List of Totally or Partially Omitted, Transposed and Interpolated Bible Passages

[Netchaplain]

Most Bible studies will not involve one of the most significant issues of the times, which has to do with modern Bible translations. This issue of course cannot effect one’s salvation, but will effect one’s spiritual growth, not receiving all of God’s Word and being exposed to misleading information.

The majority of those who copied scriptural manuscripts (scribes) discarded a small amount of manuscripts that did not agree with the majority of extant copies. Two sources that were rejected for copying were the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus. The codex Alexandrinus is included but is excessively missing much of the OT and NT, along with much decadence of page condition, torn leaves and lacunae on the edges of almost every page of Revelation.

These oldest manuscript copies just recently became available (19th century) for making translations. The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library and remained perdu for fifteen centuries, until it was discovered on a shelf. The Sinaiticus was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt. A monk was burning some of the leaves (probably to keep warm) when Constantine von Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar, located portions of the manuscript there. He first found some leaves in a waste basket during his initial visit in 1844. A larger portion of the manuscript was discovered during his subsequent visit in 1859.

The recently found manuscript copies did not wear out like the majority of extant copies because they fell into disuse due to the fact that most of the scribes would not use them for copying purposes.

​

Totally Omitted Passages​

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 23:17
Acts 24:7
1Jn 5:7

Partially Omitted, Transposed or Interpolated Passages

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9​

Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 6:4
Matthew 6:6
Matthew 6:13
Matthew 6:18
Matthew 9:13
Matthew 15:8
Matthew 15:6
Matthew 16:3
Matthew 16:20
Matthew 18:35
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9
Mark 1:2
Mark 1:14
Mark 1:31
Mark 3:15
Mark 4:24
Mark 5:36
Mark 6:33
Mark 6:11
Mark 6:51
Mark 7:8
Mark 8:26
Mark 9:23
Mark 9:29
Mark 9:45
Mark 9:49
Mark 10:21
Mark 10:24
Mark 11:10
Mark 12:23
Mark 12:29-30
Mark 12:33
Mark 13:8
Mark 13:33
Mark 13:14
Mark 14:22
Mark 14:27
Mark 14:68
Mark 14:70
Luke 1:28
Luke 2:33
Luke 2:40
Luke 2:43
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:18
Luke 4:41
Luke 5:38
Luke 7:31
Luke 8:43
Luke 8:48
Luke 8:54
Luke 9:10
Luke 9:54
Luke 9:55
Luke 9:56
Luke 9:57
Luke 10:19
Luke 11:2
Luke 11:11
Luke 11:29
Luke 11:44
Luke 11:54
Luke 12:31
Luke 12:39
Luke 17:3
Luke 17:9
Luke 18:24
Luke 19:45
Luke 20:13
Luke 20:30
Luke 20:33
Luke 21:4
Luke 22:31
Luke 22:64
Luke 22:68
Luke 23:23
Luke 23:38
Luke 23:42
Luke 24:1
Luke 24:42
Luke 24:49
Luke 24:53
John 1:14
John 1:18
John 1:27
John 3:13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 4:42
John 5:16
John 6:11
John 6:47
John 8:9
John 8:59
John 9:35
John 11:41
John 12:1
John 16:16
John 17:12
John 19:16
John 20:29
Acts 2:30
Acts 2:31
Acts 3:11
Acts 3:26
Acts 7:30
Acts 7:37
Acts 9:5,6
Acts 10:6
Acts 9:29
Acts 10:21
Acts 10:30
Acts 15:18
Acts 15:24
Acts 15:37
Acts 16:31
Acts 17:5
Acts 18:17
Acts 18:21
Acts 20:15
Acts 20:24
Acts 20:25
Acts 20:32
Acts 21:8
Acts 21:22
Acts 21:25
Acts 22:9
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:6
Acts 24:8
Acts 24:15
Acts 24:26
Acts 25:16
Acts 26:30
Acts 28:16
Romans 1:16
Romans 8:1
Romans 9:28
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:6
Romans 13:9
Romans 14:6
Romans 14:21
Romans 15:29
1 Corinthians 2:4
1 Corinthians 4:6
1 Corinthians 6:20
1 Corinthians 7:29
1 Corinthians 10:28
1 Corinthians 11:24
1 Corinthians 11:29
1 Corinthians 15:47
1 Corinthians 16:22-23
2 Corinthians 4:4
2 Corinthians 4:10
Galatians 3:1
Galatians 4:7
Galatians 5:21
Galatians 6:15
Ephesians 3:9
Ephesians 3:14
Ephesians 5:30
Ephesians 6:10
Philippians 3:16
Colossians 1:2
Colossians 1:14
Colossians 2:2
Colossians 2:18
Colossians 3:6
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 5:27
2 Thessalonians 1:8
1 Timothy 3:16
1 Timothy 4:12
1 Timothy 5:16
1 Timothy 6:5
2 Timothy 1:11
2 Timothy 2:9
2 Timothy 4:22
Philemon 1:12
Titus 1:4
Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 7:21
Hebrews 10:9
Hebrews 10:30
Hebrews 10:34
Hebrews 11:11
Hebrews 11:37
Hebrews 12:20
1 Peter 1:22
1 Peter 4:1
1 Peter 4:14
1 Peter 5:5
1 Peter 5:10-11
2 Peter 1:21
2 Peter 2:17
2 Peter 3:10
1 John 1:7
1 John 2:7
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:19
1 John 5:7, 8
1 John 5:13
2 John 1:9
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:8
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:20
Revelation 2:13
Revelation 2:15
Revelation 5:14
Revelation 6:1, 3, 5, 7
Revelation 11:17
Revelation 12:12
Revelation 12:17
Revelation 14:5
Revelation 15:2
Revelation 16:17
Revelation 18:20
Revelation 20:9
Revelation 20:12
Revelation 21:24
Revelation 22:19

