Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Missing Verses in the ESV??? Why Aren't These Verses in My Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2024
- Where are the so-called "missing verses" in the ESV? In this video, I discuss the problems presented between the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text.
Here is a list of the "missing verses" - en.wikipedia.o...
Here's that cool Field Notes Wallet by For the King Trading Co. that I showed at 9:05 -www.fortheking...
For the King Trading on Facebook - / forthekingtradingco
As an archaeologist, I can say, that the idea of the “oldest and best manuscripts” being spoken of as a matter of fact by 20th century scholars, is utter nonsense. There are too many intricacies and much missing context to support the older/better. We don’t know that they are older, and their only claim to superiority is this idea that they are “older”. The 2-3 main manuscripts upon which the newer translations are approximately 90+% based are of questionable origin and condition and their acquisition dubious at best, and the idea that scholars are completely objective about the this subject (or any other) is a fallacy. Regardless of whether one is a KJV proponent or a supporter of modern translations, there is NO WAY to conclusively prove older/better. It is a matter of opinion, being put forth as fact…with many inconsistencies being ignored. The theory has become dogma.
To Pastor Everhard, I enjoy your videos (I bought a Turquoise after watching your review), and I appreciate what you do. My comments here are in no way intended to discredit your point of view. I’m just sharing my thoughts on this subject which so often comes up, and which seem to lead a lot of people to question/doubt the Bible’s authenticity and divine inspiration, one way or another.
Great video Matthew... There is one thing that needs to be noted here... There is a verse in ESV missing that most all modern Critical Text scholars agree belongs in the text... That’s Matthew 12:47...
Also it needs to be noted the base text of the modern translations take readings that are “harder readings” even if it is out of context. But great video bro!
mathew 12:47 is an interesting case actually, it's in most versions except the ESV and RSV, I can see it here in my NIV. I think it's down to the manuscripts the ESV use, they do explain it in the footnote.
Just do some research on Wescott & Hort and Alexandria text. They believed in Catholism, prayed to the dead. Worshipped Mary. Didn’t believe in Genesis and creation…. Etc….. I’ve never been a KJV only but after researching translations and the changes done and omitted words and verses,I question why we don’t question these other translations more or even use them.
Thank-you!! I had heard this years ago. It’s nice to refresh my memory & have a place to refer to if needed.
FYI:the NKJV does Mention that the 2nd half of Mark 6:11 was omitted the part your parishioner brought up. So I like the fact that NKJV does acknowledge when something does not necessarily have to be listed/read even if they include it. )Love both KJV and ESV)
One thing I like about the NASB95 is that most of those disputed verses/passages are kept in the text in brackets. Good video
you said most... which ones are left out ???
i was thinking about getting a NASB95 but I want all the TR verses tbh (I like the way the NASB renders words over the NKJV)
Thank you for sharing this about the NASV having kept the texts in question in brackets. I appreciate that way of dealing with questionable material. Put it out there for ALL of us to see.❤
Same old is true for the NASB 2020
The KJV has them with no brackets.
This is accurate the words are lacking so I did not use it ...ESV
Good video.
Noticed that you explained that the Byzantine texts were from a wide area, but you didn't mention the small area of the Alexandrian text, because the reason for that is very important. The Alexandrian's were a sect that believed a few things we would find heretical today. It has been theorized that one reason those copies survived was because they weren't used for very long. I assume you are aware of these things, and you had to choose how deep to go into various aspects of the translations, but I've found that most of the thoughtful "King James Only" people I've talked to site this very reason for their refusal to use newer translations, as they are all, or mostly, influenced by that older, and therefore supposedly "better" translation. I agree with you that there was a great deal that was not known about ancient Greek in the 15 and 16 hundreds that we are aware of today. There were so few examples of any Greek, that certain words were thought to have been invented by God specifically for use in the Bible. But since then, we've found a treasure trove of personal and business correspondence that allowed translators to realize the New Testament was written in the common Greek of the day, not the scholarly Greek there were more examples of prior to those discoveries.
Thanks for doing what you're doing and bringing salt and light to the often dark environs of UA-cam.
This is not true. There were both faithful and heretical elements in BOTH Byzantine and Alexandrian "sects". This is a red herring spread by King James Onlyists. We must be Bereans, willing to prayerfully examine ALL the evidence.
Thank you so much for explaining this. Rather people agree with you or not. At least you explained the different text. Which is more than most people do. They just mention them but don’t even explain.
A lot of them don't know. I have seen a lot of people just jump to the conclusion this version or that version is corrupt.
This is particularly why I love the 1995 NASB. It keeps much of the TR differences in there with the NASB style of translation. IMO it’s a perfect middle ground translation.
@Andrew Cole -- Would you please explain Acts 20:27 to me from the NASB95? I don't get it at all. HOW close is "purpose of God" to the "whole counsel of God"? What IS the "whole purpose of God" anyway? People need to reading the King James Bible. The Versions are deceptive, and so many are blind to it. Steevie Wonder shouldn't see better than one in Christ who is seeking TRUTH.
Agreed.
