A SERIOUS OMISSION IN THE NEW BIBLES

[Curtis]

An important question is whether the omission of certain verses changes or harms biblical doctrine. Most Bible scholars contend it does not. This is because no major teaching or doctrine relies solely on a verse not found in the earliest manuscripts.
While these verses may supplement biblical stories or teachings, the core message remains intact without them. No foundational doctrine is lost simply because a verse is missing from a modern translation but was present in the KJV. The shorter ending of Mark, for example, does not alter the accounts of Christ’s resurrection found in the other Gospels.

So while it can seem troubling to see familiar verses disappear from modern Bibles, Christians can be confident this does not undermine biblical authority or accuracy. The central truths of Scripture remain secure, even as new manuscript evidence leads to refinements in the precise wording and exclusions of some disputed passages.

 

[DougE]

The KJV, when translated, did not have the oldest manuscripts available at the time, so the newer translations did not take out words; it was the KJV that added words not found in the oldest manuscripts.

Pure speculation to say the KJV added words since you cant prove it by the original autographs

As to the KJV not having the newly discovered manuscripts/texts/excerpts that implies they didnt have al the Word of God; the people didnt have all the Word of God by extension,
Of major consequence is you cant claim to have all the Word of God, and never will, seeing they keep making new discoveries that are deemed to be the Word of God

 

[DougE]

An important question is whether the omission of certain verses changes or harms biblical doctrine. Most Bible scholars contend it does not. This is because no major teaching or doctrine relies solely on a verse not found in the earliest manuscripts.
While these verses may supplement biblical stories or teachings, the core message remains intact without them. No foundational doctrine is lost simply because a verse is missing from a modern translation but was present in the KJV. The shorter ending of Mark, for example, does not alter the accounts of Christ’s resurrection found in the other Gospels.

So while it can seem troubling to see familiar verses disappear from modern Bibles, Christians can be confident this does not undermine biblical authority or accuracy. The central truths of Scripture remain secure, even as new manuscript evidence leads to refinements in the precise wording and exclusions of some disputed passages.

What is not in dispute is that words and verses are missing in the modern Bibles
If you are compelled to defend that the Bible, you have lacks these words and verses, you can find plenty of scholars to uphold your assertion that no doctrine is affected

 

[DougE]

The KJV, when translated, did not have the oldest manuscripts available at the time, so the newer translations did not take out words; it was the KJV that added words not found in the oldest manuscripts.

I find it interesting you all have the same arguments

 

[Twistie]

In this verse only one can be right. ********** [Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.********* it cant be both as they are two entirely locations

Judeans were generally more strictly aligned with the religious and theological leadership centered in Jerusalem, whereas Galileans had a distinct culture, spoke with a different dialect, and were viewed by some southerners as more rural or culturally diverse.

My question is why they switch that up..imma ponder with the Lord..when He reveals something to me ill get back to you on this..you ponder with the Lord too k?.k.

୧⁠(⁠﹒︠⁠ᴗ⁠﹒︡⁠)⁠୨

 

[KingJ]

[John 6:47 KJV] "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
[John 6:47 NIV] "Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life." *********** Believes WHAT? The New Bibles omit "on me". This removes Jesus as being the one we believe on for eternal life.

Why not create one thread and call it ''lets discuss translation changes in newer bibles''? This is now thread 5 on the same topic. That is called spamming.

You are once more, lifting one line out of its context and creating a problem that does not actually exist.

Read the surrounding verses. John 6 (old and new translations) is saturated with Jesus identifying Himself as the object of faith:

John 6:35 — “Whoever comes to Me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst.”

John 6:40 — “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life.”

John 6:47 is not removing Jesus as the object of faith; John already established the object repeatedly in the immediate context. You are making a major doctrine hang on an isolated wording difference while ignoring the passages around it.

 

[DougE]

Judeans were generally more strictly aligned with the religious and theological leadership centered in Jerusalem, whereas Galileans had a distinct culture, spoke with a different dialect, and were viewed by some southerners as more rural or culturally diverse.

My question is why they switch that up..imma ponder with the Lord..when He reveals something to me ill get back to you on this..you ponder with the Lord too k?.k.

୧⁠(⁠﹒︠⁠ᴗ⁠﹒︡⁠)⁠୨

The fact is there were two different manuscripts used. The modern Bible use the MGNT and it says Judea
The KJV uses the TR and it says Galilee

 

[DougE]

Why not create one thread and call it ''lets discuss translation changes in newer bibles''? This is now thread 5 on the same topic. That is called spamming.