 

[Deborah_]

In any decent edition of a modern translation, you can read these "omissions" either in footnotes or in other chapters of Scripture.

The "lack" of them hasn't hindered my spiritual growth.

 

[Netchaplain]

In any decent edition of a modern translation, you can read these "omissions" either in footnotes or in other chapters of Scripture.

The "lack" of them hasn't hindered my spiritual growth.

Hi, and thanks for your reply! The footnotes are just misleading excuses! These translations are briefed due to omissions, and just enough not to be noticed to those who do not read and study the Word much.

It reminds me of rat poison, which is 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. In my opinion the translation problem is a travesty (:a debased, distorted, or grossly inferior imitation--Merriam Webster).

It's also obvious now days that most believers do not read much of the Word. May God cause believers to have more desire to study the Scriptures, esp. Paul's Epistles (Romans-Philemon) from which the majority of spiritual growth is received.

One truth is certain, believers are not receiving all of God's Word in these translations (Mat 4:4).

 

[IndianaRob]

Hi, and thanks for your reply! The footnotes are just misleading excuses! These translations are briefed due to omissions, and just enough not to be noticed to those who do not read and study the Word much.

It reminds me of rat poison, which is 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. In my opinion the translation problem is a travesty (:a debased, distorted, or grossly inferior imitation--Merriam Webster).

It's also obvious now days that most believers do not read much of the Word. May God cause believers to have more desire to study the Scriptures, esp. Paul's Epistles (Romans-Philemon) from which the majority of spiritual growth is received.

One truth is certain, believers are not receiving all of God's Word in these translations (Mat 4:4).

A little leaven leaven’s the whole lump. Just as true today as it was then. One missing word/verse or “a better translation” affects the doctrine which affects the nest doctrine which affects the next doctrine until the whole lump leavened.

 

[Deborah_]

Hi, and thanks for your reply! The footnotes are just misleading excuses! These translations are briefed due to omissions, and just enough not to be noticed to those who do not read and study the Word much.

Actually, I read and study the Word A LOT. I am familiar with all these "missing" verses - because I have read them in the NIV! And I have yet to find a doctrine missing from the NIV.

