Omitted verses.

Hi Ragged. Did you see this book I posted? Thought it might help; or maybe not. Here's the link to a free PDF.

https://kjvpure.org/kjvpure/MissingInModernBibles.pdf

Thank you, I'll read that. What I'm most interested in is which original texts are canon, and I think another post in this thread clarifies that. Now I can try to decipher original text, but I won't worry over it.

Don't play dumb; it's beneath you. You are clearly implying that an entire translation of Scripture can be inspired, which is employing a fallacy of equivocation. No-one is arguing that the Scripture doesn't contain some translated speech or text. Where you go wrong is in thinking that the recorded translation itself is inspired. If that were a sound argument, then for consistency you must also argue that the lies recorded in Scripture were inspired. The inspiration of Scripture is not in the inspiration of every spoken word that was recorded, but in the reliability (accuracy) of the record itself. Inspired Scripture includes the statement, "There is no God", but inspired Scripture does not teach that there is no God; rather, it states, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

It proves that God can preserve his words, even inspire them in an English text. That’s all. God can do that, and I believe he has. You’re free to believe otherwise.

What God can do has never been the question. You are claiming that He has done something. It is on you to support your assertion.

I am claiming he has fulfilled his promise of what he said he would do.

Which is what, precisely, with chapter and verse, please.

Which is what, precisely, with chapter and verse, please.

You know exactly what passage to which I'm referring. I'd rather not debate on what it actually says, not what you think it says.

Hello. I came across some information that said some verses were left out of the Bible in the book of John, by an unknown "they" as in "they" left these verses out. I don't want to quote those supposed verses here, at least right now, but I do want to ask: how would someone go about researching something like that? (I have very inferior internet access except at the local library.)

Let me give you just one example: 1 Peter 3:14–15. The KJV translates it in this way,

However, other translations do not read this way. Translations such as the NASB, Lexham, ESV, NIV, NET, and so forth, each read in this fashion,

The reason for this, is because the textual decision made by Nestle Aland 28 is based off an earlier, and more broadly (geographically) attested reading, as found in p72 א A B C Ψ 33 614 1739 itar vg syr(p,h) cop(sa,bo) arm Clement.

Imagine you were to plot each manuscript that contains the reading, “the Lord God” (1 Peter 3:14–15, KJV) on a world map. How many would there be, and from what region(s) would it be most prominent? You'd be able to get a pretty good visual of the region (and time period) from which that variant gave rise. Likewise, if you plotted the manuscripts that alternatively read, “Christ the Lord” on a map, you would see that it already had broad geographic attestation by the time the alternate reading really (“the Lord God”) had any significant prominence. Already by the 3rd-5th centuries versional witness of the Greek NT were being translated with the use of “Christ the Lord” (Coptic, Syriac, some Latin).

We should remember that the Latin Vulgate was the official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church which is said to be a revision of the Old Latin which is scattered throughout the whole world. Jerome's work was only confined to the Roman Catholic as urged by Pope Damasus but not the vast majority of the entire Latin-speaking world as in Africa and others. You should know also the Syriac is a 4th-century version like the Greek uncial Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and other copies. So I cannot for sure if this is a sound judgment/ justification of your example, for even Bruze Metzger do not deny the fact the reading of the KJB along with the other versions before KJB exist were the familiar ones and the less familiar was the reading of the critical text. The German Luther is the same as the KJB, and The Spanish Sagradas which is older than KJB has the same reading. Same with the Italian Diodati. Actually, the majority of the manuscripts contained in the many minuscules attested to the KJB reading.

We should remember that the Latin Vulgate was the official Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church which is said to be a revision of the Old Latin which is scattered throughout the whole world. Jerome's work was only confined to the Roman Catholic as urged by Pope Damasus but not the vast majority of the entire Latin-speaking world as in Africa and others. You should know also the Syriac is a 4th-century version like the Greek uncial Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and other copies. So I cannot for sure if this is a sound judgment/ justification of your example, for even Bruze Metzger do not deny the fact the reading of the KJB along with the other versions before KJB exist were the familiar ones and the less familiar was the reading of the critical text. The German Luther is the same as the KJB, and The Spanish Sagradas which is older than KJB has the same reading. Same with the Italian Diodati. Actually, the majority of the manuscripts contained in the many minuscules attested to the KJB reading.

