Is this true?

Some one sent me the text below. I want to know if this is true,

VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
Hello beloved saints,
I'm sure you know that new international
version (NIV) was published by Zondervan but
is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also
publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of
Gay Sex.
The NIV and English Standard Version (ESV)
has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible
Including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and
Omnipotent to name but a few...
The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45
complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on
our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE
BIBLE STUDY APP.
Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV
on your computer, phone or device right now if
you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
...you will not believe your eyes.
Refuse to be blinded by Satan, and do not act
like you just don't care. Let's not forget what
the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King
James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV and ESV,
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the
BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All
these changes occur when they ask you to
update the app. On your phone or laptop etc.
Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE
THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the
Bible as we know it; NIV, ESV and many more
versions are affected.
We are living in the last days
And Jesus is soon to you come The Gospel has been preached almost
everywhere, all the prophecies has been
fulfilled. The devil is working very hard to
occupy Christians with the things of this world
so that the day will catch them unaware.
Please be prepared, there is no more time, Use
the advantage of sms, WhatsApp, BBM,
Facebook, twitter etc to send this message to
All your contact. Do not ignore. This is also
a source of evangelism, souls are dying. God
bless you!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Randy W. Sims

Hi, Tes! These types of posts/emails always send up a red flag and you are right to be critical of them. If there were anything to this then we would be seeing it from reputable sources. Eg the translators of the ESV would be up in arms. Many of these types of "News" are posted all the time on social media and such. It's usually pretty easy to find more info by copying the first few sentences or so and pasting them in to Google. You'll see with this text that this rumor has been around for quite a while.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890735#Comment_890735

I just skimmed your post, so I can't address everything, but Acts 8:37 has been removed from the main text of many bibles (but can still be found in footnotes of some) because the more reliable manuscripts do not have verse 37 and scholars believe it to be a later addition.

DMB

Ignoring that people don't have easy access to explanations, it is kind of funny.

ESV and NIV have indeed removed all those words/verses. And you will not believe your eyes, too. Of course, it's relative to the KJV and similar, that were heavily dependent on the eastern versions (Peshitta, Diatesseron, etc).

But the key is 'don't use Olivetree', with a heavy emphasis on successive ownership. I assume someone(s) are angry at 'the little company that could'.

Luckily Libby's got all those verses and words. Whew. (In the KJV.)

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890746#Comment_890746

Yes I could see only in the KJV.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890749#Comment_890749

Yes Tes there is a grain of truth there but almost to the hysterical levels of farce.

Everyone who ever drank water is dead.
Drinking 3 gallons of water can kill you.
Thousands drown every year in water.

Those are facts about water are all true but it doesn't mean water is deadly and is to be avoided. The facts above contain some facts that are true, but twisted to create alarm where there should be no alarm, unless you are under the the belief that any deviation from the King James Version of the Bible is utterly wrong. One fact that is missing up there is the fact that the majority of KJV Bibles are also published by harper collins imprints.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890755#Comment_890755

Oh, wonderful, Dan.

So, you're saying we need to count all our verses in our KJV's too. Maybe the Peshitta will remain safe.

Alex Scott

Matthew 17:21 omit verse {A}

Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9:29.

Matthew 18:11 omit verse {B}

There can be little doubt that the words ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (ζητήσαι καὶ) σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός are spurious here, being absent from the earliest witnesses representing several textual types (Alexandrian, Egyptian, Antiochian), and manifestly borrowed by copyists from Lk 19:10. The reason for the interpolation was apparently to provide a connection between ver. 10 and verses 12–14.

Matthew 23:14 Οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν … εἰσελθεῖν. {A}

That ver. 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mk 12:40 or Lk 20:47 is clear (a) from its absence in the earliest and best authorities of the Alexandrian and the Western types of text, and (b) from the fact that the witnesses that include the passage have it in different places, either after ver. 13 (so the Textus Receptus) or before ver. 13.

Mark 7:16 omit verse {A}

This verse, though present in the majority of witnesses, is absent from important Alexandrian witnesses (א B L Δ* al). It appears to be a scribal gloss (derived perhaps from 4:9 or 4:23), introduced as an appropriate sequel to ver. 14.