 

[Netchaplain]

Actually, I read and study the Word A LOT. I am familiar with all these "missing" verses - because I have read them in the NIV! And I have yet to find a doctrine missing from the NIV.

The NIV uses the same source as all the other modern translations, e.g. 1Jn 5:7--"For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One."

All they have is "For there are three that testify."

The Trinity comes out most in this verse. The modern translation is saying fore v 7 "For there are three that testify." Then they go to v 8 and say "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

The modern passages do not attribute the Trinity as the Three witnesses, which effects this doctrinal teaching.


Another careless translation is 2Sam 21:19. It reads "Elhanan killed Goliath," but it's supposed to read here that "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." This is confirmed by 1Chron 20:5 which states "Elhanan killed Goliath."

Another doctrinal problem (and there are many) concerns the omnipresence of the Lord Jesus. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." Jesus is saying here that He was in heaven while He was on the earth. The modern translations omit the phrase "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I could go on for weeks with this problem, as you see in the OP. I'm not attempting to make anyone look foolish but just informing with what I see it truth.

Thanks Deb for your reply!

 

[Netchaplain]

A little leaven leaven’s the whole lump. Just as true today as it was then. One missing word/verse or “a better translation” affects the doctrine which affects the nest doctrine which affects the next doctrine until the whole lump leavened.

Very true and very good point Brother! The modern translations make me think of rat poison, which is made with 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. They are not missing too large of pieces of Scripture, so most might not realize that any missing Scripture is a lack the Word of God (Mat 4:4).

 

[Deborah_]

The NIV uses the same source as all the other modern translations, e.g. 1Jn 5:7--"For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One."

All they have is "For there are three that testify."

The Trinity comes out most in this verse. The modern translation is saying fore v 7 "For there are three that testify." Then they go to v 8 and say "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

The modern passages do not attribute the Trinity as the Three witnesses, which effects this doctrinal teaching.


Another careless translation is 2Sam 21:19. It reads "Elhanan killed Goliath," but it's supposed to read here that "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." This is confirmed by 1Chron 20:5 which states "Elhanan killed Goliath."

Another doctrinal problem (and there are many) concerns the omnipresence of the Lord Jesus. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." Jesus is saying here that He was in heaven while He was on the earth. The modern translations omit the phrase "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I could go on for weeks with this problem, as you see in the OP. I'm not attempting to make anyone look foolish but just informing with what I see it truth.

Thanks Deb for your reply!

There is indeed a lot of argument over the "Johannine comma" in I John 5:7. Suffice it to say that there is very good evidence that John never wrote it. We don't need it to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity (and it was never quoted to support that doctrine in the early centuries of the Church when these things were under intense debate). But I doubt that we shall agree!

Looking at II Samuel 21:19 and I Chronicles 20:5 - I think you have got confused here. I Chronicles states that Elhanan "killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath". In my NIV, II Samuel agrees (but there is a footnote to say that the word 'brother' has probably slipped out of the text). And we all know that it was David who killed Goliath!

" "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." Jesus is saying here that He was in heaven while He was on the earth."

Do you really believe that??? Doesn't sound orthodox to me. If the text is genuine, it sounds like a comment by John (there's no indication in the Greek as to where exactly the words of Jesus to Nicodemus end and the words of the evangelist begin).

 

[PS95]

Most Bible studies will not involve one of the most significant issues of the times, which has to do with modern Bible translations. This issue of course cannot effect one’s salvation, but will effect one’s spiritual growth, not receiving all of God’s Word and being exposed to misleading information.

The majority of those who copied scriptural manuscripts (scribes) discarded a small amount of manuscripts that did not agree with the majority of extant copies. Two sources that were rejected for copying were the codex Vaticanus and the codex Sinaiticus. The codex Alexandrinus is included but is excessively missing much of the OT and NT, along with much decadence of page condition, torn leaves and lacunae on the edges of almost every page of Revelation.

