Missing verses from ESV and other Bibles

Discussion in 'Translations and Manuscripts' started by Claudiu, Mar 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Claudiu

    Claudiu Puritan Board Junior

    Why do the more modern translations delete certain verses, or part of verses, from the Bible. I was never able to understand that. The reason I initially switched over to the KJV 4 years ago was because I was being cheated from not having the full Bible. I was getting only parts of the Bible, with random parts just missing.

    Some verses that are taken out, that many people don't notice (I didn't either at first) are:

    Matthew 17:21
    Luke 11:2-4 (cuts prayer) [in some version only I think]
    Mark 10:21 (omits "take up cross") [which I find rather important to that text]
    Matthew 6:13b (omits last part of prayer)
    Luke 17:36
    Luke 23:17
    John 5:4
    Matthew 18:11
    Mark 7:16
    Mark 9:44
    Mark 15:28
    Romans 16:24
    and many more

    The list is different versions, not necessarily just one. But I don't understand why verses should be tampered with?

    What do you guys think?
  2. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    It's not quite as simple as labeling modern translations "Swiss cheese versions." Have you read anything on manuscript transmission and textual criticism?
  3. Hippo

    Hippo Puritan Board Junior

    I could say "Why oh why does the AV add verses to the bible, why did they tamper with the text?". This approach is not very helpful in either direction because it presuposes the original text.

    It is a question of fact as to what was the original text that has to be decided, after that it is possible to consider whether a version adds to or deletes from the original.
  4. raekwon

    raekwon Puritan Board Junior


    Despite what we might like to think sometimes, the KJV isn't the standard by which we should be judging a translation's accuracy.
  5. Claudiu

    Claudiu Puritan Board Junior

    No I haven't read...I ought to now, and I will. Any good suggestions?

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:01:22 EST-----

    My ignorance...Thanks for your input though. So it is the original that has to be looked at. I guess I was upholding the KJV, without even seeing what the original texts say, and see whether anything has been added, or taken away.
  6. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    Yeah, the fact of the matter is that editors, whether in 1611 or today, have to sort through thousands of (mostly) medieval manuscripts to see what has come down through scribal transmission.

    Most of what I know concerns the transmission of classical literature, but there are lots of others here who will be able to make good recommendations.
  7. Claudiu

    Claudiu Puritan Board Junior

    The KJV certainly isn't the standard.

    I appreciate the posts guys. I will look into this translation business some more. However, what version do you guys think has a modern tone, yet close to what the original says. Many people seem to recommend the ESV...would you guys stand by that?

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:05:55 EST-----

    I took the swiss cheese part out, came off too rash
  8. Davidius

    Davidius Puritan Board Post-Graduate

    The problem is that the terminology of "original" is misleading. There is no "original." Even if you go buy a Greek New Testament, you are still not looking at the "original." It is still only something that has been put together by editors who have combed through the manuscripts and put together what they think is the best combination of them all in an attempt to "reconstruct" the original (the goal of the science of Textual Criticism). And if you look at a "critical" edition, you will see that half of each page is taken up by (usually insignificant) variants in the text.
  9. The Deeps

    The Deeps Puritan Board Freshman

    Brother Claudiu you might like this site it is not full of the inflammatory rhetoric :soapbox: that many books and sites are full of.
    Fundamentally Reformed
  10. Hippo

    Hippo Puritan Board Junior

    For the Puritan Board this is a very divisive topic that has of late rather remarkably taken over from baptism to be the surest way to create a huge and largely unprofitable arguement.

    The various positions can be seen in this thread:


    It is both a vital and an interesting topic, but probably one not suited to the enviroment of a board such as this.
  11. Claudiu

    Claudiu Puritan Board Junior

    I will take a look. Thanks!

    -----Added 3/28/2009 at 05:23:08 EST-----

    I will take a look at this as well. Thanks Mike!
  12. BlackCalvinist

    BlackCalvinist Puritan Board Senior

  13. forgivenmuch

    forgivenmuch Puritan Board Freshman

    I've heard Paul Wegner's A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results is a pretty good start, but I can't vouch for it personally.
  14. Grymir

    Grymir Puritan Board Graduate

    Hi cecat90!