I use the 1966 Jerusalem Doubleday ... I hear it is compatible with the LSB .... I have a ESV and that is why I am thanking you sir
The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
Agree with you Little light 🕯️ Please Interpreters don't simply remove including the texts with brackets of explanation is beneficial for me. So I am therefore leaning towards nas and or LSB. I need a Bible so I will be looking more into THIS because accuracy is more important to me than ease of reading. 🤔
This is why kjv is the best authentic Bible the rest have been perverted sadly to say and made Christianity get attacked by unbelievers especially Muslims which I used to be but this is the reason unbelievers mock and won't believe the Gospel very unfortunate 😭
Well said. I like how you explained both views without knocking either one.
Thank you for this really great explanation. I noticed that part of Luke 11 was missing from the NET, started researching, found in the translator team's notes that the phrase was left out because it wasn't in the original manuscript, but KJV scribes had added it to match Matthew like the rest of the passage. So, I took my NET out of the no no stack. 😄
Using multiple translations helps convey the critical underlying ideas. It’s like walking around a green before taking a putt. That, and what Matt said.
🙄🙄🙄🙄 The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
Thank you for your explanation of missing verses in ESV. I prefer them being included in the Bible with brackets and explanations than removal.
@@ProverbspsalmsProverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
So the Holy Spirit who inspired Solomon to write that is actually the devil?
@@Matthew-307 you’re foolishness that you typed as has absolutely nothing to do with what I typed 11 months ago. Goodbye.
@@Proverbspsalms That’s very kind and gentle of you.
Pastor Matt, thank you for the video. The modern critical text is drawn 95% from only two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. These two disagree with each other in about 12000 places, and disagree with the Textus Receptus (TR) in about 18000 places. The Majority text manuscripts, which consist of over 5280 complete New Testament manuscripts, including the TR manuscripts, are largely in agreement with each other, with only minor variations here and there.
The Alexandrian texts have no known antecedents or descendants. They are older by about 100 years but they are in remarkably good condition, as if they had not been used much.
Where early church fathers quote from the Scriptures, their quotations line up with the Majority text, and not the Alexandrian rexts.
Draw your own conclusions.
Your video is a really good summary of what many people experience when comparing some translations. I'm not sure if you mentioned it but it is worth noting the reason for modern translations to include the older manuscripts within the text. This is because it is more likely that the newer manuscripts are different because of additions than older manuscripts are different from the originals because of deletions. Referencing the "other mss" in the notes is helpful and anyone can inspect to find that no significant changes with respect to doctrine exists in the differences.
I understand why this happens, and overall, I don't have a problem with it. But consider Acts 8:37. This is omitted from the ESV and other newer translations. Irenaeus quotes that verse in his work On Heresies. That was written in the year 180. That early of a date should override the reasons for its omission. I noticed this quite by accident and it makes me wonder...
The same scriptures are missing in a lot of the other newer translations as well. I just decided to go back to nkjv
well done. I facilitate a means bible study on Saturday mornings at my church. Often I encourage the men to read the verses we are studying in more than one version of the scriptures. I find in most cases when we discuss the differences it brings clarity to what is being said. My question for this post is where does the NASB fall in all this? As far as reading the Bible daily it is my go-to. My pastor preaches out of the NKJ as we have some in our fellowship(Calvary Chapel) who have once been baptist or AOG ... this has helped with their transition and helps deepen their study. Thank you for your faithfulness in service.
@@Imsaved777 thank you. I love pastor Matt's Posts as they help me balance out how I study the bible...even though I fellowship in a different tradition.
Brace yourself for the comments :-)
😂 no kidding
Very helpful explanation. I am torn too whether to take TR or Critcal Text as most accurate. At the end I chose the most readable, like NIV or ESV and most resourceful versions like NASB and NET. But occasionally I would refer to KJV or NKJV for study and research. So what I am saying is no one can claim their version is the most accurate. The best way is to have both and cross check for studying purposes.
lol, you never met my dad,,K.J.V. ONLY SON!! get it right. which prompted my studies into translation methods and history. and actually there are "most accurate translations" documented charts spanning the entire literal to dynamic translations. and you got some of the most accurate ones already.
Why cross check anything. Clearly the NIV has many missing verses in it!! Why use a incomplete Bible with at least 10 to 15 missing verses in it. Why I use KJV only.
Incorrect. You either have all of Gods preserved word, or God is a liar, who couldn't preserve and protect his word. There HAS to be a surviving text. Otherwise, how can you trust God AT ALL if he couldn't even keep this promise. I reference Psalms.12:6-7
@@TheirsHopewithJesusChrist_277 You clearly didn't watch the video
@@patrickoxley581this logic defeats the kjv from being the fulfillment of psalm 12, because it is also an eclectic text that came into its form at 1611 and does not match perfectly any Greek text or bible in any language before it. This is a self defeating position.
My grandmother just mentioned this this past weekend. Her pastor said people didn’t know what words in ESV meant and verses were missing and I was trying to tell her there’s no conspiracy. My other grandmother believes if it’s not an old King James, it doesn’t include the Gospel. Both my grandmothers seem slightly horrified I became a Reformed Baptist and moved away from Dispensationalism.
