Is Matthew 17.21 missing from your version of the Bible?

[luvinjesus111]

But, if Mark didn't write something in his gospel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but later on someone else added to what he wrote, is the added material considered God breathed? In this instance the words "and fasting" found in Mark 9:29. The evidence is showing that Markk did not write those words, but someone else did 400 years later. Are those words God-breathed even though the Holy Spirit didn't inspire Mark to write them? And, if the Holy Spirit didn't have Mark write them, did Jesus actually say those words??? If Jesus didn't say them, then we are guilty of putting words into Jesus' mouth.

Well if thats the case then were all in trouble. What do we believe then? I for one am going to believe that my God is big enough to have kept his word & guidence secure. Even though I refer to other translations I will stick to King James. It's been the Bible God has chosen to spread the word. Peace

 

[Jesusong]

Well if thats the case then were all in trouble.

Why are we in trouble???

What do we believe then?

We believe in His Word. If our understanding of what we believe is wrong, and a correct understanding comes to light, do we refuse to accept the correction because our whole faith and theology is built on what we supposed to be correct, or do we change our way of thinking and understanding and conform to what the Scriptures say to us.

I will stick to King James. It's been the Bible God has chosen to spread the word. Peace

You may do so, but if what we preach and teach is not as pure as we thought in light of the evidences that are being brought to light, and fail to correct ourselves because convience sake (or maybe pride??), we do a dis-service to the Saviour serve.

 

[TexasSky]

From my memory the KJV used the Textus Receptus which was not three manuscripts but two. One for the OT and one for the NT it may have been 3 but I thought it was two. Though the reason for the verse missing in one version from the other is that not all manscripts include that verse espicially the older manuscripts. I am postive you know this and you are only doing this to try and bring something out to us, but when they (scholars) find that older manscripts don't have a particular verse they take them and begin to rate them on a scale. The higher up the scale the more likely it was in the original text and not an addition by the copiest and a mis copy. For example the Our Father prayer has something at the end of the prayer "for thine is the Kingdom the glory and the power forever amen" or something of that nature. Since it does not appear in the oldest manscripts of Matthew it is rated lower. The rest of the text of that prayer would be rated say and "A" and the other text based upon appeatance would be rated like a "B" or a "C" or a "D". I think "D" is the lowest. I think A and B text are given with no footnote while C and D variations are given with a footnote in most Bibles. Furthermore the reason for footnoting in mordern translations has the to do with the issue of the amount of manscripts used as I was mentioned above. The more manscripts used the more comparitive texts you have. Now with most of the texts of your Bible there is little or no variation. I think one teacher in Bible College said 98% of your Bible is not argueable. There are a few pasages though such as John 8, Mark 16, this verse and a few others that are debateable. So if you have issues like this were there is not as much textual credibility what they do is footnote it to let you know at least one manscript has it. Or if it is minor they footnote a word variation due to incorrect wording of the text by the copiest. Such as if they misplaced a word out of order.

Well I think that pretty much covers it. As for this verse I think it does not have great frequencey in other manuscripts. But then we raise the issue of is there really the Textus Recptus or not.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to add or subtract as I am doing this from my memory and I learned about this in one class for one session about 3 years ago.

I trust your memory better than mine. It was probably two. Whether it was 2 or 3 - there were certainly not thousands.

Your explanation of the comparison was very well stated.

Thank you for making it more clear than I could.

 

[TexasSky]

Great posts.

The scripture is omitted (or footnoted) in modern translations because the verse is not found in older manuscripts of the NT discovered since 1611 that are chronologically closer to the orignal. For that reason it was determined that there is a strong likelihood that it was added by a copyist at a later dater either as their own notes which found its way into the text or as an addition to add weight to the passage.



The immediate context of the verse reads:

20 So Jesus said to them, “Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.


​

Perhaps, to the mind of the copyist, this seemed too simple, that surely more must be required of a believer in order for them to move mountains. So the copyist added their subjective qualifier:

21 However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.


​

I am not saying this is how I view it, but that’s what they say.

Thank you for pointing out that the "newer translations" were translating the "oldest" manuscripts.

 

[TexasSky]

Ok, here's what I have found in my library.

According to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" we read the following:
The committee gave this passage an A rating indicating that the passage is certain.