These oldest manuscript copies just recently became available (19th century) for making translations. The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library and remained perdu for fifteen centuries, until it was discovered on a shelf. The Sinaiticus was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai in Egypt. A monk was burning some of the leaves (probably to keep warm) when Constantine von Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar, located portions of the manuscript there. He first found some leaves in a waste basket during his initial visit in 1844. A larger portion of the manuscript was discovered during his subsequent visit in 1859.

The recently found manuscript copies did not wear out like the majority of extant copies because they fell into disuse due to the fact that most of the scribes would not use them for copying purposes.

Totally Omitted Passages​

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 23:17
Acts 24:7
1Jn 5:7

Partially Omitted, Transposed or Interpolated Passages

Matthew 1:25
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9​

Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 6:4
Matthew 6:6
Matthew 6:13
Matthew 6:18
Matthew 9:13
Matthew 15:8
Matthew 15:6
Matthew 16:3
Matthew 16:20
Matthew 18:35
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 20:7
Matthew 20:16
Matthew 20:22, 23
Matthew 21:12
Matthew 22:13
Matthew 23:4
Matthew 23:8
Matthew 23:19
Matthew 24:7
Matthew 25:13
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 26:60
Matthew 27:24
Matthew 27:35
Matthew 27:64
Matthew 28:2
Matthew 28:6
Matthew 28:9
Mark 1:2
Mark 1:14
Mark 1:31
Mark 3:15
Mark 4:24
Mark 5:36
Mark 6:33
Mark 6:11
Mark 6:51
Mark 7:8
Mark 8:26
Mark 9:23
Mark 9:29
Mark 9:45
Mark 9:49
Mark 10:21
Mark 10:24
Mark 11:10
Mark 12:23
Mark 12:29-30
Mark 12:33
Mark 13:8
Mark 13:33
Mark 13:14
Mark 14:22
Mark 14:27
Mark 14:68
Mark 14:70
Luke 1:28
Luke 2:33
Luke 2:40
Luke 2:43
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:18
Luke 4:41
Luke 5:38
Luke 7:31
Luke 8:43
Luke 8:48
Luke 8:54
Luke 9:10
Luke 9:54
Luke 9:55
Luke 9:56
Luke 9:57
Luke 10:19
Luke 11:2
Luke 11:11
Luke 11:29
Luke 11:44
Luke 11:54
Luke 12:31
Luke 12:39
Luke 17:3
Luke 17:9
Luke 18:24
Luke 19:45
Luke 20:13
Luke 20:30
Luke 20:33
Luke 21:4
Luke 22:31
Luke 22:64
Luke 22:68
Luke 23:23
Luke 23:38
Luke 23:42
Luke 24:1
Luke 24:42
Luke 24:49
Luke 24:53
John 1:14
John 1:18
John 1:27
John 3:13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 4:42
John 5:16
John 6:11
John 6:47
John 8:9
John 8:59
John 9:35
John 11:41
John 12:1
John 16:16
John 17:12
John 19:16
John 20:29
Acts 2:30
Acts 2:31
Acts 3:11
Acts 3:26
Acts 7:30
Acts 7:37
Acts 9:5,6
Acts 10:6
Acts 9:29
Acts 10:21
Acts 10:30
Acts 15:18
Acts 15:24
Acts 15:37
Acts 16:31
Acts 17:5
Acts 18:17
Acts 18:21
Acts 20:15
Acts 20:24
Acts 20:25
Acts 20:32
Acts 21:8
Acts 21:22
Acts 21:25
Acts 22:9
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:6
Acts 24:8
Acts 24:15
Acts 24:26
Acts 25:16
Acts 26:30
Acts 28:16
Romans 1:16
Romans 8:1
Romans 9:28
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:6
Romans 13:9
Romans 14:6
Romans 14:21
Romans 15:29
1 Corinthians 2:4
1 Corinthians 4:6
1 Corinthians 6:20
1 Corinthians 7:29
1 Corinthians 10:28
1 Corinthians 11:24
1 Corinthians 11:29
1 Corinthians 15:47
1 Corinthians 16:22-23
2 Corinthians 4:4
2 Corinthians 4:10
Galatians 3:1
Galatians 4:7
Galatians 5:21
Galatians 6:15
Ephesians 3:9
Ephesians 3:14
Ephesians 5:30
Ephesians 6:10
Philippians 3:16
Colossians 1:2
Colossians 1:14
Colossians 2:2
Colossians 2:18
Colossians 3:6
1 Thessalonians 1:1
1 Thessalonians 5:27
2 Thessalonians 1:8
1 Timothy 3:16
1 Timothy 4:12
1 Timothy 5:16
1 Timothy 6:5
2 Timothy 1:11
2 Timothy 2:9
2 Timothy 4:22
Philemon 1:12
Titus 1:4
Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 2:7
Hebrews 7:21
Hebrews 10:9
Hebrews 10:30
Hebrews 10:34
Hebrews 11:11
Hebrews 11:37
Hebrews 12:20
1 Peter 1:22
1 Peter 4:1
1 Peter 4:14
1 Peter 5:5
1 Peter 5:10-11
2 Peter 1:21
2 Peter 2:17
2 Peter 3:10
1 John 1:7
1 John 2:7
1 John 4:3
1 John 4:9
1 John 4:19
1 John 5:7, 8
1 John 5:13
2 John 1:9
Jude 1:25
Revelation 1:8
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:20
Revelation 2:13
Revelation 2:15
Revelation 5:14
Revelation 6:1, 3, 5, 7
Revelation 11:17
Revelation 12:12
Revelation 12:17
Revelation 14:5
Revelation 15:2
Revelation 16:17
Revelation 18:20
Revelation 20:9
Revelation 20:12
Revelation 21:24
Revelation 22:19

