Some Bible translations omit whole verses..

[ironglow]

   Some producers claim that their later translations are made easier to read, for those who are verbally challenged with older versions.

  Problem is, they often actually omit some verses forund in the Textus receptus..someverse are functionally changed. some being key verses..

     Here are the sixteen whole verses:

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: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 9:46: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
Mark 11:26: "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."
Mark 15:28: "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."
Luke 17:36: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
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."
I John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
It is important to read the surrounding scriptures to get an understanding of the impact the omission of the above verses really have.

Strangely, it is very easy to verify all of these points by simply visiting www.biblegateway.com and entering in the above verse numbers or cross referencing the words in the table below. If I had not have experienced God’s WORD coming to pass in my life I would be thinking of this as another Dan Brown blockbuster about some religious tangent or other.

Unlike the Dan Brown’s theories the Rose Line or Sangreal, the Bible is the most powerful book in human existence and therefore, only those who are intent on diminishing its powers would ever want to change it.

   For instance;  (Matthew 18:11)  6KJV and NKJV say '11 For[a] the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost."

  Neither the NIV nor NLT use this verse.  in fact, the NLT simply skips from vs 10 right to vs 12.

   In the Kng James and New King James versions (Acts 8:37) says, 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

  The New Living Translation (NLT) simply skips from vs 36 to vs 38...

There is a new version out, called the PASSION Bible;
   
   It is so corrupted, that many are refusing to recognize it..and BIBLE GATEWAY website has dropped it from their translation list..

[Dee]

I've known this for many years and said so over the years right here on GBO.  But there were always those who defended the newer versions such as the NIV, the New King James, and a myriad of  other newer versions you, yourself being one of those defenders.

The facts are: in comparison to: The Original King James and these newer Bible versions, there are over 60,000 changes, partial changes, , additions, and out right right deletions of scriptures from the original King James Bible.

In Rick Warren's book  "The Purpose Driven Life", Warren used 9 different new Bible versions never using the beginning,  or the end of, or a complete scripture. /u]

When I pointed out these radically changed, bastardized new age bibles, you and others here defended them, saying they were easier to understand, and said things like new archeological discoveries backed these changes.

Now I suppose we'll suffer a teaching revelation 15 years after the fact, totally contradicting your original stance.

[ironglow]

I've known this for many years and said so over the years right here on GBO.  But there were always those who defended the newer versions such as the NIV, the New King James, and a myriad of  other newer versions you, yourself being one of those defenders.

The facts are: in comparison to: The Original King James and these newer Bible versions, there are over 60,000 changes, partial changes, , additions, and out right right deletions of scriptures from the original King James Bible.

In Rick Warren's book  "The Purpose Driven Life", Warren used 9 different new Bible versions never using the beginning,  or the end of, or a complete scripture. /u]

When I pointed out these radically changed, bastardized new age bibles, you and others here defended them, saying they were easier to understand, and said things like new archeological discoveries backed these changes.

Now I suppose we'll suffer a teaching revelation 15 years after the fact, totally contradicting your original stance.

   Nope...I didn't endorse the newer versions, but I have no major quarrel with the NKJV..

[Dee]

I've known this for many years and said so over the years right here on GBO.  But there were always those who defended the newer versions such as the NIV, the New King James, and a myriad of  other newer versions you, yourself being one of those defenders.

The facts are: in comparison to: The Original King James and these newer Bible versions, there are over 60,000 changes, partial changes, , additions, and out right right deletions of scriptures from the original King James Bible.

In Rick Warren's book  "The Purpose Driven Life", Warren used 9 different new Bible versions never using the beginning,  or the end of, or a complete scripture. /u]

When I pointed out these radically changed, bastardized new age bibles, you and others here defended them, saying they were easier to understand, and said things like new archeological discoveries backed these changes.

Now I suppose we'll suffer a teaching revelation 15 years after the fact, totally contradicting your original stance.

   Nope...I didn't endorse the newer versions, but I have no major quarrel with the NKJV..