9:44 omit verse {A}

The words ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ … οὐ σβέννυται, which are lacking in important early witnesses (including א B C W it^k syr^s cop^sa), were added by copyists from ver. 48.

Mark 9:46 omit verse {A}

See the comment on ver. 44.

Luke 17:36 omit verse {A}

Although it is possible that ver. 36, δύο ἐν ἀγρῷ· εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται, may have been accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton (an accident that happened to ver. 35 in א* and a few other witnesses), in view of the weighty manuscript authority supporting the shorter text (P⁷⁵ א A B L W Δ Θ Ψ f ¹ 28 33 565) it is more probable that copyists assimilated the passage to Mt 24:40.

Luke 23:17 omit verse {A}

The secondary character of the verse is disclosed not only by its omission from such early witnesses as P⁷⁵ A B L T 070 892* 1241 it^a cop^saal, but also by its insertion, in slightly different forms, either here or after ver. 19 (where codex Bezae agrees in wording with the reading of Θ Ψ). Although homoeoarcton (αναγκην … ανεκραγον) might account for the omission in one family of witnesses, such a theory is unable to explain its widespread omission and its presence at two different places. The verse is a gloss, apparently based on Mt 27:15 and Mk 15:6.

John 5:4 omit verse {A}

Ver. 4 is a gloss, whose secondary character is clear from (1) its absence from the earliest and best witnesses (P^66, א B C* D W^supp 33 it^,^l, the true text of the Latin Vulgate syr cop^,^bo^,^ach2 geo Nonnus), (2) the presence of asterisks or obeli to mark the words as spurious in more than twenty Greek witnesses (including S Λ Π 047 1079 2174), (3) the presence of non-Johannine words or expressions (κατὰ καιρόν, ἐμβαίνω, [of going into the water], ἐκδέχομαι, κατέχομαι, κίνησις, ταραχή, δήποτε, and νόσημα—the last four words only here in the New Testament), and (4) the rather wide diversity of variant forms in which the verse was transmitted.

Acts 8:37 omit verse {A}

Ver. 37 is a Western addition, not found in P^45, א A B C 33 81 614 vg syr^,^h cop^sa, eth, but is read, with many minor variations, by E, many minuscules, it^,^h vg^mss syr^{h with *} cop^G67 arm. There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression.

The formula πιστεύω … Χριστόν was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in the margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip would not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative. Although the earliest known New Testament manuscript that contains the words dates from the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, III.xii.8).

Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he “judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librariorum incuria).”^{^[1]}

^{^[1]} Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (pp. 315–316). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

Also note that most of these 'omitted' verses are still in the Bible in other places.

Also please note that the popup over the verse numbers do not reflect the reading of the verses that have been omitted.

David A Egolf

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890777#Comment_890777

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search. Does anybody have an idea?

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890787#Comment_890787

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search. Does anybody have an idea?

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37

Searching Metzger finds more verses with textual criticism issues: Matthew 21:44; Mark 11:26, 15:28; Luke 23:34, 24:12; John 18:24 (interpolation after verse 18), Acts 12:25, 15:34, 28:29; Romans 8:1, 16:24; Hebrews 3:6

Surprised chapter 16 ending of Mark was not mentioned (know of three).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Alex Scott

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890787#Comment_890787

Did you mean search or "search"? As you probably know by now if you're watching the news at all, there is quite a difference now. "Search" can apparently mean anything you want it to.

In my previous post, I "searched" Logos to find the information. If you mean the search program you could search for the individual verses in any given Bible or in a Bible collection.

Paul

Some one sent me the text below. I want to know if this is true,

Its an interesting message and probably underestimates the number of changes which have occurred to modern Bibles in recent years. This is a whole field worth exploring for those with time and energy. Its a serious issue and requires serious study. .

