Subtraction of some verses from the Bible, why and who is to be blamed

[another_poster]

1. Why these subtractions in NIV and Good News?

 

IMO these subtractions came during the period that Arianism was in control of the Church; around the 300 to 400 AD, period. 

 

But others will tell you verses were added by men like Priscillian who supposedly added Much of I John 5:7 around 350 AD.  But the problem with this is that Cyprian quotes all of I John 5:7 in 250 AD.  That would be 100 years before the suppose addition.

 

There is enough doubt on the topic to not be able to conclude one way or the other. I think the side most people would fall on would be determined by their view rather than facts.That it does not appear in so many of the texts for such a long time should cause one to doubt. So I think the best option is to to take a open position on that topic and as you say let the spirit guide us.

[hmbld]

A_P agreed. We have all these versions and every time someone objects to one of the mainstream ones and I try looking into it I just don't see their point.

With all these versions just get em open and read them!

[OneLight]

When in doubt, ALWAYS trust the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[saved34]

A_P agreed. We have all these versions and every time someone objects to one of the mainstream ones and I try looking into it I just don't see their point.

With all these versions just get em open and read them!

That's because there really is no point. With the exception of some of the more horrible translations like the Jehovah's witness Bible (which purposely destroys the doctrine of Christ and his deity), all the english Bibles are fine attempts at getting God's word to us in our language as clear and precise as can possibly be. The KJV is a great translation but it had areas where it could have been much clearer in bringing forth the text for the average layman to understand. 

 

Many teachers and scholars who reject 1John 5:7 are staunch Trinitarians, and defend The doctrine of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit against all who would deny that biblical truth. All of these "Missing verses" do very little to damaging the overall message of scripture. There is not one tenant of the faith that is denied in the so called "modern translations". They all call sin, sin, and they all lead us to Christ. 

[Guest]

I hope I am not being redundant, it is hard not to be on a topic with this much participation. I do not have the time to examine all of the posts, but it will add a couple of things to think about. First, let me say that the question was asked, "Who is to Blame"

 

The fallen nature of the world in general, and mankind in particular. Basically, we have no perfect copies of scripture, they are all tainted a little bit, and most manuscripts that we do possess, are fragments. I think the question, is sort of leqading to a conclusion, that someone has fiddled with the scripture, I do not see where such an accusation is justified.

 

Another part of the question is: "Why are verses left out?"
Since the verses which are "missing", are missing in our oldest documents, who is to say that the verses in the later documents, were not added?  In the past, all of the documents were handwritten, no type writers, copy machines printing presses etc. Many people write notes in their bibles. Is it not possible, for example, that somewhere along the line, that a possessor of one of these early manuscripts stuck a note on page about something that he had heard, that Christians could swallow any deadly thing, and not be harmed?

 

(Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.)

 

 I believe, but I have never cast out a devil, I have never spoken with a new tongue. I have never taken up a serpent as a believer, nor have I drank any deadly thing, and I have not laid hands on the sick to see them recover. So far, my score is pretty low.

 

I suggest it is possible, that this was a note some someone insribed into a text, and a subsequent copyist, wrote it down and it was copied again and again, until there were enough copies around, to make it into the hands of later people, including, bot example, the writers of the KJV. 

 

So, how would we know what the original contained? Answer: We cannot!

 

For some, the fact that the earlier manuscripts are of Alexandrian origin, is enough not to trust them. Really? Hmm. The Septuagint, an early version of the Hebrew bible, translated into Greek, was of Alexandrian origin. Does that make it bad? Some think so. However, I am inclined to think, that since Jesus and the apostles, quoted from the Septuagint, they must have thought it was alright. I will side with them, over the opinions of those who automatically dismiss Alexandrian texts. Jesus and the apostles, did not engage, however, in a "Septuagint Only" debate.

 

As to the point about adding to the book, I agree with those who said, that likely refers to the Book of Revelation. If one wants to assume, that the whole word of God is in mind, I can admit to that possibility. I seem to remember there being a similar statement in the old testament though but I cannot recall it at the moment, so take that assertion with a grain of salt. However, if the O.T. statement, were to be understood the way that people often understand Rev 22:18.19, then it would have been a sin to write the New Testament.

