Omitted Texts?

[ByTheSpirit]

So a lot is made of "missing verses" in the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc that the KJV series of Bubles includes. My question is this:

Does it really make a huge difference if you have them or not?

I mean why such a big deal over verses that add no depth of meaning to salvation doctrine or understanding?

Take Matthew 17:21 because that is one often quoted in such discussions. Jesus said this kind goes out by only prayer and fasting. The idea Jesus is presenting here is not some new idea nor is it not taught in more modern texts based off Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland. It is just omitted as possibly being added by a late scribe.

1 John 5:7 is another big one. The omission of this scripture has caused a big fuss as well. It is not as though by omitting this scripture, modern translations do not teach the Trinity. In fact, many many scriptures still teach the doctrine, this particular verse is omitted because it is pretty obviously not in the originals.

But on the flip side, so what if someone reads a KJV, NKJV, or MEV? The inclusion of such scriptures do not "add to the text". I do not buy into divine inspiration on these verses, but the contents still support biblical doctrine.

So why make such a big deal out of it? Can't we just agree that the most important thing is that someone should read the scriptures?

 

[jacks]

It seems to be human nature to make a big deal out of pretty much everything.

 

[dysert]

I agree it's very important that people read the Scriptures. I think the point about the "missing" verses is that scholars want to try to get to what was the original text. The couple of examples you gave have the doctrine supported elsewhere, but what about verses that seem not to be supported elsewhere? Do we ignore them or, since they're part of the canon, do we accept them just like all the other verses of the canon? If, as I do, one subscribes to inerrancy in the originals, then it behooves us to try to get at the originals.

 

[Tree of Life]

People need a hobby I guess.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I agree it's very important that people read the Scriptures. I think the point about the "missing" verses is that scholars want to try to get to what was the original text. The couple of examples you gave have the doctrine supported elsewhere, but what about verses that seem not to be supported elsewhere? Do we ignore them or, since they're part of the canon, do we accept them just like all the other verses of the canon? If, as I do, one subscribes to inerrancy in the originals, then it behooves us to try to get at the originals.

I certainly agree with the last statement but realistically is that possible without the originals? If not, then again, is it a "huge" deal if those extra verses were added? Or even taken away depending on your viewpoint? But still good thoughts

 

[Tree of Life]

My take on it is that whichever text tradition you go with is not a huge deal because they're not very different. It's an interesting issue that can inspire lively and enjoyable debate. But it would be a shame to divide a church over such a small issue.

 

[dysert]

My take on it is that whichever text tradition you go with is not a huge deal because they're not very different. It's an interesting issue that can inspire lively and enjoyable debate. But it would be a shame to divide a church over such a small issue.

Yeah, I don't think it's something to divide a church.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

My take on it is that whichever text tradition you go with is not a huge deal because they're not very different. It's an interesting issue that can inspire lively and enjoyable debate. But it would be a shame to divide a church over such a small issue.

I know the KJO crowd can be quite rambunctious in this arena... lol

 

[HereIStand]

For those familiar with the arguments for or against certain passages, it's probably not that big of a deal. But as I've read, "the vast majority of Christians just want a clean and clear Bible version, without question marks, qualifications, or thick black lines and brackets around cherished passages." This helps explain the continued readership for the KJV.

 

[Theadorus]

So a lot is made of "missing verses" in the NIV, ESV, NASB, etc that the KJV series of Bubles includes. My question is this:

Does it really make a huge difference if you have them or not?

I mean why such a big deal over verses that add no depth of meaning to salvation doctrine or understanding?

Take Matthew 17:21 because that is one often quoted in such discussions. Jesus said this kind goes out by only prayer and fasting. The idea Jesus is presenting here is not some new idea nor is it not taught in more modern texts based off Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland. It is just omitted as possibly being added by a late scribe.

1 John 5:7 is another big one. The omission of this scripture has caused a big fuss as well. It is not as though by omitting this scripture, modern translations do not teach the Trinity. In fact, many many scriptures still teach the doctrine, this particular verse is omitted because it is pretty obviously not in the originals.

But on the flip side, so what if someone reads a KJV, NKJV, or MEV? The inclusion of such scriptures do not "add to the text". I do not buy into divine inspiration on these verses, but the contents still support biblical doctrine.

So why make such a big deal out of it? Can't we just agree that the most important thing is that someone should read the scriptures?

I'll touch on the Matthew 17:21 verse, but to me, this verse show us one to completely crush unbelief in our lives. Off hand I can't of any other verses that speak on this, but I really do believe that fasting part is very important.

Side note: I don't know who these people are Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland.