    There are also good reasons that they should be included. I'm also a KJV user. Here's a good link on a book that will give the other side of the story, on why we can trust the KJV. The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills

    It is good to know what is going on in the realm. I just wanted to get a great read into your hands.
  15. Marrow Man

    Marrow Man Drunk with Powder

    Try D.A. Carson's The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism

    Daniel Wallace has several articles (mixed in among others) here.
  16. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    Simply, the Textus Receptus, or received text, is the, and was taken from the longest standing texts held in and by the churches. So if we believe God preserved His word for all of His churches through all of the ages we use the TR as a basis for translation.
    If we think finding other manuscripts from all over and piecing them together year after year trusting scholars who often are not reformed, is a reliable method then you may consider the critical text translations that have left out verses the TR contains.
    Basically it isn't a matter of salvation which you use and as long as you are sound in the historic doctrines of the church I don't think either will mess you up too much.
    So that leaves you with what is a readable accurate translation. Then if you are not using the KJV or NKJV just check with one of them from time to time.

    The NKJV though based on the TR does include some marginal notes mentioning the Critical or Majority text decisions if you care to consider them.

    So it may be a version to consider. And also it is beneficial to stay with the version you have memorized most for easiest referencing.

    In His Service,
  17. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    Your statement is both false and contradictory. It is false that the TR was taken from the longest standing texts held....if anything, that has to go to the MT, so by your reasoning you should avoid the TR in favor of the MT.
  18. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    Sorry I didn't mean oldest pieces of texts in terms of age, I meant oldest in terms of complete letters held by churches in safe keeping and recognized by the churches.

    That is my understanding of the history of the TR and Byzantine texts. Articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society site confirm this. now maybe one can disagree with their history, Fine

    And if the Critical text is still growing as new pieces are found then this stands as fact cine the CT or MT is not yet complete it is still under construction and stands for further correction and adjustment.

    I don't want to argue the issue. As I said I think the translation we choose is more important. I read several of them consistently in my study and compare them constantly. So I am not opposed to someone using the critical text if they feel they are scholarly enough in the languages and culture to benefit from it.

    I prefer to trust in the historic providence of God to have from at one point to canonize and preserved His word in total, rather than in modern liberal scholars continually finding His word and re canonizing it, in my opinion, so if there was a variant I would go with the TR.
    Not that so far it matters that much. And hopefully if it ever did that old text in a trash can would be rejected as inconsistent.
    Its just a choice based on my study of the issue and if one differs fine.
  19. Whitefield

    Whitefield Puritan Board Junior

    Is Textus Receptus singular or plural?
  20. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    I am not good with latin, would that be Recepti?:lol:
    Thanks for the lightener
  21. Whitefield

    Whitefield Puritan Board Junior

    It is both singular and plural. But the real question is, is the TR the cloth Eramus wove, or the several sources (threads) he used to weave that cloth. Also, if the TR is the providentially preserved text (either as the woven cloth or the various threads) how do we reconcile that with the issue of the last 6 verses of Revelation?
  22. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

    :offtopic: None of them is perfect.

    I only go by what seems to have preserved and used consistently by the churches and has the most longstanding history.

    Canonization is a very interesting concept since it didn't even happen during apostolic times. Hmmmm. ..
  23. Whitefield

    Whitefield Puritan Board Junior

    Based on this criterion alone, you would have to go with the Vulgate.
  24. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    And your understanding is wrong. It's been gone over here so much that most won't even post on these threads, but there are places in the TR that have no Byzantine backing at all.

    The TR is just another Bible version, and that's all.
  25. Parsifal23

    Parsifal23 Puritan Board Freshman

    I know hat you mean I find textual criticism interesting but I don't understand it well enough to probably engage the topic with the amount of knowledge that would be nursery that being said I prefer The New American Standered Version partially because it really really ticks of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckmen :lol: but seriously I feel The NASB is probably one of the best translations out there do to it's textual pedigree and close adherence to the original languages.
  26. DonP

    DonP Puritan Board Junior

  27. TimV

    TimV Puritanboard Botanist

    Are you addressing me? And are you asking if everything contained in those 36 pages are all true or all false?
  28. bookslover

    bookslover Puritan Board Professor

    Keep in mind that the phrase "textus receptus" was, basically, the equivalent of a dust jacket "blurb" to advertise the publication of (I think) Erasmus's text. As far as I know, there was no time when a group of individuals, or of churches, got together and pronounced those particular texts to be the only "acceptable" ones for use in translating the Bible, in some official way.

    In other words, some publisher's ad man made it up!
  29. Der Pilger

    Der Pilger Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm surprised nobody has recommended James White's The King James Only Controversy. It was of great help to me in making sense of this issue. He goes into considerable detail about KJV-only arguments, textual criticism, comparison of translations, the history and formation of the KJV, the textus receptus, Erasmus, etc.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page