The NIV General Editor Kenneth Barker had this to say in his book "The Accuracy of The NIV:


Philip W. Comfort has this to say in his book, "Essential Guide To Bible Versions"


The age of some of these manuscripts are as follows:
Aleph (aka Codex Sinaiticus) : 4th Century. The corrections by a later copyist seem to be from the 7th century.
B (aka Codex Vaticanus) : 4th Century.
C (aka Codex Ephraemi) : 5th century
D (aka Codex Bezae) : 5th Century
L (aka Codex Regius) : 8th Century
W (aka Codex Washingtonianus) : Late 4th or 5th Century
33 : 9th Century
f1 : four cursive mss of a Byzantine text type 7th –14th Century
syr : 5th Century Syriac text
cop : There are two – Sahidic 3rd Century, Bohairic 4th or 5th Century
TR : Textus Receptus: The Greek text of the KJV which was a compilation of 7 mss no earlier than the 11th Century.
Majority Text : A collection of mss that make up the majority of the text of the Greek New Testament. Most of these manuscripts are of late origin (9th century and later) and are written in cursive script.

Wonderful post, and it must have taken a lot of time and research. Thank you.

 

[TexasSky]

If it's in the Bible it's the word of God. If we believe the Bible to be the very breath of God then stick to it. I go by King James but I do have others I refer to. King James has been the Bible for many years so I trust God that whats in there it what he wants us to go by. If we start debating over what's in King James then IMHO we may start to question the authority of Gods Word.

The manuscripts date back to the 3rd century and have survived all these centuries. They have been protected from destruction by God himself. These are the "old bible" the "word of God breathed by God."

The King James Bible is a wonderful bible. I don't ever intend to knock it, but the fact remains, that if it differs from the ancient manuscripts then IT is in error.

A small group of people, and largely one man, using 2 manuscripts translated the King James. HUNDREDS of authorities in ancient manuscripts and theology, representing many denominations, using thousands of manuscripts that were older than anything used to translate the King James have offered the more modern translations. The King James also relied on earlier translations of the bible as much as they relied on the manuscripts. They even say that on the title page of one of the first printings. "THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised."

The reason it was created was because the Bishop's Bible of the 1500's and the Geneva Bible contradicted each other in places. The Geneva bible was the most popular bible for over 100 years. The King James is very heavily influenced by the Geneva. The Geneva was called the "breeches" bible because it claimed God put britches on Adam and Eve in Eden. Even after the King James was published the Geneva was the preferred bible for many years, and the Geneva was the Bible that first came to America. It is the bible used by the Puritans and the Pilgrams. The Geneva had notes that were against the Catholic Church. To avoid that, Queen Elizabeth had them print up the Bishop's Bible again, but people swore it was "wrong" and "Geneva was the only true bible."

In 1580 they decided to try to print a bible in english, but they used a Latin Vlugate as the source for producing the Rheims. The Rheims had distortions and corruptions that Erasmus had pointed out 75 years before.

A Cambridge professor printed a parallel bible in an attempt to show that the Rheims was corrupt.

This lead to ministers asking King James to create a new bible. They wanted to replace the Bishop's Bible, but they didn't want to use the Geneva becuse the Geneva had marginal notes that called the Pope the Anti-Christ.

Using as sources Tyndal'es Bible, Coverdale's Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Rheims Bible, they created the King James Bible. It took another 250 years for the King James to replace the Geneva in the hearts of the world. It didn't gain popularity until it was revised in 1881.


So if you want to say, "This is the bible that must be right because it is "old," you better go back to the "Britches Bible," because the Geneva is MUCH older and was popular for MUCH LONGER than the King James.

In 1947 we found the first of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

That discovery lead to a much better understanding of Greek and Hebrew.

There has to be a reason God allowed the Dead Sea Scrolls to be found. To just dismiss the knowledge gained by that find because tradition holds to a bible translated in the 1600's seems wrong to me.

The translations that have benefitted from that discovery are examining scrolls that go back further in terms of when they actually inked than anything the preceeding bibles had to work with.

There was an entire Isaiah scroll in the Qumran cave. Not pieces, the whole thing.

That is God preserving His word.

 

[JimB]

Well if thats the case then were all in trouble. What do we believe then? I for one am going to believe that my God is big enough to have kept his word & guidence secure. Even though I refer to other translations I will stick to King James. It's been the Bible God has chosen to spread the word. Peace

Maybe by uncovering the copyist addition, this 4th century insertion of v.21 into the text of the Gospels, this man-made tampering with holy writ, God has, in fact, done what you say, “been big enough to keep his word secure."

Just a thought.

 

[Lilac*Lamb]

I never even realised before untill now that it was a footnote. I sure learn alot. Thank-you. Jim.lilac*lamb

 

[Dee235]

It is in my version, but that is the KJV on e-sword.

 

[KingZzub]

For some wonderful and simple to understand information on the various Greek manuscripts, try:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3133

And watch the videos/ download the mp3s. You may need to register, but it is totally free.

They go through the different Greek manuscripts and why they are different, and they keep it nice and simple. I really recommend it.

Cheers,
|ZZ|