Religion has a horrible history and is bad for humanity. That said, God reportedly existed solo for an eternity. What changed? Does allowing undeserved suffering make the companionship better?
You can't call any explanation a reasonable explanation when you changing the words of God and this is unacceptable, can you sing any human beings can be smarter than God and can change the words
This not true this is not the only scripture that's missing out of som of these Bible and not just NIV Bibles. An example are as follows and satan is a lier. On the other hand' now I see why God said in the endtime that man would try to find the word of God but won't be able to find it. Meaning we're entering into the beast system and God is taken his word and mercy away little by little. We only have a small window open before the mark of the beast will be fully implemented and the so call church world is sleep or choose to be. Not to mention, that I read in one so call bible whereby God called the disciples idiots when the wind was boisterous and the water was coming on the boat. It stated that Jesus said why are you so afraid you idiots. Most people that don't know the word will believe that it was alway in the scriptures. * Matthew 18:11 * Mark 9: 44 * Mark 15:28 * Luke 17:36
I'm so glad that you brought up Metzger given his heavy involvement with the RSV and NSRV. Bart Ehrman (who was Metzger's student) has a semi-recent episode of his podcast that gets into 20th century translation and revision efforts for those interested!
Mathew 17: 21 is in the KJV Crusade Alphabetical NT TIC Family Register, and in Gideons Alphabetical TOC format. It seems to be speeking to the " lunatick" in 17: 14 as 17:21 is speaking to a certain " kind " of character defect, after the deciples couldn't cast out the demon. If we look at the illustration of James " faith without works is dead ", and " not all who cry unto the Lord will be saved ", it would seem that the " work " would have to be " fasting ", and praying on the epiphany of profound insight. This does bring vision. Tesla also makes this point.
Hold on. So sinaiticus omits completely vs 21 in Matthew 17 and omits the phase and fasting in mark 9:29. And the later scribe is trying to “correct” both verses. 1) by adding the whole verse in Matthew 21 and 2) by adding “and fasting” in mark 9. So the later scribe has a 3rd reading that does not appear at all in sinaiticus. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that the scribe has access to a/other manuscripts that has the entire reading and he is trying to correct what he feels was omitted in sinaiticus. If he was purely trying to “harmonize” Mark 9 with Matthew 21 then there would be no need to add “and fasting” to Mark 9. He would simply copy Mark 9:29 as it appears in sinaiticus and transpose it to Matthew 21.
So either a scribe had access to an earlier manuscript that we don't know of and was making a correction or a scribe decided to harmonize the gospels and added the text.
I think the best translations either out the verse in brackets and explain everything Dan says in a footnote, or leave it out and put in the footnote. Don’t leave people guessing, tell them the truth.
@@clonetrooper71 Believe it or not, Catholic Bibles contain pretty much whatever scholars think is right. So in mine the verse is in a footnote as a variant reading. It then refers to the same verse in Mark where the explanation is more detailed. Since Fundamentalism dominates Christianity in the news and on TV, Christianity must be 100% Fundamentalist in the eyes of most people. Many people, particularly many American Catholics, would be stunned at what their church actually holds about the Bible because obviously the people on TV are what matters. I’m a practicing catholic. I practice because I suck at it.
That’s why I liked the NAB I had. It has soooooo many annotations, and always pointed out when things were likely not original very clearly. Annotations and cross reference verses made it so much more awesome to read
I have an NASB Bible from 1987 and it also has the footnote and the verse in brackets. However, Mathew 28:1, 1Corinthians 16:1-2, and other verses containing first day of the week phrase in translation bibles, doesn't have a footnote that it says Mian Sabbaton, Opse De Sabbaton, etc. in the early Greek manuscripts. Protes emera tis evdomada is the real way to say first day of the week in Koinea Greek. So I won't be using NASB but Westcott-Hort Interlinear Bible only for the Greek portion.
Are there any in-print versions of the New Testament for critical reading that leave these passages in tact but somehow mark them or color code them to draw attention to their later addition?