 

I tend to think of the Word of God, not as ink and paper, but his revelation, no matter what the format, his revealed thoughts, from His heart to ours, which are always true, and cannot be changed. Paper expressions of that, can always be corrupted in this age.

 

So, even if we subtract a few verses, His message remains. No vital doctrine, has been destroyed, the word is intact. Everything I need to know as a believer, can be found in the KJV or the NIV, bickering over versions and debatable differences, is to my mind a waste of time and energy, and a distraction from our mission as believers.

 

Oh, P.S. See:
Deut 4:2

Deut 12:32
Pro 30:6
Psa 119:160

[Ezra]

Who said anything about adding? Fact is the bible as we know it today did not exist when revelation was written. It is not reasonable or logical to assume it should apply to other books especially since some of them had not been accepted as scripture at that point in time. All the passage means is not to add or subtract to the book of revelation. No more, no less.

Fact is that the Old Testament was already a major portion of the Bible and present in all the synagogues, therefore in all the churches.  Fact is that ALL of Paul's epsitles were already recognized as Scripture by Peter even while he was writing his epistles, so all the churches he was writing to would have had copies. Fact is that the Gospels were already in circulation and Paul quotes from Luke.  Fact is that Paul spoke about "the books" and "the parchments" while writing to Timothy (a reference to the New and Old Testaments).  Fact is that there was a Muratori Canon listing 99% of the New Testament books before 200 AD, which means that the canon of Scripture had already been completed by 100 AD.  Fact is we really do not know enough about the apostolic churches to make any claim about the Bible being incomplete.

 

The book of Revelation by conscious design and by the date of its writing is the last book in the Bible.  Thus G. H. Lang in The Revelation of Jesus Christ wrote this in 1945: "While in the strict letter the threats of this terrible warning [Rev 22:18,19] apply to the Revelation, yet in asmuch as this portion of the Book of God is rooted in, interwoven with, and IS THE COMPLETION OF THE WORD OF GOD, it becomes impossible to tamper with this final book without maltreating what has been given of God before".

 

So to continue to insist that that dire warning in Revelation is strictly for Revelation is not only specious, but fails to see the whole picture (as G. H. Lang and others have seen it).

 

Was Scripture tampered with by Gnostic heretics?  Absolutely.  Was the tampering to attack Bible doctrines? Absolutely.  Do modern bible "versions" contain a corrupted Bible?  Absolutely.  There is solid documentary evidence for all these statements.  The sad truth is that the majority of Christians have been hoodwinked into believing that they have superior bibles to the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles).

[hmbld]

 

Was Scripture tampered with by Gnostic heretics?  Absolutely.  Was the tampering to attack Bible doctrines? Absolutely.  Do modern bible "versions" contain a corrupted Bible?  Absolutely.  There is solid documentary evidence for all these statements.  The sad truth is that the majority of Christians have been hoodwinked into believing that they have superior bibles to the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles).

 

 

Are you saying the KJV alone is not corrupted?  As I have researched only a little, the case can certainly be made that the KJV could have been translated more accurately than it was.  I agree with Omega here, and find his last two paragraphs are worded very well.  

 

King James was but a man, instructing other men to translate.  

[Proof]

I recently had this same debate with someone on another forum. And I have seen similar responses on this board. Some people do look at other versions with a bias for the version they were raised on or the version their church uses. I see this in KJV only followers. However, I try to look at the era the version was written for and what terminology was used and the vocabulary that was used. I picked a verse and posted it from the KJV, NIV, and the CEV. They all of course read different but if you consider what the words mean at the time there were written, they all meant the same thing.

[another_poster]

 

Who said anything about adding? Fact is the bible as we know it today did not exist when revelation was written. It is not reasonable or logical to assume it should apply to other books especially since some of them had not been accepted as scripture at that point in time. All the passage means is not to add or subtract to the book of revelation. No more, no less.

