. If you think the number of manuscripts matter, then the detractors have only 2 primary manuscripts--the Vaticanus (codex B) and the Sinaiticus (codex A or aleph). The Alexandrian doesn't count because its more corrupt than the 2 main ones. The reason why these are the oldest extant manuscripts is because the early church found them to be too inconsistent with the majority of manuscripts. Thus these copies did not wear out like many of the Traditional copies did, as the scribe would copy a script that was becoming illegible, then destroy it to prevent misuse.

I would rather trust a translation with many manuscript evidence (about 3,000 manuscripts, regardless the age) than only 2 or three. The antiquity of the copies are the reason why they are so venerated. They are only good as antiques for the archeologist; and the footnotes expressing the reason why they omit its not a good enough reason for taking away Scripture.

Act 8:37
"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." [entirely omitted].

1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.

Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.

Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.



I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.

Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.

Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.

Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."


If these and hundreds of other omission are insignificant to anyone, they are just ignorant of God's guidance concerning His Word. Not calling names, just being correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: L.A.M.B.

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Three Gods in one person
It is Pagan....a god having three aspects is common within Greco-Roman Mythology.

I believe in…

God the Father…Yahweh…God Almighty…Full fledged God......Creator of Heaven and Earth.

God the Son…Yeshua…the Son of God.....Full fledged God…Messiah…Savior.

God the Holy Spirit…the unnamed God....Full fledged God.…helper….guide….teacher….strengthener

Separate presence, separate minds, three beings.
But these are Three separate Deities representing a triune God. "These Three are One" means they all are in one accord or in agreement.
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I use the NKJV. I used to use the KJV but noticed it had some problems with it.
The NKJV is best of all for reading and it contain the entirety of God's Word, which the detractors of the modern translations cannot claim. They are missing hundreds of phrases and some omit entire passages, few of which I have shown in post #67.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,387
5,362
113
67
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But these are Three separate Deities representing a triune God. "These Three are One" means they all are in one accord or in agreement.
No that is not what people believe, but what you are saying is accurate.
All in one accord.
Godhead.
 

Aunty Jane

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2021
5,572
2,510
113
Sydney
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
"God" is correctly used in the translation, for it is the Greek word "theos."
That depends entirely on which translation you wish to use. I am not a fan of the KJV for all the reasons I have stated, so if you choose that as your 'go to' translation, then there is not much more to say except that its errors are serious ones, and to accept that the translators did not take liberties in translation to support their doctrine, is to deny the facts. Pointing out translation errors in some other manuscripts does not make the KJV flawless.
If one doesn't truly know that Christ, the Son of God did not came in the flesh, he is an antichrist (not suspecting you of course, unless you don't believe this truth -1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7).
Indeed, but this acknowledges that it is necessary to accept that Jesus, "the son of God" "came in the flesh"......not that he was 'God incarnate'. It is very possible to accept Jesus as the divine "son of God" who was born into Adam's family line, without believing that he was God Almighty in the flesh.
To believe that God himself came to this earth in human form, is to misrepresent the mechanics of the ransom and to overvalue the price required for the redemption of the now fallen human race.

An immortal God cannot die.....nor can an immortal pay the ransom for the debt of a mortal being. The overpayment would be tantamount to a thousand, million, trillion cans of bug spray to kill one mosquito.
Many the omissions are due to the Gnostic writers of these manuscripts attempts to distort the Deity of Christ, e.g. discredits to Christ's omnipresence: the phrase "even the Son of man which is in heaven," showing He's present in heaven while on the earth, is omitted.
The deity of Christ is not ever mentioned by him or his apostles. He can be divine without being a deity.
Nor is God ever said to be "Omnipresent". He is Omnipotent and Omniscient, but he is never said to be 'everywhere at once'. His being "all knowing" (omniscient) makes omnipresence unnecessary.

Calling Jesus "theos" (god) in no way suggests that he was one and the same "God" as his Father. John 1:1 does not say in Greek, what is translated into English.

Strongs Concordance gives the primary definition of "theos" as...."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities." So calling Jesus "theos" in no way puts him on the same level as his God and Father. Even in heaven, Jehovah is still called "my God" by Jesus. (Rev 3:12)
Eph 3:9 omits "who created all things by Jesus Christ." Though there are many other passages that teach Jesus is the Creator (God did it through the Word or Jesus) it is of no less significance to omit any Scripture, especially if it reiterates the Lord Jesus' Deified attributes.
We are fortunate to have other scripture that identifies the role of the son in creation....but it in no way makes him "the Creator".

When he was on earth growing up as a human child, he was not endowed with supernatural abilities because he was the son of Mary and it was assumed, the son of Joseph. His own siblings did not put faith in him until after his death and resurrection. He was just their older brother, and because Mary was a widow by the time Jesus began his ministry as Messiah, he was not empowered by God's spirit to perform miracles until after his baptism at the age of 30. The Jewish firstborn son was bound to care for his widowed mother until he was 30 years of age, and as he was dying, Jesus assigned the care of his mother to the apostle John, even though he had fleshly brothers who would have taken over the responsibility.....but as his siblings were not yet believers, Jesus entrusted his mother's care to a trusted spiritual 'brother'. (John 19:26-27)

Colossians 1:15-16 tells us that Jesus..."is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

John 1:2, 3 says..."He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

Proverbs 8:26-31 is also acknowledged by scholars to refer to the pre-human son of God....here he attributes all credit to the Creator and calls himself a "master workman" "beside " his God in the acts of creation.