I appreciate the ESV and NIV, but because of the “missing verses”, I trust the NKJV and KJV more.
The Orthodox Study Bible is based on Byzantine texts.
Yep :)
If those verses were added later (which all the evidence points to), then the KJV is actually less trustworthy. What we want is what the apostles actually wrote. We don’t want extra added verses because those added verses aren’t inspired.
The comma johanneum shouldn’t be there.
Love the nkjv
@@MCTriptych I personally don't care if the first part of 1John 5: 7-8 actually rightfully belongs in the text or not. The doctrine of the Trinity does not hang on that verse alone. Although I believe some would say it does.
I have grown used to it being there, and. my preference is for TR readings.
64.000 missing words are not a conspiracy theory or a theory. They are effectively missing. As someone who speaks 3 languages I have lost appreciation for the ESV recently. It's translation doesn't ring true.
Just my humble opinion.
Thanks for doing the research on this issue. This wasn't an issue for me until I saw your video title. Then, I thought, maybe this guy is a member of one of those churches that thinks the only reputable version of the bible is the King James version and their church doesn't allow any other bible version. Thankfully, you're not a cult member as far as I can tell, and you're not hung up on some crazy belief. I see a guy that is truly trying to get to the truth of the matter without adding personal prejudice. I'm glad I watched and listened. Personally, I'm a NKJV fan and user and I have an ESV waiting to be read. Gotta wonder what the dead give away would be in determining if someone reads and knows the ESV as opposed to the KJ. With all we know today, there has to be a new bible version out there that is undisputably the best most accurate translation of the original text.
It's a bit disconcerting that the Alexandrian manuscripts are only "accidentally" older because of climate. Also, if you actually study scribal errors, they delete much more often than they add. It's just easier to skip stuff than to make up new stuff
i always wondered what people meant by "missing verses" as my ESV has them all, it just has a little note before them that says "not found in X but commonly found in Y"
That's a nice note. Most ESV will have the verse in a footnote rather than in the body of the text.
Nkjv does the same thing it has texts missing and words changed
@@KeithEasley-vc1mb really? Tell me which texts are "missing" from the nkjv. And of course it has ords changed! English has changed since 1611!
I have trouble believing that the early church did not have as good of version as us with critical text. Why would God allow the Majority text in the Early church to have less?
It is important to note, unless you read the original language, no English translation will be perfect. One must rely on the Holy Spirit and reading the Scriptures as a whole. Thank you for your blog. I really enjoy your messages. Blessings!❤️
AMEN, Ive heard so many people say the king James is a perfect translation, it’s irritating
This is why I steadfastly read the NASB.... going back to when only the New Testament had been released -- in the early-to-mid 1960s!
Always remember this when discussing this often heated battle involving Bible versions: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph.4:5) Though divided regarding versions, we are united as one through Christ. (And I know this verse is in everyones version)
This should not be a heated debate. Modern bibles are based on gnostic manuscripts. They contain shepherd of harmas and epistle of barnabas but not revelation. Its unfortunate but true.
@@joshportie what are you even talking about? Modern bibles have revelation and are not based on gnostic manuscripts. What is it with people and these conspiracy theories.
Very true. I think it's whatever is the comfort for the reader. KJV was hard for me to read cause of the old words. I like a more modern language in the Bible
@@kaitlyncleary3424 Ye same but you get used to the old English eventually
@@joshportie you've never seen one have you? What an ignorant statement.
It doesn’t matter how new the methods, or how old the copies. The statistical methodologies used by the Byzantine texts are by far the most probable to being closest to the original. More scripts, spread out over more area, accepted by more believers. The Alexandrian texts are older because they weren’t being used, why weren’t they being used if people took them to be the correct scripts?
Excellently explained. Thank you!!
Easy answer, by the way. Super simple answer. The ESV is translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is the oldest living manuscript we have of the Bible in it's most accurate and original form, and those Scrolls don't have those verses. So those verses don't have to be put into the Bible because they were never there in the first place originally. They were added in later on by whoever it was who added and took away books from the Bible to create the canon we have now.
That's all.
Well, you definitely convinced me that the NKJV and KJV translations are best for me. Thank you for such a clear /well spoken explanation!!
It is not a conspiracy theory it is a philosophy of translation.
Yes it's not a conspiracy n more than philosophy but principle of text n translation. (One can't translate something that not there - it becomes faking word[s] or verse[s])
Saying this is simple - but this principle has n continues to stumble n mess up a great many believers (especially weaker, younger n less diligent) who fail to study n understand this.
But the explanation in this video on nkjv doesn't help n may stumble esp. the nkjv isn't based on the TR bcoz they leave out many words n verses - not consistent with their revising philosophy but nkjv based on all other texts (notes - are so small that they cant be read) Sorry Matthew
Good thing of this video - it explains directly only the NT part but in overview covers many similar issues of OT as well - which should help many bible students
For me the principle and philosophy established n used by each versions are important to the believer using it
1_Niv wanted style over accuracy - the version I try to avoid bcoz inaccurate
2_Nkjv wanted to update kjv based on rv - terrible approach n totally inconsistent
3_Esv wanted to update / revised on rv /asv - making it as accurate as possibly - for me - very accurate n consistent so far (only kjv is better)
4_Kjv - bcoz this version is the most studied (if there are inconsistency or "errors" or doubts) someone studied it n we have the info. (But these are very few) And most of all no other version has singular 2nd person pronoun like kjv (super useful)!!!!