‘The Text-Critical English New Testament’ does. It gives statistics in footnotes about what % of manuscripts and which ones omit verses or give different readings.
New American Standard Bible 1995 (NOT 2020) is a *very* close word-for-word translation to the original text if you're not into the KJV. They put these commonly redacted verses in brackets. The Legacy Standard Bible does this as well. The NKJV is alright but they don't bracket or annotate that verse in any way. The NKJV also does a couple questionable things in it's translation that I don't much care for, but I might be splitting hairs.
@@dumpsterfire9797what do you think a good bible version to read cover to cover is? KJV is too confusing to me, and all the versions that are easy to read have missing verses which makes me not want to read an incomplete bible
@@_clownworld NASB 95 doesn't cut anything, NKJV does a solid job imo but they have a couple quirks. LSB does a very good job but is very new so tread carefully because not a lot of people have dug into the translation. Keep in mind dol a lot of the missing passages are only missing because they're not historically well-supported. I agree though, I'd rather they be in there. That's why the NASB95 and LSB put those redacted verses in brackets. To indicate they may or may not belong.
@@oswaldomontes1234 I have stage four lung cancer, and the immunotherapy is attacking my adrenal glands and my thyroid for 24 hours. All I do is drink water and then I get very weak till I can’t even walk . I don’t hope Jesus forgives me for all of my sins. Amen people will actually die not eating I’m hyperglycemic .. i’m using my speakerphone because I don’t know how to spell but I need to have sugar in order to live. I think that God will allow me to have some candy and how long are you supposed to fast for how many hours how many days because it would kill me
About 3 years ago I got sick and fasted for 40 days. Not because I wanted to, but just didn’t feel like eating. Fortunately someone took me to a hospital and I discovered I had covid, pneumonia and a blood clots, and a brain bleed. They kept me 6 days then physical therapy at home until I was stronger again.
It's also worth noting that translations are based on a particular edition of the Greek text, (which is noted in the introductory notes), which text is assembled and published by textual scholars such as Metzger, but also many others. They make most of the decisions as to what should be considered original, and their published text will usually be followed by translators. Since most translations are based on the same Greek text, they generally agree on which verses are in doubt. The differences arise because the King James was based on a Greek text that was available in Europe in 1500 before much textual work had been done, known as the Textus Receptus.
So interesting to see how the manuscripts were altered. The fact that the alterations took place suggests that the writings were thought of quite differently in the past than how we think of them today. Although I'm sure there are still many who would like to make little changes here and there, and perhaps a bit of that goes on in the translation choices of some editions, idk.
It does. I often read Bible passages with the interlinear text and translation. Some key words are translated differently for no apparent reason - other than that it matches modern - usually Christian - theology. A Christian example is Isaiah 9:1. The NiV translation makes the past oppression of Galilee into a prophecy of the future. One monotheist example is Exodus 7:1 “See, I have made you _like_ a god to Pharaoh.” The word Like is not in the Hebrew text and the word for God, _elohim,_ has no prefix, etc, to indicate any additional meaning.
@@79k65 Do you also believe that Aisha was fit to be married at 6 years old to a 47 year old man? Was she old enough to be penetrated by him 3 years later?
The verses werent added but many were removed in the fake codex sinaiticus supposedly and coincidentally discovered shortly before westcott and hort worked on replacing Erasmus' received text and create a new standard which is still in use. David w Daniels researched it.