"While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
27 “When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
28 When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth,

And having my delight in the sons of men."


Father and son are the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26....and just as when he was on earth, Jesus used the power of God's spirit to bring forth creation under his father's guidance and supervision.

There are hundreds of omissions. Very serious!
Yes, and identifying those serious errors is important....but you have to pick your scholars....who do you believe?...and why do you believe them? Are we left in the dark to decide for ourselves? Heaven forbid!
John 6:44 tells us that God will "draw" right hearted individuals to his son....so no one can come to the Christ without an invitation from his Father. (John 6:65) Where does that leave those who are not seen as worthy of God's truth? When "the end" comes, there will only be "sheep and goats" in the world, so at that time we will all have proven ourselves to be either a "sheep" or a "goat"....."Many" will be in for a shock. (Matt 7:21-23)

Since the holy spirit unites Jehovah's worshippers, they would all speak in unity, having no divisions among them. (1 Cor 1:10) They would love the God that Jesus loved, and obey all his teachings. They would also incur the world's hatred, but not because they were law breakers.....they would be out preaching about God's Kingdom "in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations," before the foretold "end" of the current world system comes, when God will "crush" corrupt human governments out of existence and replace them as mankind's only ruling authority......returning us back to the conditions once enjoyed in the garden of Eden. (John 13:34-35, Matthew 24:14; Dan 2:44)

Rev 21:2-4...."And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

Not long to go now I think.... :IDK:
 
Last edited:

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Indeed, but this acknowledges that it is necessary to accept that Jesus, "the son of God" "came in the flesh"......not that he was 'God incarnate'.
"Incarnate" means to be born in the flesh.
To believe that God himself came to this earth in human form, is to misrepresent the mechanics of the ransom and to overvalue the price required for the redemption of the now fallen human race.
I agree on this one. God, which is the Father did not come but sent His Son, Who is as the Father in what He said and did for the Father, for They are one in everything ("These Three are One" 1Jn 5:7). God saw it was a greater sacrifice to send His Son than to come Himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L.A.M.B.

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Act 8:37
"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." [entirely omitted].
Entirely omitted?

Act 8:35-38 NIV
Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 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?” [37] [a] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  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.”
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
1Jo 5:7
Entirely omitted, with the footnote "not found in any Greek manuscripts before the fourteenth century." As I said, the age of a manuscript is irrelevant because it is a manuscript. This was enough for the KJ translators to include it.
Entirely omitted?

1 John 5:6-8 NIV
This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. 1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Act 28:29 Entirely omitted.
Entirely omitted?

Act 28:28-30 NIV
“Therefore I want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!” [29] [a]
30 For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. Acts 28:29 Some manuscripts include here After he said this, the Jews left, arguing vigorously among themselves.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jhn 5:4 Entirely omitted.
Entirely omitted?

John 5:3-5 NIV
Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [4] [a] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I wanted to present 4 entirely omitted passages, and 3 partially omitted passages.

Jhn 3:13 Partially omitted "even the Son of man which is in heaven." The omission detracts a significant truth, that the Lord Jesus was omnipresent in heaven while on earth.

Eph 3:9 "Who created all things by Jesus Christ." This reiteration of the Lord Jesus' creative power is a significant detraction of Scripture.

Jhn 5:3 Partially omit "waiting for the moving of the water."

John 3:13 NIV
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[a]
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. John 3:13 Some manuscripts Man, who is in heaven

Ephesians 3:9 NIV
and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.
Read full chapter

John 5:3-5 NIV
Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. [4] [a] 5 One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  1. John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.
 

Netchaplain

Ordained Chaplain
Oct 12, 2011
2,271
861
113
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Entirely omitted?

Act 8:35-38 NIV
Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36 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?” [37] [a] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

  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.”
It's verse 37 that is entirely omitted. Also, the foot notes don't mean much when they try to explain why they didn't include Scripture. They usually just say that "some manuscripts say," as if there weren't enough manuscript evidence. It could be 1 or two manuscripts, it doesn't matter how many, because they are still manuscripts. The modern translations only use two manuscripts: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus; the third, Alexandrinus doesn't count as it is worst than the other two. The Traditional Text uses over 3000 manuscript copies for their translation.

The sole reason why these oldest manuscripts are so popular is because of their antiquity; a secondary reason why their so popular is because everybody like something new and different. An example of their "differences" from the Traditional Text is listed at post #67.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If these and hundreds of other omission are insignificant to anyone, they are just ignorant of God's guidance concerning His Word.
Ignorant of God's guidance concerning His Word?

Are you referring to the bit at the end of Revelations about the SCROLL of revelations?
How many scrolls are required to make a WHOLE Bible? (at least one for each book)

Revelation 22:18-20 NIV
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
 

St. SteVen

Well-Known Member
Feb 5, 2023
8,942
3,996
113
69
Minneapolis
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
the foot notes don't mean much when they try to explain why they didn't include Scripture.
Didn't include scripture?
I'm guessing you use the KJV as the standard for scripture?

If not enough manuscripts include something, then why include it?
If it only appears in SOME, isn't it dishonest to CLAIM it is scripture?
Why would you claim an insertion by someone at a later date is scripture?