peterfarrar.com Home | Seminars | Preaching | Teaching Series | About Pastor Peter | Contact Pastor Peter | God’s Fire Blog Index By Topic | Blog Index From Newest To Oldest
Remember that while all original Scripture is God-inspired, it was men that decided what the Bible should contain.
For example. the original “Catholic” Bibles contained many books that are not included in any other translation at all.
For example, the so-called Deuterocanonicals Apocrypha contains: Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24), Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon), Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (or Sirach or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint), Additions to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90), Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue), Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.
So, the early Catholics translated many texts and had them in their Bible which was written in LATIN.
Uneducated British men, (by our standards today), then translated that into English for King James.
That is, they translated the LATIN of the Catholic Bible, left out some of the extra books the Catholics had and called it the KJV (or “Authorised”) versions.
Modern educated men from many differing counties and denominations translated the ACTUAL Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scrolls and made the more modern translations.
I would rather read a translation I can clearly understand (which in my case is the NLT or 1984 NIV) – however because I also have and use and compare with the NASB, the Amplified, the KJV and most other translations I don’t think I am going to be led astray – and neither will you if you do the same.
Certainly, do not let some perverted narrow-minded author on some web site pushing their own bandwagon determine which version you should read.
Some very balanced explanations:
“….. When the KJV Bible was written in 1611, it was written primarily using what is called the “Textus Receptus.”
This was a highly regarded source at the time.
However, since the KJV was written, we have found many more ancient source texts to use that were not available to those KJV writers (i.e the Codex Sinaiticus – found in the mid 1880’s).
When these different sources are compared, they sometimes (but rarely) disagree.
Regarding the “missing” verses, nearly all of the manuscripts we have today do not actually contain “missing” verses.
Therefore, they are not believed to have been a part of the “autographa” and are removed from that version (the NIV for example places them in footnotes with an explanation).
Some versions include them, but with a warning.
The NASB has them in parenthesis and says in the footnotes “Early mss do not contain this verse.”
The NKJV says, “NU omits verse –” (NU = Nestle-Aland).
I should add here that many who make an attack against these verses being left out are “KJV only” people.
They believe that the KJV Bible is infallible or error free.
Let me close by sharing this truth with you:
God has promised, for example in Isaiah 40:8 ; 1 Peter 1:23,25 ; and Matthew 5:18 that He would preserve His Word, and He has done just that.
The Bible is the most tested, scrutinized, proven and enduring book in history.
While there may be differences in different versions of the Bible, we can rest assured that God’s Word is preserved.
Blog Index From Newest To Oldest
Comments
2 responses to “The Bible (part 4) The so-called “missing verses””
Most interesting!
It is not something most people have researched Don. Most people would rather believe what other indoctrinated people say.