Ps: sorry I m so long winded
Pss: God's word is still so powerful that God still saves ppl thru these "flawed" new versions - Praise God!!!!!
Great Job on your video presentation, however there is a couple issues I too have with this confusion I suppose is one way of looking at it. I don’t have a degree in this field of study so my opinion is rather subjective, however I know how to study and ask questions. The Alexandrian text don’t have a single one of their mss agree with each other( big problem). Also the notes, etc from early church Father’s agree roughly 80% of the time with the Majority text. Also Simply “because a mss is older” does not prove authenticity or correctness! I choose the mss they agree more evenly and are found all over, then a small group in which claims to be older and doesn’t agree in its own writings.
Which text under-girded 'The Great Awakening and most revivals through the last few hundred years? The Alexandrian text was sitting on a shelf during all this! If the LORD needed the critical text for these revivals why didn't He have the Alexandrian Text retrieved for them. Is the Alexandrian Text linked to any great revivals through history? I prefer the NKJV myself.
God Almighty is not limited by our translations or even our extant manuscripts. Hallelujah!
@@RoastBeefSandwich I agree, and over the centuries (or millennia) people have come to the Lord by word of mouth. I understand huge amounts of people have come to the Lord from reading 'Critical Text' Bibles and people have grown by reading them, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that under-girding the great revivals was the Textus Receptus. Luther and Calvin used it I believe and look what came out of that. We owe the Textus Receptus much greater respect than it has been given I believe. I personally believe the Textus Receptus is by far the best.
Nkjv is awesome
@@andypink5167the textus receptuses (yes multiple) are also critical eclectic texts.
I appreciate your videos. One of the things I feel is missing from most all translations is emotion. There are, as you know, very expressive words in Hebrew and Greek, but these seem to be translated in a very muted way, perhaps because they offended the religiosity of the translators, who may have wanted things to appear prim and proper. I am not a proponent of the Passion Translation, but one thing it does attempt to do is put emotion into the "translation."
👍✨Great informative session📖God gave you the Gift of teaching Pastor 🙏✨
Good explanation. I’m so torn between the NASB and ESV. I WISH THR ESV would put the verses in italic and brackets. That would be so good
KING JAMES ALL DAY LONG. All other bibles have the Vatican all over them. People are ill informed. Cardinal Carlos Martini worked with Kurt Aland in 1952 on the Revised standard bible. I will not read a bible that is approved by the wicked vatican
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so what a bout a bible that’s named after a homosexual king.
Im not trying to be hateful. But just something to think about. Please do think about. God is able to use what someone has intended for evil for good
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so try the MEV, it's based off the same source texts as the KJV
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so The King James version Bible will lose its popularity in the near future. It is still commonly used at sermons today....Most younger generations will not accept the KJV translation. Elizabethan English is not the #1 choice to many today. .
@@curtisstewart9426 true! I would love to understand the kjv but it's hard to understand since the the English is so old.
Chuck Missler addresses this issue.
I like the KJV. As for others, I do not like how they change words every couple years. Why do they do that? Say for instance a 2000 version and a 2020 version; will have different words used, yet the same bible type i.e. ESV.
Words change meaning overtime. They also lose copyright if they don't keep it different. Both are likely the cause.
I think it boils down to do you want to use a translation based on half a dozen manuscripts that are 12th century or newer manuscripts or do you want use a translation based on 6000 manuscripts going back to the early 2nd century?
I just wanted to say that I enjoy your videos and more importantly, I see the Holy Spirit in you brother. Matthew 6:22
Dr.Everhard, What do you think of the LXX as compared to the MT given the texts recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Thank you! In these discussions I don't think I hear that the early church fathers quoted from the New Testament. I seem to remember hearing that most of the New testament could be reconstructed from their writing though I've never seen a source on this. To me it would be interesting to know what longer readings are or are not represented in the writings of the earliest church fathers. I also think getting a nice history of the TR and CR could be helpful. I've always leaned toward the CR and I read and listen to pthe NIV most often but I do like the NKJV.
New translations should have left these parts in. They were part of the Christian canon for over 1,000 years.
Agreed. The assumption the critical text adherents make is the older text must be the right one. I am not an expert but through my prayer and study I mostly stick to the textus receptus/byzantine text.
Yep :)
So tradition of men trumps God’s word? I don’t think so.
@@Nick-wn1xw Excuse me, Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus left us His Church, members of which penned the New Testament. They also collected the Old Testament writings for use in the churches!
