HERE IS PROOF THAT THE NEW BIBLES REMOVE WORDS

[DougE]

[John 16:16 KJV] "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
[John 16:17 KJV] "Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?"
[John 16:16 ESV] ""A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me.""
[John 16:17 ESV] "So some of his disciples said to one another, "What is this that he says to us, 'A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me'; and, 'because I am going to the Father'?""

Jesus says he goes to the Father in verse 16 of the KJV.
In verse 17 the disciples repeat FULLY what Jesus said. Jesus saying he goes to the father is included by his disciples in verse 17, along with all else he said.

Jesus saying his going to the Father is missing in verse 16 of the ESV. In verse 17 the disciples repeat all that Jesus said, which includes him saying going to the Father. The disciples are repeating that Jesus said he would go to the Father, yet according to the ESV, he didn't say it!
This proves Jesus saying he would go to the Father was indeed in verse 16, but WAS REMOVED!

 

[Curtis]

(KJV) 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.

What does the (ESV) Act 8:37 version say?

 

[Curtis]

In some cases, this textual analysis has led scholars to recognize certain verses as probable later additions by scribes rather than original Scripture. So modern translations may weigh the manuscript evidence differently and conclude a verse found in the KJV was not in the earliest texts, leading it to be removed.

Examples of Verses Removed​

Here are some significant examples of verses included in the KJV but generally omitted from modern translations due to weak manuscript support:

• Matthew 17:21 – “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
• Matthew 18:11 – “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
• Matthew 23:14 – “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
• Mark 7:16 – “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
• Mark 9:44, 46 – Parallel passages describing hell that are identical to verse 48.
• Mark 15:28 – “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
• Mark 16:9-20 – The longer ending describing Christ’s post-resurrection appearances.
• Luke 17:36 – “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
• Luke 23:17 – “For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.”
• John 5:4 – “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
• Acts 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.”
• Acts 15:34 – “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”
• Acts 24:7 – “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.”
• Acts 28:29 – “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”
• Romans 16:24 – “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

 

[DougE]

(KJV) 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.

What does the (ESV) Act 8:37 version say?

[Acts 8:37 ESV] ""
It's missing

Here is there footnote
Footnote: Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The ESV related footnote for 8:36 states:
Some manuscripts add all or most of verse 37: And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

They even say the verse was added which is pure speculation because we dont have the original autographs to assert that

 

[DougE]

In some cases, this textual analysis has led scholars to recognize certain verses as probable later additions by scribes rather than original Scripture. So modern translations may weigh the manuscript evidence differently and conclude a verse found in the KJV was not in the earliest texts, leading it to be removed.

Examples of Verses Removed​

Here are some significant examples of verses included in the KJV but generally omitted from modern translations due to weak manuscript support:

• Matthew 17:21 – “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
• Matthew 18:11 – “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”
• Matthew 23:14 – “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”
• Mark 7:16 – “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
• Mark 9:44, 46 – Parallel passages describing hell that are identical to verse 48.
• Mark 15:28 – “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
• Mark 16:9-20 – The longer ending describing Christ’s post-resurrection appearances.
• Luke 17:36 – “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”
• Luke 23:17 – “For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.”
• John 5:4 – “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”
• Acts 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.”
• Acts 15:34 – “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”
• Acts 24:7 – “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands.”
• Acts 28:29 – “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”
• Romans 16:24 – “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

Its more likely that words/verses were removed
Please refute this HERE IS PROOF THAT THE NEW BIBLES REMOVE WORDS

 

[KingJ]

[John 16:16 KJV] "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
[John 16:17 KJV] "Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?"
[John 16:16 ESV] ""A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me.""
[John 16:17 ESV] "So some of his disciples said to one another, "What is this that he says to us, 'A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me'; and, 'because I am going to the Father'?""

Jesus says he goes to the Father in verse 16 of the KJV.
In verse 17 the disciples repeat FULLY what Jesus said. Jesus saying he goes to the father is included by his disciples in verse 17, along with all else he said.

Jesus saying his going to the Father is missing in verse 16 of the ESV. In verse 17 the disciples repeat all that Jesus said, which includes him saying going to the Father. The disciples are repeating that Jesus said he would go to the Father, yet according to the ESV, he didn't say it!
This proves Jesus saying he would go to the Father was indeed in verse 16, but WAS REMOVED!