Let's set a couple things straight.


It does not matter if the Syriac is a 4th (or 5th) c. version. It does not matter is Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are 4th c. mss. The fact that a text is being transcribed and translated by the 4th. c, requires a text to have been distributed at an earlier date. Imagine this: Let's say that by the 4th c. versional witnesses such as the Coptic, Syriac, Latin, etc., were already in print/distribution. It would not matter if they are 4th c. documents. There was no printing press; no internet; no electricity; no computers. They were transcribed and translated by hand, and sometimes in very low light situations. That means that for the documents to exist by the 4th c., a variant reading would have needed to have been circulated throughout those locales at an earlier date.

Further, because Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. “In English,” so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype. Hence, we have p46, which is a 3rd c. collation of nearly all the Pauline letters in our NT's today.

I am not anti-King James. But I look at variant readings on a one-by-one basis. This allows me to, at times, agree with the KJV (and even other versions that contain the same reading) and to also disagree with it's underlying textual apparatus.

And I forgot one thing: You said the German Luther Bible was "the same" as the KJV. To be fair, I am not so sure that what you had intended by this comment was to say that the two versions (specificially at 1 Peter 3:14-15) are identical, or whether you intended to mean that they "were the same" throughout the entire corpus. If by the latter, then you are entirely incorrect. But even if the German Luther Bible reads identically to the KJV at 1 Peter 3:14-15, so what? So what if the German Luther Bible (a translation from the 16th c.) reads identically to the KJV at 1 Peter 3:14-15. What bearing does that have on the topic of early, widespread attestation? You need to show that the reading adopted by the King James (at 1 Peter 3:14-15) was earlier and more broadly attested. By citing the Luther Bible, the only thing you are doing is confirming a much later dating. And plus, by the 1500's, they were working with more advanced technologies than they were in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, so "broad attestation" loses its "umph" as technology progresses: the printing press.

While there may be places where the German Luther Bible does read identically to the KJV, what you are not telling the audience, is that there are also places where the German Luther Bible (and the KJV itself) read identically as the NIV, Lexham, and NET. Also, what you are not telling your audience, is that the German Luther Bible may have used some of the same underlying Greek apparatus' and/or mss as the KJV to reach its textual decision. But the fact is, the textual apparatus underlying the King James does have readings that are not in any other mss on the face of the earth. How come you didn't mention that?

Of course, the transcriptions and translations especially by Jerome were not used by the common Christians or early believers is most questionable. The Vaticanus, Sinaticus, and the Latin Vulgate though of old antiquity were subject to most omission. I believe that by the time of 4 th Ce these circulation in those locales are but, in its infancy, especially the Latin why? Simply because there were already Latin texts prior to Jerome’s work and in his Preface, he did mention the worldwide circulation of these Latin Bibles. For the codices, Vaticanus was confined only in the Vatican Library while Sinaticus were found in a wastebasket ready to light the Monastery.

As for St. Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament which was addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. He said:

“You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original…”

https://vulgate.org/

Yes, the Vaticanus and Sinaticus were earlier Greek representatives but it doesn’t mean it was better representative of the copies of the original. Their authenticity is well tarnished due to the fact they were not even used by the common believers of that time. There were many omissions of text and sometimes added into the text. The faithful copies were actually in the hands of the believers being persecuted by Rome itself.

On the German Luther text of the 1 Peter 3:15 have the same reading of “Lord God” as in the KJB. What I am stating is that verse in question and I know that there were places the English KJB differs from the German Luther Bible.

The faithful copies were actually in the hands of the believers being persecuted by Rome itself.