I believe that the Scriptures are authoritative, because of the Church.
are you sure? because the oldest manuscripts don't have them meaning it was added later so you think changed scripture is more better then the original scripture
how did you determine in your chart that the "A" texts were more widely used rather than the "B"? And what about the fact that the 1st century church fathers quote these missing texts?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations I think this lists a good share of the missing texts and they tell why the texts were chosen not to be included in the text of the more modern versions, including not being quoted by early church pastors. I'd really like to see where you find what verses are quoted by the early fathers if you could provide your source, please.
1st century Christians didn't quote ANY of those alleged "missing verses". Nice try
@Space Organism
"His father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him"? Nice try, troll
@Days of Noah
No, I just happened to have studied the bible far more than pretenders have. Tell me, why does psalm 145 have only 21 verses?
@Days of Noah
Oh c'mon. It's just a name. Doesn't mean I am one
Everything I’ve seen or read of the words that aren’t in the Alexandrian text were because the manuscripts, when found, were heavily edited and redacted.. I’ve never heard that they were just shorter readings. So Alexandrian texts were hundreds vice thousands and heavily edited and redacted. Looking forward to part 2!
Thank you for the you do I have question I'm interested in the esv but I notice the revelation 22:14 is not translated correctly I know you are very good on Greek and wil
Your input
I am going to step on a few toes here. The ESV is definitely missing verses. Yet some of you tell me that it is the best, and most accurate bible. Compared to what? The New World Translation? Yep, they both throw out the same verses. So does anyone want to guess what book the ESV will sit next to- on my book shelf? Surprisingly, the NWT does not remove "yet" from Jn 7:9
The handy-dandy chart helps a lot!
Kjv is the original one and genuine after researching in this area. Of course, it is in old English, but nothing is deleted or added .Please go for King James Verse Bible.
There's basically only two extant Alexandrian manuscripts and hundreds of extant Byzantine as I understand it. The Byzantine text type is what is most often (by a huge majority) quoted by early Church fathers.
RoastBeefSandwich, just an observation and not a correction to what you said. It’s important to realize that the Byzantine text type is the majority by FAR! But we actually have more Alexandrian manuscripts, if we don’t count manuscripts that are later than the 8th century. The preponderance of Byzantine manuscripts are from the 9th century or later. Like I said, I don’t think this settles the issue, just an observation.
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you my friend. I think the take home from my observation is the fact that early Church fathers quoted the Byzantine, even though we may not have extant Byzantine manuscripts from that time - that tradition was in use, as evidenced by the quotations we have. There are few quotations from Church fathers from the Alexandrian tradition, even though our surviving Alexandrian manuscripts pre-date our surviving Byzantine ones.
RoastBeefSandwich, yes the tradition certainly goes back much further than the ninth century. I’ve gone back and forth in my mind on the subject. The latest research that I’ve read on the subject suggests that the situation with the church fathers prior to John Chrysostom actually favors the Alexandrian text-type. I actually recently did a review of Maurice Robinson’s “The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform”. He makes a very strong case for Byzantine priority. I think Maurice Robinson makes the most responsible case for Byzantine priority as any I have ever read. Based on what I have read so far, I’m not quite persuaded. The situation is much more complex than most people realize. Thanks for your thoughtful response!
NKJV: Matt 12:46-47- “ While he was still talking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside seeking to speak with him.Then one said to him, look your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you.”
ESV: Matt 12:46- “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside asking to speak to him.”
Maybe the author of the ESV version took out 47 because it was repetitive?
Anyway, NKJV is my go-to
And thus it has zero doctrinal impact. A pretty lame conspiracy as such things go. :D
I actually like ESV and NASB as well.
The critical text could be a fraud. I wont spend my money on a translation that is based on a manuscript with so much controversy.
You guys need to research this in depth. Also, Westcott practiced in the ocult, and started something called the ghost guild in Britain.
I'll stick with good old King James.
I appreciate the study and all but Gods word is forever settled in heaven. I wouldn't want to be someone messing with Bible! I trust the KJV because of the manuscripts it came from. The Lord Jesus Christ is able to triumph over heretics.
You...didn't watch the video then.
Adding verses is just as dangerous
The reason I don't read the ESV , Philippines 4:13 , this verse leaves out the word Christ, and replace it with "he". I'll stick with KJV.
The Alexandrian text was changed on purpose by corrupt evil people. So yes it was done on purpose and not done accidentally. Look at A Lamp in the Dark, Tares among the Wheat and Road to Babylon for the truth.
the real text is always in a majority text. there was no regression, you're right. out of 600+ manuscripts there are only 2 (vaticanus+sinaiticus) that don't have mark 16:9-20. I stick with the majority(byzantine text).
The Textus Receptus was based on the KJV not the other way around. The KJV was based on a collection of six greek manuscripts. Everyone seems to get this backwards. Also there are multiple verses that were obviously added later that are in KJV but are not in the vast majority of older texts they have found. Not to mention that the KJV isn't even a direct translation. Most of it was changed to make it sound better when read aloud in english. KJV is a very beautiful work and it flows so poetically but its definitely not the most accurate translation. People just need to come to terms with that.