All the new versions I've discovered through many faithful scholars have a wholly different manuscript which they draw from than the Textus Receptus (new test) and Masoretic Texts (old Test). There is a very strong deception being perpetrated by the powers that be which sadly the majority have fallen for. The King James bible or Authorized version is the culmination of the received 5000 plus manuscripts - NOTHING MISSING! The New versions ON THE OTHER HAND (all new critical texts) have hijacked the word of God by presenting their "DISOVERED MIRACULOUSLY" texts they state are now the oldest and greatest such as the Siniaticus found being burned by monks at St. Catherines monestary.....(how convenient). To find out the whole of it there have been faithful christians such as Mr. Pinto from Adullam Films which produced free here on YT "A Lamp In The Dark", and "Wheat Among the Tares". Also actual recent discovery of the vast forgeries perpetrated and made plain by mr David Daniels from Chick Tracts also found here on YT or on their website. This matter is deep and broad but you will see the hallmark of the enemy of our souls as you wade into those waters. The kingdom of darkness is still calling to man and pounding the drum of intellect and temptation by asking in the modern bible footnotes "Did God Say????" No different than the serpent in the Garden of Eden asked Eve.
@@alanx4121Claims of Codex Sinaiticus being a 19th-century forgery are nothing new. They have all been thoroughly debunked but its like playing whack-a-mole with the rabid KJV-onlyists who seem determined to keep resurrecting them. Funny thing, though, they can't even agree amongst themselves who the forger was - some mysterious Jesuit (even though Sinaiticus was never in the RCC's possession) or Constantine Simonides. And it wasn't discovered just 'shortly' before Westcott and Hort used it for their 1869 Greek New Testament - Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus at Saint Catherine's Monastery some 25 years earlier, in 1844.
My question is, if it was added later on, then why are we NOW saying it was omitted? Why do we even have new bibles skipping over v 21, if there never was a v 21? I think it's more confusing to do that. Shouldn't v22 just be put in as v21?
The verse AND the verse number are deleted so as to prevent ambiguity and confusion. There would be mis-references. For example, if a commentator referenced v. 22, which had been renumbered, the reader of an uncorrected text would be scratching his head, as the commentary would be misapplied. It also is a default way to inform readers that some bibles contain scribal additions (mostly in the western texts) which have been textually edited. Any good bible student can compare different versions.
Im finding this out the hard way That one is defined by the things denied of ones self . Upon meditation and fasting you deny youfself indulges and urges , pleasures. As pointed out the messiah fasted 40 days. And immediately after that the demon king himself confronted the taunted messiah. Honestly in 17:21. I think the monks and bishops were being sneaky about snacking. But gluttony is a serious crisis in America. The demons hate it when we quit playing thier game .
The reason this verse is omitted is because it is Tremendously powerful! This is why Jesus went into the wilderness for 30 days Is to pray and fast. Then the devil came and tempted him and Jesus fought him with scripture. And the devil fleed from Jesus. This is what we are to do as well. Jesus said resist the devil and he will flee from you.
No it’s because there is little to no textual support for it the earliest manuscripts this verse probably isn’t even until the 12th century, at the earliest it might be the seventh century.
Thank you for your research. Just a note here - if End Times arrival were based merely on the lack of this verse, then that would be weird. The signs and symptoms of the End Times being in motion now are enormous. The prophetic bible references and connected evidence is somewhere in triple digits now.
I didn't get that link from the video either, but... A lot of people who were raised christian, (more or less) turned their backs on God and the bible (at least here in Europe). Now that the world turns so grim, they remember the biblical end time and try read the bible without knowing how to read it and without efficient help to understand it. That's when those kind of questions rise. I think. (I've always had a bible that points out why some verses are omitted. They are always mentioned by an 'empty' verse# and an explanation which states what other translations write).
I'm instantly leery of any claims on any Biblical topic by New Testament authorities who use 'Common Era (CE)'. Oh really, the 'Common Era'? And what or who divides 'Common Era' from 'Before the Common Era (BCE)'? Was there something--oh I don't know--notable happening during that period of time that prompted the big divide, or was it an arbitrary move to tidy up the timeline? A commonly agreed-upon administrative decision? Let secular authorities use BCE and CE. That said, this is the first video of yours I've watched and for all I know you might be one of those purely secular authorities, but even so I've noticed Woke pastors in Woke churches preaching sermons nowadays who come across as indistinguishable from such authorities, as godless and secular in their way as any old-school Soviet commissar.