Now, this idea is just in works, and I'm still praying and meditating on this, but God was making a connection between this verse, and when Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. We see in Luke 4:14, that when Jesus was done with the temptation he returned to the city in the power of the Spirit. Again, this is a work in progress, but I believe this is one of the reasons why Jesus could operate in all 100% of his faith. And so that's why Jesus told his disciples the important line.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'll touch on the Matthew 17:21 verse, but to me, this verse show us one to completely crush unbelief in our lives. Off hand I can't of any other verses that speak on this, but I really do believe that fasting part is very important.

Side note: I don't know who these people are Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland.

Now, this idea is just in works, and I'm still praying and meditating on this, but God was making a connection between this verse, and when Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. We see in Luke 4:14, that when Jesus was done with the temptation he returned to the city in the power of the Spirit. Again, this is a work in progress, but I believe this is one of the reasons why Jesus could operate in all 100% of his faith (again, work in progress). And so that's why Jesus told his disciples the important line.

Well what I meant is that Jesus teaches about prayer and fasting and their importance in the Sermon on the Mount. He fasted and said he expected his followers to fast and pray. So the inclusion or exclusion of Matthew 17:21 really doesn't add to nor take away from the idea that we should pray and fast so why the big dust up over it then?

 

[Theadorus]

Well what I meant is that Jesus teaches about prayer and fasting and their importance in the Sermon on the Mount. He fasted and said he expected his followers to fast and pray. So the inclusion or exclusion of Matthew 17:21 really doesn't add to nor take away from the idea that we should pray and fast so why the big dust up over it then?

Oh, I see. I guess the reason I would make a fuss about it because this helps give us another idea to why fasting is important. For the longest time I had no idea what the purpose of fasting was for, but I was told that it's important. To me it just helps build upon my reasoning on why I should do it, and what I can expect from doing the fast. It's almost like another piece of the puzzle.

 

[Theadorus]

Well what I meant is that Jesus teaches about prayer and fasting and their importance in the Sermon on the Mount. He fasted and said he expected his followers to fast and pray. So the inclusion or exclusion of Matthew 17:21 really doesn't add to nor take away from the idea that we should pray and fast so why the big dust up over it then?

I have very little revelation on fasting, and the purpose behind it, and what it's supposed to do, so a verse like Matthew 17:21 just helps clarify to me what I can expect from a fast.

 

[-V-]

Oh, I see. I guess the reason I would make a fuss about it because this helps give us another idea to why fasting is important. For the longest time I had no idea what the purpose of fasting was for, but I was told that it's important. To me it just helps build upon my reasoning on why I should do it, and what I can expect from doing the fast. It's almost like another piece of the puzzle.

But then one has to ask: Does information being helpful justify adding it to the text if it wasn't there in the first place?

If that does not justify adding text, then it really isn't fair to "make a fuss" if some decide to not include the questionable text. After all, all they are doing is trying to be as faithful to the original writing as possible.

Most reputable translations, however, include notes explaining where/what the variances are. That way, even if it's not in the main text, that extra text that you find helpful is still available.

 

[-V-]

For those familiar with the arguments for or against certain passages, it's probably not that big of a deal.

Agreed.

But as I've read, "the vast majority of Christians just want a clean and clear Bible version, without question marks, qualifications, or thick black lines and brackets around cherished passages."

To me, though, that's a bit too close to saying, "I'd rather stick my head in the sand and pretend variant manuscripts don't exist."

 

[ByTheSpirit]

But then one has to ask: Does information being helpful justify adding it to the text if it wasn't there in the first place?

If that does not justify adding text, then it really isn't fair to "make a fuss" if some decide to not include the questionable text. After all, all they are doing is trying to be as faithful to the original writing as possible.

Most reputable translations, however, include notes explaining where/what the variances are. That way, even if it's not in the main text, that extra text that you find helpful is still available.

I do think footnotes are the best solution to the issue

 

[Theadorus]

But then one has to ask: Does information being helpful justify adding it to the text if it wasn't there in the first place?

If that does not justify adding text, then it really isn't fair to "make a fuss" if some decide to not include the questionable text. After all, all they are doing is trying to be as faithful to the original writing as possible.

Most reputable translations, however, include notes explaining where/what the variances are. That way, even if it's not in the main text, that extra text that you find helpful is still available.

Okay, yeah, I see your point. You're right, it wouldn't be fair to make a fuse about it.

 

[HereIStand]

To me, though, that's a bit too close to saying, "I'd rather stick my head in the sand and pretend variant manuscripts don't exist."

True. I read the ESV and have used other versions. I'm trying to read through the KJV at present. It seems to be the version that many people have known and memorized. The British soldiers at Dunkirk were able to reference a mere three words ("But if not") from Daniel 3:18 and be understood by their countrymen. It's good to have so many translations for study and comparison. It makes passing on a shared tradition more difficult though.