Additions to the Bible?

JohnClay · Jun 24, 2026

Apparently Mark was written first, then Luke and Matthew, then John.

Anyway here is the original ending to Mark:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

The NIV says this:

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

Then there is the story of the stoning of the adulteress:

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

Bible Gateway passage: John 8 - New International Version

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus...

www.biblegateway.com

In my 2011 NIV red letter Bible the text in that story is black italics even though the words of Jesus are meant to be in red.

There is also this NIV footnote:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New International Version

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

www.biblegateway.com

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

I think Jack Chick uses this as an example of why the NIV is corrupted and the true Bible translation is the KJV. [7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]

What do Christians think? Are the additions as inspired as the original? Or were the apparent additions really part of the original?

JohnClay · Jun 24, 2026

Sometimes my sister quotes this:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

The KJV says "this book". She assumes it means the Bible but I think it is referring to just the book of Revelation.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 24, 2026

JohnClay said:
Apparently Mark was written first, then Luke and Matthew, then John.

Anyway here is the original ending to Mark:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

The NIV says this:

Then there is the story of the stoning of the adulteress:

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: John 8 - New International Version

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus...

www.biblegateway.com

In my 2011 NIV red letter Bible the text in that story is black italics even though the words of Jesus are meant to be in red.

There is also this NIV footnote:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New International Version

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

www.biblegateway.com

I think Jack Chick uses this as an example of why the NIV is corrupted and the true Bible translation is the KJV. [7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]

What do Christians think? Are the additions as inspired as the original? Or were the apparent additions really part of the original?

No one knows for sure about these issues, John. If the additions aren't original, then they're not original. Whether or not they're inspired depends on how we think inspiration works and there are a variety of theories which Christians propose. However, at the very least, the additions are early enough (2nd century perhaps?) that they can be considered to be reflecting the 1st century traditional tropes about Jesus that were being promoted and circulated.

Either way, don't worry about it too much.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 24, 2026

JohnClay said:
Sometimes my sister quotes this:

Revelation 22:18-19

The KJV says "this book". She assumes it means the Bible but I think it is referring to just the book of Revelation.

You're right, John. The context of Revelation 22:18-19 only pertains to the book of Revelation.

However, we might take from these verses the general idea that we need to be careful in how we read and interpret any words or ideas we think may have been given by the Lord. Moreover, the warning in Revelation is perhaps a reflection of a similar warning found in Deuteronomy 4:2 in which the Law of Moses is to be held with similar carefulness and attention.

We all should be cautious in our conceptual freedom as we read, interpret and apply the Bible to our minds and lives.

BobRyan · Jun 24, 2026

JohnClay said:
Apparently Mark was written first, then Luke and Matthew, then John.

Anyway here is the original ending to Mark:

Bible Gateway passage: Mark 16 - New International Version

Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll...

www.biblegateway.com

The NIV says this:

Then there is the story of the stoning of the adulteress:

Bible Gateway passage: John 7 - New International Version

Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles - After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go...

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: John 8 - New International Version

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus...

www.biblegateway.com

In my 2011 NIV red letter Bible the text in that story is black italics even though the words of Jesus are meant to be in red.

There is also this NIV footnote:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New International Version

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

www.biblegateway.com

I think Jack Chick uses this as an example of why the NIV is corrupted and the true Bible translation is the KJV. [7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.]

What do Christians think? Are the additions as inspired as the original? Or were the apparent additions really part of the original?

The subject of "additions" are the result of different manuscripts, when they were found vs when they were used and were the found as rejected manuscripts or highly prized ones.

Sometimes what is termed "an older manuscript" is taken but should be rejected. The reason is that the so called older manuscript was not used in prior years because it was corrupt. Then they lose the manuscript they were using and now the older corrupt manuscript "is the older" of the ones we now have.

Erasmus collected the various manuscripts available in his day and then published "the received text" -- Textus Receptus. That is the one that NKJV and KJV are based on.

the printed editions of the Greek New Testament which served as the primary foundation for the Reformation-era Bible translations, including the King James Version (KJV)

It is newer than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Egyptian 4th centurty manuscripts that NASB NIV and others are based on )

Codex Vaticanus: Dated to around 325–350 AD, it has been housed in the Vatican Library since at least the 15th century. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Codex Sinaiticus: Also dated to the mid-4th century (330–360 AD). Discovered in the mid-19th century by Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, portions of it were rescued from a monastic trash pile. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Textus Receptus (Received Text): A printed Greek text compiled by scholars like Desiderius Erasmus in the early 16th century. It was the first widely published Greek New Testament, relying on a handful of later, medieval Byzantine manuscripts (primarily from the 12th to 15th centuries)

Some of the so called "older manuscripts) were found crumpled up and in the trash. They were not used until more recent times.