There i no  point in debate, because you're incapable of admitting fault. But, Yes you did.

[ironglow]

  ZZZZZZZZZZ....

[Dee]

  ZZZZZZZZZZ....

That's a good idea for you.

[Dee]

September 23rd  2020 post #3 Topic Is  the end times prophecy occurring now.

Ironglow quoted scripture from The ESV Bible version

https://www.christianpost.com/news/esv-bible-translation-revisions-potentially-dangerous-biblical-scholar-warns.html

[ironglow]

September 23rd  2020 post #3 Topic Is  the end times prophecy occurring now.

Ironglow quoted scripture from The ESV Bible version

https://www.christianpost.com/news/esv-bible-translation-revisions-potentially-dangerous-biblical-scholar-warns.html

   I have over the years, quoted from DAS KAPITAL and MEIN KAMPF, but that doesn't mean I endorse them! However, certain lines of interest can be found in almost any writing..

  BTW; I have in conversation, even quoted the JW's New World translation..just prove their error.

  Besides; The ESV is not a BAD translation..at least not like some.

  So how about you address the OP issue, rather than pick another argument over another,  unrelated issue?

[Dee]

September 23rd  2020 post #3 Topic Is  the end times prophecy occurring now.

Ironglow quoted scripture from The ESV Bible version

https://www.christianpost.com/news/esv-bible-translation-revisions-potentially-dangerous-biblical-scholar-warns.html

   I have over the years, quoted from DAS KAPITAL and MEIN KAMPF, but that doesn't mean I endorse them! However, certain lines of interest can be found in almost any writing..

  BTW; I have in conversation, even quoted the JW's New World translation..just prove their error.

  Besides; The ESV is not a BAD translation..at least not like some.

  So how about you address the OP issue, rather than pick another argument over another,  unrelated issue?

I directly addressed the op and provided a link demonstrating the ESV is one of many copyrighted bibles with numerous errors, deletions, meaning changes ect. That you would deflect and defend was a given.

However, im not trying to pick an argument with you at all. The reference I gave wasn't a demonstration on your part of a bastardizion of these new copyrighted bibles you  use, because i quoted it in its intended context that you meant it to be. , It was infact a demonstration to others who read these posts, that you historically are all over the map not only in scripture, and your use of  copyrigted new age Bible versions, but also in the literature, and referential material you promote.

Many of the visitors to the religious forum are seeking truth, and your not a reliable source for scriptural truth because you habitually quote opinions, and sources from heretical writers, even churches that practice in biblical abominations. So as I said you're all over the map.

So, my posts aren't intended as argument towards you, but warnings to others, that they'd better double check what your puttin out.

[Ranger99]

At one time,  my mother and father had a
very old family bible that was the old original
King James version with all the proper hell's
fire and damnation throughout

It had an introduction that was more or less
an affirmation that the translation was correct
and true under the penalty of death for the
translators.

You don't see that anywhere anymore because
of God's promise of eternal life or eternal
hellfire,  with no gray area, no forgiveness after
the fact
Many have since changed up the Bible to suit
themselves and enable and make excuses for
their friends, or children, or others on the path
to hell, I guess to salve their conscience .
It's as bad as those that claim a book of
"Bible codes " is needed to understand the
perfectly understandable book the original
King James bible was

IIRC the whole reason a translation was needed
was because the hierarchy in Rome wouldn't
allow anything other than Latin texts to be
used,  and Latin speaking priests to read them

Now there's the mess we have today with the
trans churches, and the different racial based
churches claiming to be the lost israelite tribes, etc.

[Dee]

Well,  you're spot on Ranger, and anytime you pick up a Bible that has a copyright, it isn't really a Bible, its a bible.