It may be coincidental, but yesterday I downloaded a copy of Trobisch, David. A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament. Vol. 9. Text-Critical Studies. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.from the Logos website as I wanted to read about changes that have been occurring to what many regard as the standard Greek text in the Nestle-Aland versions NA26 to NA28. One of the things they are doing is eliminating all references and lists in relation to "Majority" Texts" and redesignating them "Byzantine". Future readers will have difficulty identifying which manuscripts are Majority texts. This is an important change because it seeks to eliminate the argument that many copies of particular manuscripts point to the initial source manuscript rather than the committee's choice that particular manuscripts are the oldest and best and in their view are indicative of the initial text.

This is what they said:

In an attempt to honor recent research on the history of Greek Bible editions, the editors of the Editio Critica Maior distanced themselves from the designation "Majority Text" (𝔐). Instead, they applied the term Byzantine text (Byz), which is more precise. This also eliminates the possible misunderstanding of the term "majority" as a quality assessment. Obviously, the fact that a specific text variant is documented more often than other variants does not necessarily indicate that this reading represents the initial text. The number of copies establishes no criterion for the quality of a variant. (Trobisch Ibid page 32)

NA28 has updated the list of papyri, now recording 127. Compared to the 27th edition, which recorded 116 papyri in its 8th revised reprint of 2001, this growth is impressive. The 27th edition provided a list of 899 minuscule manuscripts that served as witnesses for the Majority Text; the 28th edition no longer provides such a list. (Trobisch Ibid page 45)

I guess the future will bring further editorial changes to the standard Greek text of the NT as well as additional follow through changes to the translations in the English language. People may feel these changes are justified and prefer to follow the new scholarship. Alternatively, they may wonder if the text critics pursuit of what they claim is the initial text (or close to it) is an illusion rather like the pursuit of the 'historical Jesus' in which scholars created him in their own preferred image. Each year the latest "best" text is published and it leaves you wondering - if this is the Word of God, how can it be so easily changed?

People may have worked out their own solutions to this conundrum and God bless you in that. Mine is fairly basic - its to respect the speculations of the scholars, but hold firmly to one Bible. There's no need for me to endlessly check to see if I have God's Word, but I have one to read and believe with confidence and that (despite its admitted anachronisms) is the King James Bible. Keep well Paul

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890793#Comment_890793

This might be helpful to some:

The NIV, Zondervan, HarperCollins, and Missing Verses

Question: "Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?"

Milkman

I tried to post to this thread and I got flagged for spam???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's going on?

mm.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890809#Comment_890809

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search. Does anybody have an idea?

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

Refined search for Everything (as NEAR had many false positives)

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) WITHIN 6 WORDS interpolation)

I tried to post to this thread and I got flagged for spam???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's going on?

Not amused SPAM thread was started on 13 Mar 2017 that includes Faithlife reply on 14 Mar 2017:

Apologies, everyone. We are considering different options.

Keep Smiling [:)]

Jan Krohn

This is a great resource that sheds some light on why all the verses have been omitted in modern Bible translations:

https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism

Just a note on the side: The NIV does have a number of flaws, which, when I think about it, should be taken seriously...

http://christianmonthlystandard.com/index.php/nt-wright-slams-the-niv/

https://www.douglasjacoby.com/niv-errors/

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890809#Comment_890809

I tried to post to this thread and I got flagged for spam???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's going on?

We've deployed a filter to try to cut down on the volume of spam being posted in the forums. It's blocked over 100 spam posts, but incorrectly flagged three legitimate posts as spam; yours was one of them. I don't have insight into why yours was flagged, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably because most of the text of your post was hyperlinks; this is probably considered a red flag.

I've approved your post; it should be showing up now.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890793#Comment_890793

People may have worked out their own solutions to this conundrum and God bless you in that. Mine is fairly basic - its to respect the speculations of the scholars, but hold firmly to one Bible. There's no need for me to endlessly check to see if I have God's Word, but I have one to read and believe with confidence and that (despite its admitted anachronisms) is the King James Bible.

Similar solution is using English translation that you will pray, read, and heed. Thankful for many Bibles in Logos and Verbum. Personally use a mixture of several English translations with Godly insights. Thankful can compare English translations for insights into range of original language word(s) translated into English (that can include Bible Word Study translation rings).