That's quite the list - thank you for it.
I mainly use both NASB and NKJV and I have others as well, but tend to stick with those two-
Some of those verses I knew about, -but I am going to look up each verse you've given and compare.

I can't say that this is a good circumstance for Christians to have to deal with- but I do not see a conspiracy. Rather than allowing it to cause divisions--I see that we've been given a challenge- and there really is no good way to solve it-
other than understanding both views by being informed. .
I know that older does not always means better- ECF's spoke about the "Paul only" gnostics altering - how can we be sure of anything then? I think we look to the EFC's.. and I think we need to trust that God wanted us to have truth. I do.
It's not as if the kjv and nasb vary so much that anything is lost. You may disagree, if so show me? I'm open to changing my mind.

One question for you- which KJV are you referring to? IOW Can I compare with my NKJV? I don't understand why some kjv only also oppose the Nkjv--Since they used the same Greek text as kjv- how can it be much different?
My NKJV states-
the Greek text used for NT is the one followed by the KJ translators - the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches, called Received text or TR first published in 1516.
Footnotes indicate significant variants found in the 2 other editions of the Greek NT:
1 ) NU- text... (explanations)
2) M- text .......... "
The notes of the NKJV make no attempt to evaluate variants- but seek to only present the
facts objectively.

I respect that statement. I want to know the variants.

I'm not a fan of the archaic language of the 1611. I hate it. I find it confusing--

 

[PS95]

Very true and very good point Brother! The modern translations make me think of rat poison, which is made with 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. They are not missing too large of pieces of Scripture, so most might not realize that any missing Scripture is a lack the Word of God (Mat 4:4).

Maybe you can help that brother out from indiana. He insists that Jesus' resurrection was His return.....

 

[IndianaRob]

Maybe you can help that brother out from indiana. He insists that Jesus' resurrection was His return.....

I welcome any King James Bible arguments against the resurrection of Jesus being the second coming.

 

[PS95]

I welcome any King James Bible arguments against the resurrection of Jesus being the second coming.

