# Jon Lake Got Me Wondering



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

I don't usually think much about differences between Bible versions, but the recent threads about Bible versions got me thinking about them. I'm sure you've all seen lists comparing the KJV with modern versions, showing text in the KJV that's left out of modern versions. Here's some examples I borrowed from a site called _The English Standard Version Exposed_:
Matthew 17:21
KJB: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
ESV: Omitted

Matthew 18:11
KJB: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
ESV: Omitted

Mark 9:44, 46
KJB:{ 44} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. {46} Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
ESV: Omitted

Mark 11:26
KJB: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
ESV: Omitted

Mark 15:28
KJB: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
ESV: Omitted

Luke 17:36
KJB: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
ESV: Omitted

Luke 23:17
KJB: (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
ESV: Omitted

John 5:4
KJB: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
ESV: Omitted

Acts 8:37
KJB: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
ESV: Omitted

Acts 24:7
KJB: But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
ESV: Omitted

Romans 16:24
KJB: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
ESV: Omitted​
Two question:
1. It seems all the lists I've seen show text in the KJV that's omitted in the modern versions. Have you ever seen a list of verses in the modern versions that are omitted from the KJV?

2. I assume that there are so many omissions because the text is not in the Greek text that was used for the translation. Why are there so many omissions?


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 3, 2008)

It's technical.

Book review


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 3, 2008)

Regarding the verses cited in the OP, at least the NASB includes the verses in brackets with a note. The NKJV also includes them (with no brackets) but with footnotes on the NU-Text and M-Text.

You are pointing out a sad note on the ESV in my opinion.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

BobVigneault said:


> It's technical.
> 
> Book review


Interesting. From their point of view, the Greek manuscripts used by translators of the KJV had words/phrases/verses added that weren't in the originals.

It makes me wonder. All scripture is inspired by God. God guided Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. to write their portions of the scriptures. After they finished writing, over time somebody either added or deleted words from the scriptures. I wonder what happened.


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 3, 2008)

There is no reason to stop believing in God's superintendance of scripture. The doctrine of preservation comes into play here. Psalm 12:6,7


> 6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
> like silver refined in a furnace on the ground,
> purified seven times.
> 
> ...


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> Regarding the verses cited in the OP, at least the NASB includes the verses in brackets with a note. The NKJV also includes them (with no brackets) but with footnotes on the NU-Text and M-Text.


Does a regular ESV Bible do that as well? The only copy I have is the one in E-Sword, and the verse just says "OMITTED TEXT". I'd imagine a regular ESV Bible would have some explanatory remarks in the margin.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 03:10:03 EST-----



BobVigneault said:


> There is no reason to stop believing in God's superintendance of scripture. The doctrine of preservation comes into play here. Psalm 12:6,7
> 
> 
> > 6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
> ...


----------



## BobVigneault (Dec 3, 2008)

BTW, The King James renders Psalm 12:6,7 as:



> 6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
> 
> 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



which I much prefer for upholding the doctrine of preservation. Ironic.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 3, 2008)

The difference is because of the age we live in...

The folks that put together the Received Text that the KJV is based on used the evidence that was available to them, while those who put together the modern Critical Text use the evidence that's available to them (with more manuscripts).

Also, the folks that put together the Received Text looked at the evidence differently than the folks that put together the modern Critical Text.
The modern Critical Text folks look at the evidence to see how they can restore the Scriptures to a more "original" text.
The Received Text folks look at the evidence to continue in the historic preservation of the Scripture. They did not seek the original text because 1: they didn't have it (and neither do we); 2: The were satisfied that God had preserved His text throughout history in the Church.


----------



## Jon Lake (Dec 3, 2008)

Makes me glad I opted for the NKJV, I can have my cake and eat it too, in the text proper the TR, in footnotes variants from the CT and MT.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 3, 2008)

Every copy of the ESV I have includes all these verses in footnotes.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Every copy of the ESV I have includes all these verses in footnotes.


I kinda figured they would. Thanks.


----------



## TimV (Dec 3, 2008)

> Interesting. From their point of view, the Greek manuscripts used by translators of the KJV had words/phrases/verses added that weren't in the originals.
> 
> It makes me wonder. All scripture is inspired by God. God guided Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. to write their portions of the scriptures. After they finished writing, over time somebody either added or deleted words from the scriptures. I wonder what happened.



Bob another thing that you have to keep in mind is that Erasmus, the Father of Secular Humanism (to whom Luther's The Bondage of the Will was a reply to) had to do the exact same thing the translators of the ESV did. He had to decide what to add and what not to, since the group of texts that he put together to create the TR had differences too.

Those differences didn't just appear after 1611.

And another thing one must ask oneself is that if there is disappointment that the ESV and many other versions left out the 14 books of the Apocrypha.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 3, 2008)

Its all a matter of perspective, instead of asking why the ESV left them out you may as well ask why the texts the KJV was based on added them.

Which perspective you take depends on your view of the different textual basis, and perhaps more importantly whether it is an issue that is as important than the Gospel itself. After all the Church did not agree on the cannon for hundreds of years and seemed to get along pretty well.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

Hippo said:


> Its all a matter of perspective, instead of asking why the ESV left them out you may as well ask why the texts the KJV was based on added them.


Yeah, I tried to elude to that in post #3. Either words were added or words were taken away. I'm just curious why. The stories I've heard of the care taken by the OT scribes when they copied the scriptures, counting letters before and after a copy was made, rejecting copies when the count was incorrect, makes me wonder what happened in the NT.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 07:03:14 EST-----



TimV said:


> Bob another thing that you have to keep in mind is that Erasmus, the Father of Secular Humanism (to whom Luther's The Bondage of the Will was a reply to) had to do the exact same thing the translators of the ESV did. He had to decide what to add and what not to, since the group of texts that he put together to create the TR had differences too.


 That's a good point. I've often wondered what the KJV would look like today if he had had the same manuscripts to sort through as modern day scholars had.



TimV said:


> And another thing one must ask oneself is that if there is disappointment that the ESV and many other versions left out the 14 books of the Apocrypha.


<reluctantly asking myself, "Are you disappointed that the ESV...">


----------



## TimV (Dec 3, 2008)

> <reluctantly asking myself, "Are you disappointed that the ESV...">





Another cheap shot, I know, along with Erasmus' other claim to fame


----------



## Hippo (Dec 3, 2008)

TimV said:


> > <reluctantly asking myself, \"Are you disappointed that the ESV...\">
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All good things come to those that wait:

Bible with Apocrypha-ESV: Amazon.co.uk: Books


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2008)

Jon Lake said:


> Makes me glad I opted for the NKJV, I can have my cake and eat it too, in the text proper the TR, in footnotes variants from the CT and MT.


Good choice. Looks like you've got the best of both worlds.

-----Added 12/3/2008 at 07:19:13 EST-----



TimV said:


> > <reluctantly asking myself, "Are you disappointed that the ESV...">
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Grymir (Dec 3, 2008)

Actually, there is good evidence that they should be included. Here's a link -

CHAPTER SIX

The author is a presbyterian.


----------