One lesson learned during my first year Greek class was the "literal" King James translation has some opportunities for discussion: e.g. transliteration of βαπτίζω (baptizo) instead of translation. Thankful for God honoring faithful believers who used English Bibles: Matthews, Geneva, Authorized Version (King James), ...plus Thankful for God honoring faithful believers that used other languages.Spiritual discernment of original languages and all translations needs Holy Spirit, Ruach HaKodesh guidance. Thankful for a college English professor who had read an English Bible cover to cover three times as literature, but lacked spiritual understanding.

Thankful for olde English using different words for "you": singular = thee, thou, thine while plural = ye (Southern variation All Ye'all) so when discussing King James version with someone, like to turn to John 3:5-8 so can ask about difference of thee and ye in John 3:7 since current English uses "you" for both singular and plural.

First year Greek class helped me appreciate John 1:1 grammar so all of the Word was being God while God included more than the Word (adding a Greek definite article in front of God would mean complete,interchangeable equality so an English translation adding an indefinite article is incorrect). John's verbal choice of imperfect tense reflected past time action that is ongoing (bit lacking in English translation "was").

Later Greek education introduced Textual Criticism along with discussing some manuscript variations, which shows up in verses omitted OR footnotes in various English translations.

Studying Greek provided new meaning for phrase "That's Greek to me". English is not Greek nor is English Hebrew/Aramaic. English written system tends to lack richness of verbal inflection. For example, how two words are spoken affects their meaning: "Yeah Right" (sarcastic tone allows two positive words to have a negative interpretation). Personally not like publishers keeping the same Bible translation name while periodically changing content, which is confusing. Thankful for updates while wishing name included year of update: e.g. NASB 95 Update. Dreaming of interlinear Bibles with different lines for surface text variations.

My favorite Logos/Verbum feature is visual filter highlighting so can "see" range of original language expression in English and other languages. Thankful for Faithlife enabling free sharing of visual filters Logos wiki has => Examples of visual filters Thankful for Logos resources with useful grammatical summaries: e.g. Greek New Testament Insert that is included in many libraries. Caveat: using many visual filters has performance impact(s).

Keep Smiling [:)]

Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890859#Comment_890859

My favorite Logos/Verbum feature is visual filter highlighting so can "see" range of original language expression in English and other languages. Thankful for Faithlife enabling free sharing of visual filters Logos wiki has => Examples of visual filters Thankful for Logos resources with useful grammatical summaries: e.g. Greek New Testament Insert that is included in many libraries. Caveat: using many visual filters has performance impact(s).

I do agree we have much to be thankful for the many and varied resources available to us. We can compare and examine for ourselves at multiple levels of complexity whether we are familiar with all the nuances of the original languages or not. We can consider what literally dozens of commentators have said and come to our own views. We can even see and explore the writings of the underlying manuscripts to the biblical text and ponder what the early church said. When you consider all this, it is a fantastic blessing in our time. Keep well Paul

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890859#Comment_890859

Dreaming of interlinear Bibles with different lines for surface text variations.

Now that would indeed be interesting. I wonder if publishers would allow it. Since we all had to update our ESV texts, for example, I wonder if Crossway would allow a visual filter showing he 2011 or 2007 text on separate lines.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890850#Comment_890850

Thanks Bradley that explains it.

mm.

I tried to post to this thread and I got flagged for spam???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's going on?

We've deployed a filter to try to cut down on the volume of spam being posted in the forums. It's blocked over 100 spam posts, but incorrectly flagged three legitimate posts as spam; yours was one of them. I don't have insight into why yours was flagged, but if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably because most of the text of your post was hyperlinks; this is probably considered a red flag.

I've approved your post; it should be showing up now.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890777#Comment_890777

Matthew 17:21 omit verse {A}

Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9:29.

That is right. And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew. That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do. It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV. The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890888#Comment_890888

That is right. And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew. That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do. It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV. The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

I did a tiny edit to your post, Michael. 'Extremely foolish' sounded like DAL (whom you justifiably tore in to recently), but it's really not DAL.

First, I like Metzger, but he displays much of the loosey-goosey logic that is embedded in the UBS/NA series. Need I mention the female apostle that recently showed up at their party. And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs UBS/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing varients in the 'glue' words (prepositions, etc).. Lastly, the early descriptions of the gospels don't match what we have ... you may have great scholarship on the wrong ones.