@@MrDragpics It most certainly is not a contridiction. Faith and prayer go hand in hand. Prayer is nothing without faith but our prayer is fortified by fasting. The Bible frequently links fasting with prayer, and some say that fasting can increase the effectiveness of prayer. Here are some examples from the Bible that mention fasting and prayer: Nehemiah 1:4 Nehemiah "fasted and prayed before the God of heaven" in his prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. Daniel 9:3 Daniel "devoted himself to plead with God 'in prayer and petition, in fasting'". Acts 13:3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'". Fasting is a spiritual discipline. It helps us grow in our faith (belief). Fasting is a tangible way to deny ourselves-to declare before God that we know it's all about Him, Not about us.
@@Bl_eu Checked older manuscripts most say fasting was not in the originals, pray when you pray you believe check what Jesus says about fasting thanks for your reply just spent time in the word checking it out.
Well it actually has a pretty complicated history, end it was never actually put in the KJV Bible until the 1800s, it was originally only in the marginal notes, I only dates back to the 12th century, but it was in some of the Latin manuscripts Desiderius Erasmus was using, and he was pressured by the Catholic Church, and he knew there wasn’t that much textual support for it so he ended up only putting it in the marginal notes. I recommend reading the NET bible commentary on this passage.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 When the writers of the kjv first translated the bible it was not in there. They had to ask them to put it in but they said it's not in the earlier greek but they ended up putting it in.
7:53 and 8:11 not in original koine Greek. Nor Mark 16:9-20. Dozens of other changes made to koine Greek new testament and Hebrew Scripture by church fathers. A Man made theology .
Glad someone on RUclips gets this right :). I taught on this and several other examples for our church to understand the history of human interaction with the early Bible texts.
Actually, you're totally backwards wrong. See the following excerpt: "Most of the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us are of what scholars call the Byzantine (or Antiochan) family of texts. These manuscripts, though not the oldest, are the ones preserved by the Greek church. Because they represent the vast majority of Greek manuscripts they are sometimes referred to as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus. This is the text from which the King James translation of the New Testament was made. However, beginning in 1881, other Greek texts have been published that have been the basis for nearly all subsequent translations, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New English Bible. These published texts have relied heavily upon two ancient Greek manuscripts, called Codex Vaticanus (also known as 'B') and Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph). Where did these manuscripts originate? Vaticanus was "discovered" in the Vatican in 1481 and was released as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible in 1582. It differs from the Textus Receptus in nearly 8,000 places. The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, reveals that Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one as late as the twelfth century. Noted scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger states: "A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand." The corrector "omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 74). The Sinaiticus manuscripts were discovered by Constantine von Tischendorf in a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1850s. They differ in about 9,000 places from the traditional Byzantine Text (Textus Receptus). Dr. Bruce Metzger describes the carelessness of transmission that marks the Sinaiticus manuscripts. He declared that at least nine "correctors" had worked on the manuscripts over the centuries. "Tichendorf's edition of the manuscript enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text" (p. 77). Later use of ultra-violet lamps showed multiple additional places where the original reading had been erased. Not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, but also they disagree with one another perhaps a dozen times on every page. While many of these disagreements are small and may involve merely a preposition or the spelling of a word, others omit whole verses such as the ending of Mark's gospel. When the Apostle John put our New Testament into its final form, shortly before his death at the end of the first century, he was living in Ephesus, a Greek-speaking city located near the western coast of ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey). This is the same city that had served as the repository of the copies of Paul's writings decades earlier. It is the city used in Revelation 2 to represent the entire first stage of the Church of God. The Greek manuscripts that come from this area are the ones labeled by scholars as the Byzantine type. Scholars fleeing from the Turkish invasion in the 15th century brought copies of Byzantine texts west. Many of these Greek scholars and the manuscripts that they brought with them ended up in the area of Basel, Switzerland after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is from these manuscripts that printed texts of Erasmus (1516) and Stephens (1520) were primarily derived. Stephen's printed text was known as the Textus Receptus and was the accepted standard of the Greek New Testament until the latter part of the 19th century. Since the 19th century, Bible translation has undergone a further change. Dismissing the idea that the Bible was supernaturally inspired and preserved, many scholars have taken the approach that the oldest manuscripts, whatever their source, are closer to the original and therefore must be more accurate. Most 20th century Bible translations, apart from the New King James Version, have used these texts touted by such critics, and relegated the readings of officially preserved texts to footnotes. While these translations can be useful for Bible study, they should be treated with caution, and not accepted to the exclusion of the more historically sound texts. The Creator God not only inspired the writing of the Bible, He also guided the process of both canonization and preservation of the text. In spite of numerous attempts by carnal men through the centuries to suppress or distort the word of God, God has been faithful to ensure that His "instruction book" for life is still available for us today."