You are once more, lifting one line out of its context and creating a problem that does not actually exist.

Read the surrounding verses. John 6 (old and new translations) is saturated with Jesus identifying Himself as the object of faith:

John 6:35 — “Whoever comes to Me shall never hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst.”

John 6:40 — “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life.”

John 6:47 is not removing Jesus as the object of faith; John already established the object repeatedly in the immediate context. You are making a major doctrine hang on an isolated wording difference while ignoring the passages around it.

The surrounding verses dont change the fact that Christ is missing in the verse

 

[DougE]

Since you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying and are fixed on your own beliefs about Scripture, this conversation is coming to an end.



No offense meant, but you approach the Bible in the same way they approach the Quran.





I know you don’t, and that’s the point. I suggest reading the following verses in whatever translation you prefer, and perhaps the Spirit of God will give you the understanding I’ve been unable to convey. That’s why this conversation between us is coming to an end.

Luke 24:45
1 Corinthians 2:10-14

I hope you find the answers you are seeking.
With the love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/

HERE IS PROOF THAT THE NEW BIBLES REMOVE WORDS

Did you miss this?
I would love to see how you can refute this

 

[KingJ]

HERE IS PROOF THAT THE NEW BIBLES REMOVE WORDS

Did you miss this?
I would love to see how you can refute this

Easy rebuttal, see post # 6 in that thread.

Please stop spamming the same type of threads.

 

[KingJ]

The surrounding verses dont change the fact that Christ is missing in the verse

You read posts that completely and utterly rebut you the same way you read scripture.

Please re-read what was written to you and try again.

 

[DougE]

Judeans were generally more strictly aligned with the religious and theological leadership centered in Jerusalem, whereas Galileans had a distinct culture, spoke with a different dialect, and were viewed by some southerners as more rural or culturally diverse.

My question is why they switch that up..imma ponder with the Lord..when He reveals something to me ill get back to you on this..you ponder with the Lord too k?.k.

୧⁠(⁠﹒︠⁠ᴗ⁠﹒︡⁠)⁠୨

The fact is there were two different manuscripts used. The modern Bible use the MGNT and it says Judea
The KJV uses the TR and it says Galilee

Just to clarify, these two manuscripts are contradictory and both cant be right

 

[DougE]

Easy rebuttal, see post # 6 in that thread.

Please stop spamming the same type of threads.

[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]

[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

The point is that you are assuming the longer reading must be original simply because verse 17 contains the phrase.

But that does not logically follow.

The disciples in verse 17 are discussing Jesus’ teaching as a whole, not necessarily giving a strict word-for-word quotation of only verse 16. In the immediate context Jesus had already spoken multiple times about going to the Father:

John 16:5 — “I go my way to him that sent me”
John 16:10 — “I go to my Father”

So when the disciples say, “because I go to the Father,” that fits naturally with the surrounding conversation even if the shorter reading in verse 16 is original.

Also, if verse 17 proves verse 16 “must” contain the phrase, then by that same logic you would have to accuse the disciples themselves of “adding words,” since they include explanatory repetition not found identically in every prior sentence Jesus spoke.

This is simply a textual variant between manuscript traditions, not proof that modern translations are corrupting Scripture or removing doctrine.

 

[DougE]

The disciples in verse 17 are discussing Jesus’ teaching as a whole, not necessarily giving a strict word-for-word quotation of only verse 16. In the immediate context Jesus had already spoken multiple times about going to the Father:

They are repeating word for word what Jesus said in v16
I am not saying the translators removed it, its missing in the manuscript

 

[DougE]

The disciples in verse 17 are discussing Jesus’ teaching as a whole, not necessarily giving a strict word-for-word quotation of only verse 16. In the immediate context Jesus had already spoken multiple times about going to the Father

Yes he did say elsewhere of going to the Father
I still contend they were only responding to what he said to them in v16
Jesus didnt say the phrase "a little while" before v 16
The disciples repeated that in v17
in v17 the disciples also said "because I go to the Father" because he said it again in v16

 

[Christ4Ever]

No offense meant, but you approach the Bible in the same way they approach the Quran.

That still doesnt explain what you mean
How is that?

Islam sees the Quran as being infallible, without error, perfect so to speak. It's less about the content then it is about the book/pages itself. If that is what you are looking for, you will not find it outside of Jesus Christ. Your search will only frustrate you, and you'll wind up with the belief that all others are just ignorant and lost.