Great video Brother Matt! I tend to lean more Byzantine tradition because "I Think" Geographic spread and number is more convincing then age from a localized text. The textual notes in the NKJV and it's traditional text base is why the NKJV is my main text and likely will remain that way :) Got nothing against the Alexandrian guys and as I'm now fond of say generally, "It's a good Bible translation if it's being read!"
I agree with you on this Dwayne, I've decided the NKJV is my "go-to". Still, the best translation is the one you read!
High Five-ya, bro' Dwayne!
Great explanation, thank you for a balanced opinion.
The earlier translations were from original Greek. After that; Classical Greek was used.
Like slang English, which we speak now. We do not speak original English.
When studying history; it is better to ask those who were there in the time of the event, and not 100's of years later. Check and see how many textual scholars were involved in the writers of the KJV.
Thank you for this explanation of the ESV vs NKJV etc. Our pastor has changed from the NKJV to ESV and I have noticed this same issue. I have also noticed that a lot of the References to the Lord are not capitalized showing His deity and place of honor. (Lord, He, Savior etc.) I grew up on the NASB 1960 and still use it (although falling apart) as my main Bible. I have an issue with new translations because as we know words and meanings change every few years so in my opinion every updated version has changes of meanings which in essence has a way of watering down God's word. I'm not talking about simply rearranging sentence structure. My question is if the writers or translators see the need to put the missing portions in the side notes because they are important, why not just add them in the text???? They must have seen the need to have them. Bible scholars somehow feel the need to change each translation to fit THEIR INTERPRETATION into it. If all their prayers and seeking God comes up with a different Bible than -----
An interesting note. Personally when I am doing a study rather than just reading I will pull out multiple translations including an interlinear to get a fuller picture. I was raised never to rely solely on a single translation because as you said there is some interpretation involved.
ESV is my everyday translation though and I have never seen "Lord" not capitalized. Especially in the OT "Lord" and "LORD" are plentiful. Do you mean "Lord" should be in all caps? "LORD" is used where YHWH is written vs "Lord" is Adoni.
That's not how text decisions worked for the ESV translators. For example, they clearly have trinitarian beliefs, but could not use that to justify the inclusion of more trinitarian readings where the evidence does not support such a choice. It doesn't change the doctrine, it just means the doctrine is based upon sound evidence in other places.
Yes, in my research on the Alexandrian text, they were the first manuscripts removing key verses in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. They aren’t reliable.
The Alexandrian texts were corrupted by Emperor Constantine due to his interpreting Scripture allegorically and not literally. Constantine revised key verses to fit his interpretation & ideas. This is verified in writings from Eusebius & John W. Burgon. Even the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 manuscript from the early 2nd century, contains a few verses from John, have remained unchanged, not omitting those verses. P52 predates the Alexandrian texts.
Removing verses not only changes the meaning about what Jesus did, but also makes a huge difference in last days prophecies in regards to Gods plan for Israel.
Replacement Theology took off with St. Augustine in 426 AD with his book “The City of God.” Since Israel as a nation no longer existed during their time (Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) they believed there was NO WAY God planned to bring the Jewish people back into the land. Despite what Ezekiel 38 teaches and Romans 9, 10 and especially 11- God is not finished with Israel.
Of course now, 1,500 years after Augustine & Constantine’s pour interpretations & ideologies, we see God DID plan to put Israel back on the map in 1948. After all, that is an everlasting covenant for that land God made to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21 & Genesis 17.
If God broke that promise to Israel and replaced his promises for them with the Church, then how can WE be secure in His promises for us?? God doesn’t break promises and Israel is back where He wanted her today- in the last days.
Those verses removed in the NIV, ESV, etc. by Constantine for the Alexandrian texts are in error. So with each new translation, we get a weaker message.
Satan is preparing man to be deceived by the coming Antichrist. And if we don’t know the times we’re living in, we won’t be watching for Jesus coming in the clouds (1 Thess 4:16-17, Titus 2:12-13, 1 Thess 1:10).
This is why the King James Version is the best including all those verses. Jesus said most often for us not to be deceived (Matthew 24:4, 1 Corinthians 6:9)
God Bless📖
The original languages don't have those capitalizations either, nor does the KJV. Personally I find them distracting.
@@Nick-wn1xw Yes *we do see* capitalization in the original languages. An example is 1 John 2:18.
In the original Greek, the verse is as follows: “My children, it is the last hour! And just as your heard that *the Antichrist* would come, even now many *antichrists* have appeared. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.”
That capital A for Antichrist shows us it’s *a title.* Although there has been many antichrists, (Hitler, Nero, Stalin) in the last days there will be One man who will rule the world during the 7-year Tribulation. That’s The Antichrist according to the original language in Greek.
I am team Byzantine and support the majority text tradition.
This is why I went from "whatever translation works for you" to KJV as the final authority.
With that being said, AMP is decent too, and I do have an NKJV.
Agree this is ridiculous - the verses are in NKJV, KJV, Amplified and NASB 1995
Get a Douay Rheims.
The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
You think demons will respond to "get behind thee" but don't understand "get behind me"? Lol. I guess they don't listen to non English speakers than? Listen to yourself? Don't you realize how silly you sound! What about Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? I use KJV and ESV. I will agree about translations like NIV and NLT ect. But not every other translation is bad.