See my reply here, Rob--

When the Pulpit Becomes a Paycheck

Jesus did say, “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11: 26), but He qualified that statement by explaining exactly what He meant during the very same conversation. Just one verse earlier, He said, “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (John...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[IndianaRob]

See my reply here, Rob--

When the Pulpit Becomes a Paycheck

Jesus did say, “whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (John 11: 26), but He qualified that statement by explaining exactly what He meant during the very same conversation. Just one verse earlier, He said, “he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (John...

www.christianityboard.com

I did and I replied there.

 

[Wish-it]

The NIV uses the same source as all the other modern translations, e.g. 1Jn 5:7--"For there are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One."

All they have is "For there are three that testify."

The Trinity comes out most in this verse. The modern translation is saying fore v 7 "For there are three that testify." Then they go to v 8 and say "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

The modern passages do not attribute the Trinity as the Three witnesses, which effects this doctrinal teaching.


Another careless translation is 2Sam 21:19. It reads "Elhanan killed Goliath," but it's supposed to read here that "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." This is confirmed by 1Chron 20:5 which states "Elhanan killed Goliath."

Another doctrinal problem (and there are many) concerns the omnipresence of the Lord Jesus. "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." Jesus is saying here that He was in heaven while He was on the earth. The modern translations omit the phrase "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."

I could go on for weeks with this problem, as you see in the OP. I'm not attempting to make anyone look foolish but just informing with what I see it truth.

Thanks Deb for your reply!

So is there a particular Bible you prefer to use. One of the major things I struggle with in scripture is the use of the term "whole world" , "Earth", "mankind" etc. Their use seems incorrect in many scripture versions.

 

[Netchaplain]

One question for you- which KJV are you referring to? IOW Can I compare with my NKJV? I don't understand why some kjv only also oppose the Nkjv--Since they used the same Greek text as kjv- how can it be much different?
My NKJV states-
the Greek text used for NT is the one followed by the KJ translators - the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches, called Received text or TR first published in 1516.
Footnotes indicate significant variants found in the 2 other editions of the Greek NT:
1 ) NU- text... (explanations)
2) M- text .......... "
The notes of the NKJV make no attempt to evaluate variants- but seek to only present the
facts objectively.

Hi PS! To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct; they are too different from one another and only one can claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be the translation (I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word).

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them because the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). The translation is not perfect, but God's Word in the translation is complete (perfect), if it contains all of the Scriptures.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available, until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use, mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to also change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.) Thus, when they footnote that a passage or words should not be there, they are claiming that the Traditional version is adding words that are not found in the Minority Text. There was no Minority Text before this discovery. Why would God allow at any time, esp. for half a millennium, which His children would be without His Word.


"Does the NKJV use the oldest manuscripts? No, the New King James Version (NKJV) does not use the oldest Greek manuscripts" -Google AI (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text—NC)

"The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI

The Textus Receptus and the Majority Text make up both the KJV and NKJV! —NC

 

[PS95]

Hi PS! To me the footnotes in the modern versions creates doubt concerning God's Word. They are saying these words shouldn't be in the Traditional Bible. The foot notes in the Traditional translation are saying the words should be there.

There are only 2 Bible manuscript text of copies (there are no extant original manuscripts) which makes it simple to realize which one is correct; they are too different from one another to claim which is the Word of God because He has given us His promise that His Word will be the translation (I say "the translation" because there is only one complete unaltered version of God's Word).

The "omissions" alone in the modern versions disqualifies them because the Lord Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mat 4:4). The translation is not perfect, but God's Word in the translation is complete (perfect), if it contains all of the Scriptures.

God allowed almost 500 years to pass with His Word to us, which there were only one set of manuscripts available, until they recently found the corrupted manuscripts that no copier would use, mainly because they were missing excessive passages (the modern translators took their liberty to change this translation via interpolations and transpositions.) Thus, when they footnote that a passage or words should not be there, they are claiming that the Traditional version is adding words that are not found in the Minority Text. There was no Minority Text before this discovery. Why would God allow at any time, esp. for half a millennium, which His children would be without His Word.


