Preservation of the Word of God.
Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 4 viewsNotes
Transcript
For instance, the LORD tells Moses at the burning bush that His name is I AM (Exodus 3:13-14). About 1,500 years later, when Jesus is about to be arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, He tells them—in the King James and many other versions—"I am He" (John 18:3-8). The "he," however, is in italics; that means Jesus did not say it! He really said them, "I AM," identifying Himself as the LORD who spoke to Moses, the very God of Israel! No wonder the multitude fell back!
Before getting into the details, it is important to note upfront that this is actually a circular argument that, by itself, doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. Modern scholars bracket these verses or list them in footnotes because they are convinced from the manuscripts that the verses are not original but were actually later additions to the text mistakenly included in earlier translations like the KJV. They are not “removing” the verses, they are translating from manuscripts that never had them in the first place. The question is whether some ancient scribes removed the verses or whether other ancient scribes added them. Pointing out that the verses are present in the KJV doesn’t prove the KJV is right.
To just say that modern scholars “removed” the verses simply because the verses are present in the KJV assumes from the beginning that the KJV is the ultimate standard. It doesn’t prove the KJV to be correct, it just presupposes that the KJV must be correct and then indicts modern translations for differing from the KJV. Thus, this is not really an argument for King James Onlyism, it is rather more of a mere statement of King James Onlyism. It is basically saying “the KJV is right and modern translations are wrong because modern translations are not identical to the KJV and, as we all know, the KJV is right.” So the KJV is right because it is right, you just have to believe that. Modern translations cannot be trusted because they are not the KJV. That is the real argument here. That is why the language of “removed” is used. It already starts with the assumption that the KJV is and must be the unquestionable standard, which is what the argument is supposed to be proving! The King James Onlyist would rightly object to someone starting the discussion by calling these passages “added verses” in the KJV, but this is just what the King James Onlyist is doing when he begins the conversation by calling them “missing verses.”
WORDS IN THE KJV= 783,137
WORDS IN THE KJV= 783,137
WORDS IN THE ESV= 757,439
WORDS IN THE ESV= 757,439
WORDS IN THE NASB= 807,361
WORDS IN THE NASB= 807,361
WORDS IN THE NIV= 726,109
WORDS IN THE NIV= 726,109
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
Why is this versing missing?
Matthew 17:21 is missing in the older Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts are from the fourth century.
However, it is found in newer manuscripts. It is believed that it was assimilated from Mark 9:29
So He said to them, “This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.”
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.
Matthew 18:11 is missing in the older Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts are from the fourth century and prior.
It is not found in any manuscript prior to the fifth century.
It is believed to be assimilated from Luke 19.10
for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
This passage is missing from almost all early manuscripts. Wherever it is found is inconsistent with some placing it before vs 13 and others after.
It is commonly accepted as being assimilated from Mark 12.40
who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”
and Luke 20:47
who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”
Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, I John 5:7
Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, I John 5:7
In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX (Septuagint)of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX (Septuagint)of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
Here is a quote from Dr. Patrick Zukeran with Probe.org, about the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text…A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.”