Some of the most ancient and most notable New Testament manuscripts — Wesley Huff

P52 (aka John Rylands 457) is one of the most notable New Testament manuscript fragments. Potentially the earliest extant piece of documentary evidence for the biblical New Testament, this papyrus fragment was discovered by C.H. Roberts in the basement of the John Rylands Library in 1934.

www.wesleyhuff.com

timf · Jun 24, 2026

Bible translations can get to be tricky business. Most have strong feelings. My preference is the KJV. I believe the critical text upon which most modern translations are based, is inferior to the majority text, but not cataclysmically so.

Many translations intentionally change the meaning in trying to make it easier to read. I find using esord software helps compare translations as well as offer tools to use to look at original Greek and Hebrew definitions.

The translation does not matter if the bible is not read or studied.

Aussie52 · Jun 24, 2026

Arguing about which translation is the best is endless. I think at the end of the day, each person must seek God as to which would be the most profitable for their spiritual life. And others should respect that decision.

DragonFox91 · Jun 24, 2026

To help determine accuracy, we look to the first copies The first copies are probably the most accurate.

For that section in Mark I believe the issue is most copies have it but the absolute oldest ones (which are far fewer in number) don't. So the question becomes do we trust the absolute oldest one to be the most accurate, or are the next oldest the most accurate b/c it's the majority?

I'd lean towards the oldest is the most accurate, but I've heard some teachers say the majority.

Either way, I'm glad translations bring it up. Translators are trying to be honest.

BobRyan said:
The subject of "additions" are the result of different manuscripts, when they were found vs when they were used and were the found as rejected manuscripts or highly prized ones.

Sometimes what is termed "an older manuscript" is taken but should be rejected. The reason is that the so called older manuscript was not used in prior years because it was corrupt. Then they lose the manuscript they were using and now the older corrupt manuscript "is the older" of the ones we now have.

Erasmus collected the various manuscripts available in his day and then published "the received text" -- Textus Receptus. That is the one that NKJV and KJV are based on.

the printed editions of the Greek New Testament which served as the primary foundation for the Reformation-era Bible translations, including the King James Version (KJV)

It is newer than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Egyptian 4th centurty manuscripts that NASB NIV and others are based on )

Codex Vaticanus: Dated to around 325–350 AD, it has been housed in the Vatican Library since at least the 15th century. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Codex Sinaiticus: Also dated to the mid-4th century (330–360 AD). Discovered in the mid-19th century by Constantine Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula, portions of it were rescued from a monastic trash pile. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Textus Receptus (Received Text): A printed Greek text compiled by scholars like Desiderius Erasmus in the early 16th century. It was the first widely published Greek New Testament, relying on a handful of later, medieval Byzantine manuscripts (primarily from the 12th to 15th centuries)

Some of the so called "older manuscripts) were found crumpled up and in the trash. They were not used until more recent times.

Some of the most ancient and most notable New Testament manuscripts — Wesley Huff

P52 (aka John Rylands 457) is one of the most notable New Testament manuscript fragments. Potentially the earliest extant piece of documentary evidence for the biblical New Testament, this papyrus fragment was discovered by C.H. Roberts in the basement of the John Rylands Library in 1934.

www.wesleyhuff.com

Interesting. I lean towards trusting what's oldest, but I hadn't thought sometimes we just don't know what's oldest. The copies are often so similar & the discrepancies so small (most are just typos) it makes it hard.

timf · Jun 25, 2026

"Oldest" is a tricky term. The oldest fragments, the oldest complete copies, etc.

JohnClay · Jun 26, 2026

DragonFox91 said:
...I lean towards trusting what's oldest, but I hadn't thought sometimes we just don't know what's oldest....

If some manuscripts don't include something it was either added or removed. I think it is easier to explain that something was added.

throughfierytrial · Jun 26, 2026

JohnClay said:
Sometimes my sister quotes this:

Revelation 22:18-19

The KJV says "this book". She assumes it means the Bible but I think it is referring to just the book of Revelation.

I believe the words “this book” refers to the entire Bible.
Understanding Revelation requires the use and understanding of passages found throughout the entire Bible. The view of Revelation is a Bible-view, a full Bible view, which leads me to believe “this book” refers to the Bible.
However, because Revelation draws on passages from the entire Bible, taking from or adding to the Book of Revelation would probably result in equal outcome..

JohnClay · Jun 26, 2026

throughfierytrial said:
I believe the words “this book” refers to the entire Bible.
Understanding Revelation requires the use and understanding of passages found throughout the entire Bible. The view of Revelation is a Bible-view, a full Bible view, which leads me to believe “this book” refers to the Bible.
However, because Revelation draws on passages from the entire Bible, taking from or adding to the Book of Revelation would probably result in equal outcome..