I'm not a KJV-er but the scholars may not have the last (foolish) laugh?

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890895#Comment_890895

Your sentence

"'And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs USB/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing ...."

Has intriqued me. Care to elaborate.

By the way I read part of the female apostle discussion between Metzger and others. Interesting.

mm.

That is right. And the issue is, what was originally present in Matthew. That requires scholarly textual study of the various Greek manuscripts, which is what any good translation of Scripture seeks to do. It is extremely foolish to base one's assumption of what was in the original on the KJV. The original article the poster quoted had some true statements combined with wild and wrong assumptions and interpretation.

I did a tiny edit to your post, Michael. 'Extremely foolish' sounded like DAL (whom you justifiably tore in to recently), but it's really not DAL.

First, I like Metzger, but he displays much of the loosey-goosey logic that is embedded in the UBS/NA series. Need I mention the female apostle that recently showed up at their party. And if you make a close analysis of the eastern vs UBS/NA mellange, you'd be surprised at how modern Christian theology can be reversed, simply recognizing varients in the 'glue' words (prepositions, etc).. Lastly, the early descriptions of the gospels don't match what we have ... you may have great scholarship on the wrong ones.

I'm not a KJV-er but the scholars may not have the last (foolish) laugh?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890913#Comment_890913

Well, we're tippy-toeing on forum guidelines. So, I'll be careful not to crush the thin eggshells of theological wandering.

The easy demonstration is with the existent greek versions (NA/UBS). 'Belief in vs of', etc. I'm sure you're familiar with that discussion. Or being 'in' Christ ... what does that mean in Ephesus, vs Antioch? I suspect it's not by accident, it took centuries just to decide on the basics, that today are treated as 'of course'.

But if you take early eastern texts (syriacs) and just go word for word, watch the glue-word differences. At each point, pose the question, how would this fit in Ephesus (or Alexandria) vs Antioch in terms of a greek vs semitic background. If the answer is no-difference, keep going. If a difference, just jot it down, and keep going. At the end, go back and look at the pattern of what you jotted down. You'll notice most are 50-50 propositions ... you assume an Ephesus outlook, or you assume a more semitic one. The NA/UBS with few exceptions will choose the western, and by necessity ... it's for the western theologies.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890919#Comment_890919

Well you've answered it very diplomatically/politically and i don't think any eggs were broken, maybe a slight hint of crackage, but the shell is still in tack. Thanks.

Well, we're tippy-toeing on forum guidelines. So, I'll be careful not to crush the thin eggshells of theological wandering.

The easy demonstration is with the existent greek versions (NA/UBS). 'Belief in vs of', etc. I'm sure you're familiar with that discussion. Or being 'in' Christ ... what does that mean in Ephesus, vs Antioch? I suspect it's not by accident, it took centuries just to decide on the basics, that today are treated as 'of course'.

But if you take early eastern texts (syriacs) and just go word for word, watch the glue-word differences. At each point, pose the question, how would this fit in Ephesus (or Alexandria) vs Antioch in terms of a greek vs semitic background. If the answer is no-difference, keep going. If a difference, just jot it down, and keep going. At the end, go back and look at the pattern of what you jotted down. You'll notice most are 50-50 propositions ... you assume an Ephesus outlook, or you assume a more semitic one. The NA/UBS with few exceptions will choose the western, and by necessity ... it's for the western theologies.

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890859#Comment_890859

Im thankful for both your information, and for your obvious thankfulness!

-Michael

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890924#Comment_890924

I appreciate for the contribution of every one. Before updating the Bible's it would be good , if Faithlife would give us the chance to decide wether we want to update or not.

Milkman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/891278#Comment_891278

Well this conversation has made me go back to my Seminary texts and refresh my textual criticism skills. Forgot how much I enjoyed it and how much I forgot [:$].

mm.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/890790#Comment_890790

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search. Does anybody have an idea?

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

You can search the ESV for "some manuscripts add", "some manuscripts insert", "some manuscripts omit", "some manuscripts include"

I have a Visual Filter with this, using a Box to enclose the footnote marker.