The owners of copyrighted materials including these "new age bible translations" not only have the right to edit the material, they habitually DO EDIT the material A LOT. So called "copyrighted bible translations" can have, and many do have,  in excess of 60,000 changes, additions, and deletions throughout that version. These copyrighted versions include THE NEW KING JAMES,  the NIV, and yes, "the copyrighted ESV".
This has been known for well over a decade,  and yet so called serious Christians ignore, don't know, or make excuses for using them. These preachers,  teachers, and laymen seem to revel in ownership of the latest and greatest ever new age copyrighted bible, making all sorts of claims that this one is the best one yet.

[ironglow]

  ..But of course, theren wasn the king's letters patent, a form of copyright on the KJV as with all the monarch's utterances, but the crown no longer
  demands that it be respected.

  Preceeding the KJV was the Geneva Bible in old English (1599), which were used by our Pilgrims (separatists) and served them well.  So why didn't
  old King James (the tyrant) rebel against the Geneva Bible?

  Well, the Geneva Bible contained marginal notes which were abusive of royalty..so the old rascal didn't like it. fortunately, he did hire qualified
   people to do the job.  ..But so were the Geneva translators as with other for certain modern versions.

  Sorry, I couldn't find a copyright reference to St Augustine's Bible of 1302, but I doubt such a copyright exists..

    I have in my library two volumes defending the KJV only  set..  Entitled.WHICH BIBLE and TRUE OR FALSE, both written by David Otis Fuller, DD. 
    Of course I have read them or they wouldn't be in my library.. 

      After reading and reflection...I can see where he has some valid points, but fails on others.  Since you back the KJV, I assume you have read
   both..correct?  If not, where do you derive your information from.

   Problem is, langiuage evolves over time..and has done some radfical turns over the last 5 centuries..  Have you ever tried to read Chaucer, or even Samuel Pepys?

  Of course, the 1611 KJV has been revised through the years, up until 1881, and some consider the NKJV of 1982, to be a further revision, by way
   of language up date.

   THank God for updates and revisions, below is a portion of shakespeare's HAMLET written in 1601, just 10 years prior to the publication of the KJV.

  Try reading it, and understand why revisions are helpful..

 

[ironglow]

  Did you guys try reading some "English" from the time of the first publication of the KJV ?  How well did that work out? 

   Is there any reason for updating since 1611?  Chances are your KJV doesn't read like that sample from Hamlet..

   Just for fun guys, try reading Genesis chapter 1..from the original 1611 version..  Click twice to enlarge..

[Lloyd Smale]

you wouldnt think a holy book would start fights. but then the ego's of those that think there way is the only way have divided Christians into over a hundred different faiths and has weekend Christianity as a hole. its kind of why ive always said it was a book penned by some monks. God is perfect and if it came from him id think meaning would be clear to anyone who read it. maybe he has a sense of humor and gets a kick out of guys on an internet forum that that think they can comprehend how he thinks

[darkgael]

Genesis 3-5 and Genesis 13-15.
Is there a scholarly explanation for what seems to be a disruption of the timeline?

[Dee]

you wouldnt think a holy book would start fights. but then the ego's of those that think there way is the only way have divided Christians into over a hundred different faiths and has weekend Christianity as a hole. its kind of why ive always said it was a book penned by some monks. God is perfect and if it came from him id think meaning would be clear to anyone who read it. maybe he has a sense of humor and gets a kick out of guys on an internet forum that that think they can comprehend how he thinks

Well, it hasn't anything to  do with  egos, or who is the  smartest. Ive met very few catholics that really knew much about the Bible because their pedophile priests have taught them they are too stupid to understand it, and need the priests to interpret it for them. Present company included.
If you had any comprehension at all, you'd realize what the discussion is actually about, but you don't have. All you have is an abundance of know nothing catholic minion gas.

It's not about who understands the Bible better, its about copyrighted "translations" that change the meaning of scripture,  or leave certain scriptures completely out of their "copyrighted version". The original King James Version has no copyright.  It is free to anyone that wants to duplicate it. It was Gods gift to us all.

So instead of trying to weigh in on something you rhave proven over and over to know nothing about, go make up another macho story of somebody not liking one of your pistol t-shirts and you reading the riot act.