Keep to the kjv it's intact no omissions!
NIV is the same way earlier or later manuscripts didn't have those scriptures.
Your channel has been very helpful! Thank you, Sir! I have subscribed
Thanks for the sub! Glad to have you sir!
No actually the New King James prefers the Critical Text like the ESV so it's not like the KJV with the Textus Receptus. I don't know where you got that the NKJV and the ESV are revisions of the KJV but that's also false. Again they're both derived from the Critical Text so they're not revisions of the KJV. If you think the only difference with Alexandrian manuscripts is that they decided to use "shorter wording" as you put it than you don't understand the full scope of the issue and it explains your cavalier attitude about the subject. I suggest you do more research. Also if the NKJV and footnotes does such a good job explaining things like you said then why did that person have to consult with you? Why couldn't they figure things out on their own?
Got to agree that the nkjv did a superb job by indicating the specific text used in the footnotes, unlike the esv that just generally says "manuscripts" without mentioning which ones.
The nkjv has a lot of errors in it so don’t be too quick to say esv is wrong because nkjv is not word for word esv is word for word
@@KeithEasley-vc1mb erm, nowhere did I say esv is wrong. I just State that I like nkjv footnotes better. And I myself am a esv user
Great video! well said.
Watch Chuck Missler's How We Got Our Bible, especially part 2. It's a 2 part series. He addresses this question of all the missing verses & parts of verses with many examples. I have been reading ESV for 2 years but I just decided I'm done with it as of the end of this year, except as a reference for comparing translations.
An excellant description on textual varients.
I noticed instead of added to the church, it mentions added to the number. With purchased with his own blood, it mentioned obtained with his own blood.
Good video. Could u do a review in the notebook /wallet at the end?
Done! See newest
Matthew Everhard already did thanks man. Another great video.
I like the way that NKJV handles it. I also like that the NKJV, puts in italic, the words that were added by the translators.
Older does NOT relate to authenticity since the ORIGINS of the text are different and they matter.
I recently got a revelation about these versions,just like a Contract the bold print in the body of it is usually understandable but things get sketchy in that small fine print. Footnotes are suspect to me because now we casting doubt some scripts have the verse others dont ?
Thanks for the video. Could you suggest publishers that we should bank on to get an authentic ESV?
Try ESV reader’s Bible
Based on Is.28:10 similar to a computer code or intel code. If a portion is missing, other verses will contain the missing doctrinal material.
The question is wrong. The correct question is “why are these verses ADDED in the nkjv/Kjv?
Dean Burgon does a great defence of the TR version of Mark's gospel.
@The Pilgrim what are your source's ?
@The Pilgrim I can't see original quotes from Dean Burgon in regards to 1 John 5:7 from your sources, I have a hard copy of "the revision revised" and cant see anywhere where Burgon rejects the comma, do you have a page number ?
Here is a valid argument for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7
www.verhoevenmarc.be/PDF/Comma-Johanneum-Defence.pdf
will look into that, interesting... thanks Ross
Chathura Imbulagoda I know David W. Daniels and I love the brother very much. In fact I gave him his very first CBP Turquoise Bible a few years back. He even sent me many of his books with a personal letter in each. I’m just saying this so no one thinks I dislike this fine brother. I will say however, he has a tendency to fall for many radical conspiracy theories that I believe distorts his logic. I was KJVO for 18 plus years and even ordained under a ministry of Peter S. Ruckman. I can with great confidence say, there are far more inconsistencies with a KJVO position than a balanced Critical Textual approach. I now use the ESV and absolutely love the great Scholarship used in the translation.
Burgon would here seem to be taking a "Majority Text" position regarding these verses, rather than a TR position. The TR is based in part on the Latin manuscripts, and contains a few verses which were traditionally believed to have been omitted from the Greek Text early in the history of the Church, perhaps as a consequence of the persecution of the Church in the East, and because the greater theological turmoil in the Eastern Greek-speaking churches. (There are different TR printed editions, and only the Church can determine which reading to adopt, which it did with the production of the KJV in 1611). The TR and the "Majority Text", however, agree over 99% of the time. (When it comes to the Book of Revelation, there is no "Majority Text") Acts 8:37 is quoted by Irenaus (second century) and is found in a majority of extant Latin MSS (although only in about 15% of the extant Greek MSS). We can never know for sure, however, what these ratios were in the past before so many MSS were worn out and lost. The "authentic" text can NEVER be finally established by "scientific" methods, either by those of the Critical Text school or by the Majority Text school. This is not possible. Science can offer only probabilities or possibilities, not certainties. Authenticity can only come through the witness and authority of the Church, through which the Holy Spirit works.
What about Genesis 3:16 in the ESV? Please explain
I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but ESV says "one and only son" instead of "only begotten son" because the green word "monogenes" was used more to describe something unique than it was to describe something single-born or only-begotten. We learned this by analyzing more Koine Greek texts from that era, and also the spelling between "kind" and "begotten" in greek are similar but not exact, so we discovered the etymology was different than what the KJV translators thought. Not meaning to make any one angry, just wanting to give some insight. The more accurate linguistic reading based on "monogenes" is "one unique Son," but "only begotten" may be a less obvious but intended secondary meaning.