Note: as the text is in footnotes you will get spurious results if you try "some manuscripts" add, insert, omit, include

Tes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/891303#Comment_891303

My son noted one of these omitted verses earlier this year and asked me if there was a way to find such verses using a Logos search. Does anybody have an idea? It would be good as well if you more elaborate it the its usage.

One idea is searching Metzger's Textual Commentary for:

"omit verse" OR ((verse,ver.) NEAR interpolation)

You can search the ESV for "some manuscripts add", "some manuscripts insert", "some manuscripts omit", "some manuscripts include"

I have a Visual Filter with this, using a Box to enclose the footnote marker.

Note: as the text is in footnotes you will get spurious results if you try "some manuscripts" add, insert, omit, include

Hi Dave, could you please make it copyable ,so that it could be possible to see the result.

James McAdams

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/891516#Comment_891516

Hi Dave, could you please make it copyable ,so that it could be possible to see the result.

Here you go: https://ref.ly/logos4/Search;kind=Basic;q=$22some_manuscripts_add$22,__$22some_manuscripts_insert$22,_$22some_manuscripts_omit$22,_$22some_manuscripts_include$22;match=stem

abondservant

As this is in its second page, you've probably already heard most of what I'm about to say. BUT different translations use different manuscript groups, and are more or less efficient (precise?) in their use of the english in translating from the biblical languages. PLUS I'm sure they are using the KJV as the standard by which they judge these new translations when in my opinion we should be judging them based upon the best possible greek copies of the scriptures.

Despite 7 semesters of language, I wouldn't consider my self knowledgeable enough to give a definitive opinion on each decision the translators make, but I'm sure there are some good textual criticism books in Logos that could help guide you.

For a time the theory was lets just use whatever greek text shows up in the most manuscripts. But they found that sometimes small errors were made, and then replicated a bunch. Plus it occurred to someone that there were more recent manuscripts than ancient ones and that the ancient ones were probably better. But then they found minor errors (lines duplicated and that sort of thing) in some of the older manuscripts that were not present in newer ones. So they came up with a set of rules that they use based on the five or six types of error we tend to find. Its a science, and an art.

Honestly (and text critics who devote their life to this would argue with me) the differences are small enough that I can heartily recommend ESV, HCSB, NKJV and even KJV (and some others) without worrying about your soul. NIV (84) isn't bad. I don't know enough about the new NIV to say I like it. NET from Dallas is great too. I have a few people at my church (elderly) that will only read their KJV. Honestly, that's not the one I study nor preach from. But I'm glad they are diligent in their study of scripture (and that they aren't reading from some of the paraphrases as their primary bible).

Some one sent me the text below. I want to know if this is true,

VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
Hello beloved saints,
I'm sure you know that new international
version (NIV) was published by Zondervan but
is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also
publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of
Gay Sex.
The NIV and English Standard Version (ESV)
has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible
Including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and
Omnipotent to name but a few...
The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45
complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on
our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE
BIBLE STUDY APP.
Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV
on your computer, phone or device right now if
you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
...you will not believe your eyes.
Refuse to be blinded by Satan, and do not act
like you just don't care. Let's not forget what
the Lord Jesus said in John 10:10 (King
James Version)
THE SOLUTION
If you must use the NIV and ESV,
BUY and KEEP AN EARLIER VERSION OF the
BIBLE. A Hard Copy cannot be updated. All
these changes occur when they ask you to
update the app. On your phone or laptop etc.
Buy and KEEP EARLIER VERSIONS AND STORE
THEM.
There is a crusade geared towards altering the
Bible as we know it; NIV, ESV and many more
versions are affected.
We are living in the last days
And Jesus is soon to you come The Gospel has been preached almost
everywhere, all the prophecies has been
fulfilled. The devil is working very hard to
occupy Christians with the things of this world
so that the day will catch them unaware.
Please be prepared, there is no more time, Use
the advantage of sms, WhatsApp, BBM,
Facebook, twitter etc to send this message to
All your contact. Do not ignore. This is also
a source of evangelism, souls are dying. God
bless you!