Fact is that the Old Testament was already a major portion of the Bible and present in all the synagogues, therefore in all the churches.  Fact is that ALL of Paul's epsitles were already recognized as Scripture by Peter even while he was writing his epistles, so all the churches he was writing to would have had copies. Fact is that the Gospels were already in circulation and Paul quotes from Luke.  Fact is that Paul spoke about "the books" and "the parchments" while writing to Timothy (a reference to the New and Old Testaments).  Fact is that there was a Muratori Canon listing 99% of the New Testament books before 200 AD, which means that the canon of Scripture had already been completed by 100 AD.  Fact is we really do not know enough about the apostolic churches to make any claim about the Bible being incomplete.

 

The book of Revelation by conscious design and by the date of its writing is the last book in the Bible.  Thus G. H. Lang in The Revelation of Jesus Christ wrote this in 1945: "While in the strict letter the threats of this terrible warning [Rev 22:18,19] apply to the Revelation, yet in asmuch as this portion of the Book of God is rooted in, interwoven with, and IS THE COMPLETION OF THE WORD OF GOD, it becomes impossible to tamper with this final book without maltreating what has been given of God before".

 

So to continue to insist that that dire warning in Revelation is strictly for Revelation is not only specious, but fails to see the whole picture (as G. H. Lang and others have seen it).

 

Was Scripture tampered with by Gnostic heretics?  Absolutely.  Was the tampering to attack Bible doctrines? Absolutely.  Do modern bible "versions" contain a corrupted Bible?  Absolutely.  There is solid documentary evidence for all these statements.  The sad truth is that the majority of Christians have been hoodwinked into believing that they have superior bibles to the KJV (and other Reformation Bibles).

 

So according to you the entire NT is sinful and should never have been written. Convenient how you skipped over that argument.

 

Interesting that you also seem to be claiming that Lang is beyond question. Yes there are people who give his view but there are others just as qualified who disagree. There are many problems with assuming everything in a book of the bible applies to every situation. To take that view means one can only conclude that the bible is full of contradictions! 

The KJV obviously is not perfect because it translates the same words differently. 

 

I have seen many of these arguments. I have read so many phamplets and spent hours going through websites and there are just no compelling arguments to suggest the KJV is better than any other translation. Even the way it was translated shows they were not divinely inspired in the translation process which means that they were capable of making mistakes.

[saved34]

I can remember the days I called other translations outside of the KJV, perversions, and corrupt. Now I read and hear that and it breaks my heart. There is no biblical reasoning behind it. We all have staked our very lives on the truths in this blessed book. There are millions today who have benefited greatly from the modern translations. They have come to Christ, and they have grown in Grace and the knowledge of him. They are not lacking one single thing that our KJV brothers and sisters have. We are just as orthodox, and have just as much zeal for our Lord as they do. We defend the truth of the Gospel just like they do, yet we are told that our Bibles are corrupt, and we are somehow in the wrong because they feel like there is a conspiracy to take out verses of scripture. 

 

I asked this question so many times over the last few years, but what are we missing? If the modern versions have "taken out" scriptures, what do you believe because you have these particular scriptures, that I myself do not believe? Being KJV only is not the problem, and never has been the problem, but setting up a standard of text that scripture has never said one word about, is simply extra biblical. The whole point of the word in a language is to get the message across to the people so they can understand in their language. As languages change and come to mean different things over time, there is nothing wrong with scholars of that time updating God's word in the dialect of the people it is intended for. This is how God preserves his word. 

 

I'm quite sure their are men who handle God's word in craftiness, and have agenda's to push, and do take out scriptures or twist them to fit their own theology, but this can not be laid at the feet of good modern translations. Not only that, but the Church has sniffed out any and all attempts to twist God's word, if it does not make sense in the totality of scripture, then we reject it, period. (My sheep hear my voice). That is why we as a collective, throughout history, has been the Ground and Pillar of the Truth. The Holy Spirit leads us, and we will not be duped by bad translations that lead to poor doctrine. Setting up the KJV as the only version we should use is a man made doctrine, and should be rejected as it only creates sectarianism in the Body. God has never once made this claim, and neither did the KJV translators.