@@cmiddleton9872
GENESIS 3:16 ESV
" Your desire shall be CONTRARY to your husband"
@@patriot8554 maybe this helps I don't really read esv but in kjv genesis 3:16:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
@@patriot8554 and one more reason that I don't read modern traslation in you can look at acts chapter 3 verse 13 and 16 in esv, nkjv, bbe, ceb, ceba, asv, gnt, msg, ncv, niv, nlt, nrs, nrsv, nas... Say glorified his servant jesus
In kjv
Hat glorified his son Jesus
You can see bibles the in acts chapter 3 say son and not servent are
(Just saying that I looked online and never read this bible that I'm about to say that they have son and not servent)
Amplified bible, aramaic bible in plain English, douay-rheims bible american king james standard, a faithful version, webster's transaltion, Geneva bible of 1587, Bishops bible of 1568, tyndale bible of 1526, Douay-Rheims bible, chatolich public domain, lamsa bible, anderson new testament, haweis new testament, mace new testament, worsley new testament.
Some use word child
Coverdale bible of 1535, literal standard versions, Young's literal translation, Smith's literal translation and Godbey/Worrell new testament
@@Jerry12533 Thanks for the research. I own many Bible translations, but the ESV in this particular verse, to me, seems like an error or oversight. No other translation uses the word " Contrary " . Very strange.
Well I’m not sure how relevant this is or if anyone cares. Since the video is dealing with age of manuscripts let’s take a look a St Jerome. He translated the Bible into Latin, which was still a know and used language at the time, hence the name Vulgate. Definition of vulgate
1 capitalized : a Latin version of the Bible authorized and used by the Roman Catholic Church
2 : a commonly accepted text or reading
3 : the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people
He used manuscripts that were even closer to the originals. Now the Douay-Rheims version of the English Bible was translated from the Vulgate, predating the King James by the way. The Douay-Rheims contains the so called missing verses in Mark. Now I know many will said, but this is a Catholic Bible and can’t be trusted, remember prior to the reformation there was one Church. Keep in mind that King James himself had input in his translation due to the anti right of kings implied in the Geneva Bible. One other thing to remember, the KJV has no copyright and therefore can be printed and copied by anyone. Newer version belong to whatever publisher commissioned them, and receive royalties. Instead of missing the forest for the trees, let us all answer the question our Lord asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I Am”?
Some key words seem to be missing from the ESV. For example: Did Jesus lie to his brothers? In Jn 7:9 Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going to the festival, but in verse 10 he sneaks off to that very event. Other bibles, like the NIV and HCSB add a small word. YET. So which bible should I believe? That the Way, the Truth... is a liar? Or that the small word that the ESV avoided is more likely?
And that is but one of many examples I can think of where subtle word changes have repercussions.
Why can't people figure out that first thing Satan did was question God's word and that's what all these versions are, I get so tired of hearing " WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS" when Jesus read in the synagogue he didn't have them either. If u don't have the kjv u have a corrupted word.
Pastor Matt, I really enjoy this video and watch it several times per year. I have a question. Do you know if more manuscripts supporting Alexandrian text type have been found in addition to Siniaticus and The Vatican manuscript?
Mark 9:29 only prayer can drive the spirit out omits in esv,niv and most other translations while kjv omits prayer and fasting.. colossians 1:14 through christ we have redemption but doesn't specify how while the kjv omits redemption through blood.
The modern Bible versions like the ESV say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the ESV calls idol worshippers “religious.”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV)
“So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.” (Acts 17:22 ESV)
The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB, ESV, and the LSB in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1.
“Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV)
“Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.” Hosea 10:1 ESV)
So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15.
Edward Hendrie
Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
Old does not always mean it is better. Texus Receptus. What about the Vaticanus? What about Westcott and Hort? Who both did not believe that the word off GOD is GOD inspired.
If Christ spoke it. It should be in it. If it was omitted… then that’s a problem.
Thank you for explaining the omission of certain words honestly and without prejudice. I use the KJV but have ordered the ESV as a compliment.
There are no “missing” verses in the ESV. There are =extra= “verses” in the KJV.
Great explanation...Thank you!!
Would the idea that the manuscripts from Alexandria didn't get read much explain why they survived till today? Most of the early church didn't mess those Egyptian manuscripts.
Scribes would sometimes try to make the gospel's harmonize. They will copy something that appeared in matthew into mark so they would harmonizes
With the far majority of the texts we have today being the Byzantine texts or manuscripts and the fact they were much more scattered around the world yet they all agree almost word for word Thats enough to make me believe the Alexandrian texts although older are not as reliable since their missing words or even entire sentences that are in the Byzantine texts. I'm sticking to the KJV
I think, if I'm not mistaken, to copy any version of any book these days it has to at least have a certain percentage of the recopying be different
How could God ever deliver his word without you?
Why foot note when it is true.
It is doubtful. Not good. Go for kjv.