This does not prove corruption or removal of doctrine. It simply shows a textual variant and a stylistic difference in translation.

The ESV translators are working from Greek manuscripts where “because I go to the Father” is absent in John 16:16, while the KJV follows later Byzantine manuscripts where the phrase is included. But notice something important: the meaning of the passage is still fully preserved in context because verse 17 immediately repeats and clarifies what Jesus said.

In other words, no doctrine is lost. Jesus still says He is going to the Father in the surrounding context (John 16:5, 10, 17, 28). The disciples clearly understood that this was part of His teaching.

This is actually a good example of why context matters more than obsessing over isolated wording differences. The ESV is not denying that Jesus went to the Father. The passage itself still teaches it plainly.

 

[DougE]

This does not prove corruption or removal of doctrine. It simply shows a textual variant and a stylistic difference in translation.

The ESV translators are working from Greek manuscripts where “because I go to the Father” is absent in John 16:16, while the KJV follows later Byzantine manuscripts where the phrase is included. But notice something important: the meaning of the passage is still fully preserved in context because verse 17 immediately repeats and clarifies what Jesus said.

In other words, no doctrine is lost. Jesus still says He is going to the Father in the surrounding context (John 16:5, 10, 17, 28). The disciples clearly understood that this was part of His teaching.

This is actually a good example of why context matters more than obsessing over isolated wording differences. The ESV is not denying that Jesus went to the Father. The passage itself still teaches it plainly.

You really have to grasp at straws to avoid the fact that a word has been removed from a Bible

The fact is indeed there are two different manuscripts and both cant be right

No doctrine lost doesnt justify accepting a word being removed

[John 16:16 KJV] "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
[John 16:17 KJV] "Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?" ********** You cant escape that "I go to the Father" has been removed by looking at v17.
In verse 17 the disciples say " What is this that he saith unto us, " they are asking about what he said to them in v16. They say he said to them "I go to the Father" but in the modern Bibles it's not there

 

[KingJ]

You really have to grasp at straws to avoid the fact that a word has been removed from a Bible

The fact is indeed there are two different manuscripts and both cant be right

No doctrine lost doesnt justify accepting a word being removed

[John 16:16 KJV] "A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
[John 16:17 KJV] "Then said [some] of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father?" ********** You cant escape that "I go to the Father" has been removed by looking at v17.
In verse 17 the disciples say " What is this that he saith unto us, " they are asking about what he said to them in v16. They say he said to them "I go to the Father" but in the modern Bibles it's not there

Nobody is denying there is a textual variant. The question is whether the ESV “removed truth” or changed doctrine, and it plainly did not.

You are assuming the longer reading must automatically be original. But textual criticism does not work that way. Sometimes scribes accidentally omitted words, and sometimes scribes harmonized or expanded readings for clarity. The existence of a variant does not itself prove corruption.

Also, verse 17 does not create a contradiction in the ESV. The disciples are summarizing and discussing what Jesus had been teaching them, not necessarily giving a robotic word-for-word quotation of only verse 16. Just a few verses earlier Jesus already repeatedly spoke about going to the Father (John 16:5, 10). So the disciples mentioning it again in verse 17 fits the immediate context perfectly.

In fact, the ESV still clearly teaches Jesus going to the Father throughout the chapter. So the claim that modern translations are “removing” the teaching simply does not hold up. A textual variant is not the same thing as doctrinal corruption.

 

[DougE]

You are assuming the longer reading must automatically be original. But textual criticism does not work that way. Sometimes scribes accidentally omitted words, and sometimes scribes harmonized or expanded readings for clarity. The existence of a variant does not itself prove corruption.

You state it as a fact that scribes by accident omitted words or expanded verses
There is no way to prove this and is speculation

 

[DougE]

Also, verse 17 does not create a contradiction in the ESV. The disciples are summarizing and discussing what Jesus had been teaching them, not necessarily giving a robotic word-for-word quotation of only verse 16. Just a few verses earlier Jesus already repeatedly spoke about going to the Father (John 16:5, 10). So the disciples mentioning it again in verse 17 fits the immediate context perfectly.

In fact, the ESV still clearly teaches Jesus going to the Father throughout the chapter. So the claim that modern translations are “removing” the teaching simply does not hold up. A textual variant is not the same thing as doctrinal corruption

The fact remains a word is missing and if you are willing to accept that very well