The NIV says "this scroll of prophecy" (KJV: "the words of the prophecy of this book") so it seems to refer to a book focusing on prophecy rather than a more general book that contains other things...
Or maybe it is saying you can't add or remove prophecies from the Bible which implies it is ok for the other sections of the Bible.

throughfierytrial · Jun 26, 2026

JohnClay said:
The NIV says "this scroll of prophecy" (KJV: "the words of the prophecy of this book") so it seems to refer to a book focusing on prophecy rather than a more general book that contains other things...
Or maybe it is saying you can't add or remove prophecies from the Bible which implies it is ok for the other sections of the Bible.

There are several passages concerning that topic.The following are a few commanding against adding or subtracting from God’s Word…
Deuteronomy 4:2
Proverbs 30:6
I Corinthians 4:6
II John 1:9-10

You will find more in your daily reading

JohnClay · Jun 26, 2026

throughfierytrial said:
There are several passages concerning that topic.The following are a few commanding against adding or subtracting from God’s Word…
Deuteronomy 4:2
Proverbs 30:6
I Corinthians 4:6
II John 1:9-10

You will find more in your daily reading

So does that mean the people who added the story about stoning the adulteress would be punished for it? It has apparently been added to a lot of places including "wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53".

throughfierytrial · Jun 26, 2026

JohnClay said:
So does that mean the people who added the story about stoning the adulteress would be punished for it? It has apparently been added to a lot of places including "wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53".

One could only guess. How old are the manuscripts which include it? And etc.

My only reason for posting was to caution against adding or subtracting from Scroture… it is written!

Godspeed!

2PhiloVoid · Jun 26, 2026

JohnClay said:
So does that mean the people who added the story about stoning the adulteress would be punished for it? It has apparently been added to a lot of places including "wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53".

Where in the world are you getting your information for these four verses, John?

These verses are not really in question in the same way that the ending of Mark is questioned. It's best to hear from a wide assortment of scholars and not simply dredge from one single source or allied sources which echo each other.

JohnClay · Jun 26, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Where in the world are you getting your information for these four verses, John?

The following appears below the actual text in the 2011 NIV in John 7 - not the footnotes, the actual text:

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

And it is 5 versions of the additions if you include John 7:53 - 8:11.

2PhiloVoid said:
These verses are not really in question in the same way that the ending of Mark is questioned. It's best to hear from a wide assortment of scholars and not simply dredge from one single source or allied sources which echo each other.

Well the NIV was created by many scholars. Are you saying that there is no good evidence that there are at least 5 versions of the stoning of the adulteress story additions? I guess some scholars would just not mention anything about it. Note that in the red letter NIV version none of that story is in red letters implying that Jesus never said it (at least exactly). The end of Mark is the same - it also is in black italics rather than any red text. I guess many scholars would believe that Jesus could have said all of those things... though it seems originally that text didn't appear in the gospels. I suspect scholars that disagree are assuming that the text of the Bible must be basically accurate rather than seeing what the manuscripts themselves imply. Though that conclusion is understandable.

2PhiloVoid · Jun 27, 2026

JohnClay said:
The following appears below the actual text in the 2011 NIV in John 7 - not the footnotes, the actual text:

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

And it is 5 versions of the additions if you include John 7:53 - 8:11.

I was specifically NOT addressing John 7:53-8:11. Only the singular verses John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

JohnClay said:
Well the NIV was created by many scholars. Are you saying that there is no good evidence that there are at least 5 versions of the stoning of the adulteress story additions? I guess some scholars would just not mention anything about it. Note that in the red letter NIV version none of that story is in red letters implying that Jesus never said it (at least exactly). The end of Mark is the same - it also is in black italics rather than any red text. I guess many scholars would believe that Jesus could have said all of those things... though it seems originally that text didn't appear in the gospels. I suspect scholars that disagree are assuming that the text of the Bible must be basically accurate rather than seeing what the manuscripts themselves imply. Though that conclusion is understandable.

Yes, John. The John 7:53-8:11 passage is a debated piece of 'Scripture,' and in my first post, I tried to very briefly allude to the reason that I thought passages like it were included in our current, modern Bibles.

Keep up the good work on Textual Criticism! You're asking some good questions.

JohnClay · Jun 27, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
I was specifically NOT addressing John 7:53-8:11. Only the singular verses John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.

BTW they're not all singular verses - they are the verses where the additions begin - "wholly or in part"

2PhiloVoid · Jun 27, 2026

JohnClay said:
BTW they're not all singular verses - they are the verses where the additions begin - "wholly or in part"

I was only addressing what you actually listed.

Additions to the Bible?

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Disassembly is required!!!

Disassembly is required!!!

Junior Member

Regular Member

Wesleyan-Arminian.

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Truth-Lover

Married Mouth-Breather

Truth-Lover

Married Mouth-Breather

Truth-Lover

Disassembly is required!!!

Married Mouth-Breather

Disassembly is required!!!

Married Mouth-Breather

Disassembly is required!!!

Similar threads