You have still failed to show that the reading adopted by the KJ (at 1 Peter 3:14-15) was early, and widely attested. The earliest date you have doesn't come until much later. As for the variant I am defending (as found in virtually ever modern Bible today), was the reading of nearly all ancient copies from the 5th c. (or earlier), whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, or Coptic -- all from vastly different regions throughout the "Christian world."

There’s a lot of inaccuracies that you’ve presented here.

In 1844, while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine, Tischendorf noted several scraps of parchment in a basket that were “mouldered by time.” Upon closer examination, Tischendorf discovered that they contained parts of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. It is not certain that these folios were originally apart of Sinaiticus, but there may have been worn fragments from Sinaiticus that were included, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Nowhere in Tischendorf’s account does he indicate that the entire uncial (Sinaiticus) was found in this basket; he only makes mention of several folios that contained parts of the LXX. Those folios could have been apart of another uncial, but that is speculative at best.

In 1853, Tischendorf returns to St. Catherine’s for a second time, but finds no add’l manuscripts.

In 1859, under the authority of Czar Alexander II, Tischendorf made a third trip to St. Catherine’s. On this occasion, Tischendorf either gifts (or at least presents) one of his published copies of the Septuagint to the monastery’s custodian. In turn, Tischendorf is shown a copy a codex “wrapped in red cloth”: Sinaiticus.

In its current state, only a very small portion of it’s nearly nine hundred pages are actually damaged. It is plausible that the monks at St. Catherine’s could have restored some of its time worn folios, but Tischendorf nowhere indicates that segments or folios from Sinaiticus were found in a basket. You have not done your due diligence, and are relying heavily on inaccurate information you dug up on the internet. I understand you’d like to discredit Sinaiticus, but at the end of the day, it is a real, historical document, and needs to be treated as such, no matter how much discomfort is causes you.

I nowhere indicated that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were “better represenatitives” of the original autographs. In fact, what I said was, that when the two documents agree, they “have been found to agree very closely with even earlier papyri which are dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, this demonstrates by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which they descend. 'In English,' so-to-speak, this means that these mss are representative of an even earlier archetype.” As I indicated prior, there are times I disagree with Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, but I take each variant on an individual basis. Sometimes Sinaiticus disagrees with Vaticanus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus, but agrees with the KJ. Sometimes all three disagree. But where I think the strongest case can be made is when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus both agree (or perhaps even one-or-the-other) in conjunction with other mss in circulation at the time. That is where your argument runs into problems. You can try to (unsuccessfully) discredit Vaticanus, or Sinaiticus, but you can’t discredit the earlier papyri that agree with them, or even the later 5th c. mss such as Ephrami, Alexandrinus, or Washingtonianus that (at points) agree with them, yet disagrees with the KJ.

There are a whole host of documents that are quite a bit older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I can’t list them all out, but to name a few of the prominent ones,

p46 – It contains (86) folios; all from the Pauline literature. It predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in critical places. There are also places it may agree with Vaticanus, and disagree with Sinaiticus (or vice-versa), and there are places it disagrees with both.

p66 – A late 2nd c. (or perhaps early 3rd c.) document that contains (39) folios; all from the Gospel of John. This document predates Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and yet agrees (and/or disagrees) with them in places. But then again, there are places where all three witnesses agree in contrast to the KJ. p66 is actually a common ancestor to p75, and Vaticanus.

p72 – It contains the Petrine epistles + Jude. It too, in places agrees with Vaticanus, and/or Sinaiticus, and even at times disagrees with both.

p75 – Is a late 3rd c. mss which contains a large portion from the Gospel of John, and the Gospel of Luke. It is closely related to p66, and Vaticanus.

Sinaiticus is often mislabeled as an Alexandrian witness; but this codice aligns more with a Western tradition than it does Alexandrian in John 1:1—8:38, but elsewhere does follow the Alexandrian tradition. What this means is that throughout the first eight chapters of John, there are witnesses from two different textual streams: Alexandrian (p66, p75, Vaticanus) and Western (Sinaiticus) — all of which are dated to the 2nd to 4th c. So we can deduce that portions of Vaticanus date back to the third, even the second century. But again, each variant has to be examined on an indivudual basis.