"Does the NKJV use the oldest manuscripts? No, the New King James Version (NKJV) does not use the oldest Greek manuscripts" (Minority Text, aka, Alexandrian corrupted Text--NC) -Google AI

"The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are based on the Textus Receptus, a traditional Greek text that reflects the Byzantine manuscript tradition." -Google AI

Thank you- I am aware of most of that now. I found it interesting that Arians had control of manuscripts for 50 years. Do I think that they would stoop to alter the texts? Well our modern day Arians do. I hesitate to call JWs Arians because they are WORSE than they were.
I was also intrigued by the people who lived in the mountain of Italy- I have forgotten the name.. It began with a W and didn't sound Italian.
I only own a NKJV not a KJV so I have the footnotes in both NASB and NKJV. YES, they do cast doubts.
I find Cyprian's quote of the comma to be remarkable and so I'm unsure as to why that it's disregarded..

it's funny you just revived this thread. I was going through the differences and one that stood
out to me was 1 John 3:9 and 5:18- the addition of continually /practicing as compared to the NKJV which adds nothing.
It does change the meaning of the thought there IMHO
Where nothing is added-- I have always took that to mean that when we are abiding in Him (walking in the Spirit)_we don't and can not sin.- God keeps us.
As opposed to- when we walk in the flesh- that's when we do sin- we stopped "abiding" even if it was just 7 hours..
I see that in my own life.
Does that make sense to you? If so, what do you make of the added word?

 

[Netchaplain]

As opposed to- when we walk in the flesh- that's when we do sin- we stopped "abiding" even if it was just 7 hours..
I see that in my own life.
Does that make sense to you? If so, what do you make of the added word?

It's my understanding that what's in our heart is what God is after, because that's where our treasure is: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Mat 6:21). After Paul was saved he realized that he still had the sin nature ("old man"). That's why he kept saying he didn't want to sin. Thus, what he wanted (not to sin) was the treasure in his heart. God knows we do not want to sin and that's where He wants us, not desiring to sin even though He knows we will; it's also the reason we do not see Scripture that relates believers as "sinners" (1Pe 4:18).

What do you mean by the added word? Thanks for your instructional replies.

 

[IndianaRob]

Very true and very good point Brother! The modern translations make me think of rat poison, which is made with 90% cornmeal and 10% arsenic. They are not missing too large of pieces of Scripture, so most might not realize that any missing Scripture is a lack the Word of God (Mat 4:4).

The Bible is the DNA of the second born man. I believe many people are saved but very few of them are born again.

It’s like the children of Israel in the wilderness. All of them were covered by the blood, but only two of the original generation were allowed into the promised land.

That was a foreshadow of the church where the church member who is saved but not born again can’t enter into the promised land of heavenly Jerusalem.

They don’t even know what heavenly Jerusalem is. Until a saved is born again by the incorruptible word of God, they can’t enter in, they can’t even see it all around them.

 

[David Lamb]

The Bible is the DNA of the second born man. I believe many people are saved but very few of them are born again.

It’s like the children of Israel in the wilderness. All of them were covered by the blood, but only two of the original generation were allowed into the promised land.

That was a foreshadow of the church where the church member who is saved but not born again can’t enter into the promised land of heavenly Jerusalem.

They don’t even know what heavenly Jerusalem is. Until a saved is born again by the incorruptible word of God, they can’t enter in, they can’t even see it all around them.

But Jesus said that the new birth is essential. The idea that people can be saved without being born again doesn't make sense. Writing to the Christians in Ephesus, Paul said:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:1-6 NKJV)

Yes, God had made them alive - another way of saying "born again." You cannot be truly saved unless you have new life in Christ.

 

[IndianaRob]

But Jesus said that the new birth is essential. The idea that people can be saved without being born again doesn't make sense. Writing to the Christians in Ephesus, Paul said:

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”

“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,” (Eph 2:1-6 NKJV)

Yes, God had made them alive - another way of saying "born again." You cannot be truly saved unless you have new life in Christ.

Being made alive is our resurrection from being dead in our sin to eternal life. Being born again comes by reading the Bible and listening to solid biblically sound preaching. Those words form the new man, the spiritual man.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.