Since you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying and are fixed on your own beliefs about Scripture, this conversation is coming to an end.

I have understood you perfectly well
I agree this topic is exhausted
You may continue to deny that discrepancies in Bibles are significant

Not really. You've said enough times, "what do you mean by this?", which says to me that you don't, or were lying that you didn't understand what I was saying.
.
To me it's not about the differences in the manuscripts, because from the Greek or Hebrew you will always have that difference to how a word, phrase translates into another language. As long as the context remains the same, there is no problem for me in this. For it is still communicating through the Holy Spirit what God has wanted us to know, and not what man figures He wants us to know. Remember exegesis and eisegesis?

Precisely right when viewing Scripture. If the correctness of wording is what you are seeking, with context taking a back seat to what you are reading, then go hunting/searching to see if you can find the original manuscripts, learn, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, amongst the other languages that you might be successful in your seeking. Oh, much praying to God. Otherwise, pay attention to what it is telling you in how to live the life that He has set for you to do, and by His Word the examples provided that will reflect a viable solution to them. In Christ Jesus Doug.

Since you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying and are fixed on your own beliefs about Scripture, this conversation is coming to an end.



No offense meant, but you approach the Bible in the same way they approach the Quran.





I know you don’t, and that’s the point. I suggest reading the following verses in whatever translation you prefer, and perhaps the Spirit of God will give you the understanding I’ve been unable to convey. That’s why this conversation between us is coming to an end.

Luke 24:45
1 Corinthians 2:10-14

I hope you find the answers you are seeking.
With the love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
Click to expand...

HERE IS PROOF THAT THE NEW BIBLES REMOVE WORDS
I would love you to explain this discrepancy

lol - that is not proof. Without discussing the original autographs and the manuscripts used for those references, all you’re really doing is convincing yourself that your position is valid, when in reality you’ve only shown that certain words were used by some scribes when copying the manuscripts, while others chose different ones. Without the original autographs, it’s impossible to know which version is accurate in the cases you’ve mentioned without looking at the context of each to see if it’s changed from one rendering to the other.That’s why context outweighs the issues you’ve raised here and elsewhere on Talk Jesus. For contextually it has changed nothing.

Note: Stop creating new threads with the same position. If you are unable to state your position in one or hope that one of them will slide by without being challenged, be warned, they are easy enough to delete.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/

 

[DougE]

Note: Stop creating new threads with the same position. If you are unable to state your position in one or hope that one of them will slide by without being challenged, be warned, they are easy enough to delete.

I am citing different verses that show missing words or verses
What right to you have to tell me not to?
What right to you have to deny members from seeing this?
I dont take any position in the original posts
I demonstrate what the implications are
Any position I take is in response to replies by others

 

[DougE]

you’ve only shown that certain words were used by some scribes when copying the manuscripts, while others chose different ones.

You are taking the same position arent you, but thats allowed I guess
Missing words arent the same as certain chosen words are they?

 

[Christ4Ever]

I am citing different verses that show missing words or verses
What right to you have to tell me not to?
What right to you have to deny members from seeing this?
I dont take any position in the original posts
I demonstrate what the implications are
Any position I take is in response to replies by others

Dear Member DougE,
If you haven't read the following threads, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with them, before you start arguing about the subject of what is allowed or not allowed.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.talkjesus.com

Thread 'Statement of Faith'

Jul 15, 2005

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. John 7:16,17

Inspiration of Scriptures

We believe that the Holy Bible is the written Word of the Living God. We believe it was inspired by the Holy Spirit and recorded by holy men of old. It is infallible in content and a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction which is truth without any mixture of error. The Bible reveals the principles by which God will judge us and reveals His...

• Chad
• Replies: 0
• Forum: News Stand

• 

The members have seen plenty, I’d say. As I have told you this is not the first time, or I dare say, will be the last time, someone has brought of this subject you've been posting on. So, the fact that someone even notices you’re doing this, with the many threads you have originated on the same subject and views it in the same way a “spammer” would act, says it all.

As a Moderator/Staff member on Talk Jesus, there are certain things I can and can’t do. Honestly, I didn’t have to explain my actions if I had simply deleted what I believed was redundant. The fact that I took the time to explain shows that I don’t make decisions on a whim when addressing any perceived or actual issues.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/