@@djfrank68 But they are missing from Matthew. Not Mark. So how could the Matthew verse be a harmonization to Mark when Mark includes the word, "fasting" and Matthew doesn't?
According to MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," there are only a couple hundred thousand textual variances in the New Testament, only 40 or 50 of which "are of great significance."
The Greek is "oudeis oiden".. oida is the generic verb "know". For example if a person describes something, and you say "I know that" [ intellectual ascent ]. Oudeis is a contraction of 3 small words, ouk (not) de (but) and eis (the number 1), so "not but one" or "not a single person" is conscious knowledge of that event. And of course since angels are people (not intending to mean "human" ) he includes them for clarification. Knowledge of the event is reserved for the godhead. Certain information is hidden from the enemy.
@@deanmason1564 the phrase "no man" or "no one" is used several times in the NT. The reason I ask is a lot of denominations think they can determine (predict) when they think Christ will return. It doesn't work that way. No man, or No one, means no man. Only the Father knows. The attempts to guess the time of Christ's return have failed. Ever hear of the Church of Christ? No, not Mormon.
It's changing because the stage is being set for the antichrist even the KJV Bibles are supernaturally changing can't you see this world is not the same.
@@robd2721 The KJV is not based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is based on the KJV! There was no such thing as a Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611. The Textus Receptus wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it.
The Textus Receptus is a printed version of the Greek text underlying the KJV. It was first compiled in 1894 (i.e. 283 years after the 1611 KJV) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it. The Textus Receptus contains supposed Greek readings that have absolutely no manuscript support, especially in Revelation. For example, the reference to "Thou art righteous, O _Lord,_ which art, and wast, _and shalt be_ " in the KJV and Textus Receptus at Revelation 16:5 is not supported by _any_ manuscript evidence. _Every_ known manuscript contains the equivalent of "Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, _thou Holy One_ ". Indeed, there is _no_ Greek manuscript support for the Textus Receptus' last six verses of Revelation - Erasmus simply created his own version of the Greek text by translating from the Latin Vulgate's text into Greek. The KJV translators used Erasmus' 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament for their translation. Erasmus' 3rd edition includes the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus. From there, it found its way into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus. Additionally, we now _know_ that the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition to John's Gospel and that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to Mark's Gospel. As such, none of these passages deserve the canonical status the KJV and Textus Receptus give them.
great video. Jesus prayed "that they may be one" and here we are always arguing about who's the most right... (John 17:20-21) Stop seeking only to validate your own viewpoint. Read your Bible, compare notes with multiple translations to help you get a higher resolution understanding, and seek Truth with a sincere heart. (Mark 1:15, John 8:31-32) Paul wrote about this Christian tribalism when folks were claiming allegiance to their human teacher instead of recognizing their kinship in Christ. (1 Corinth 1:12)
In my modern Bible Matthew 17:21 is not even mentioned while Mark 9:29 only says "You can only cast away those only with prayer." while fasting is not even mentioned. But from my mother's old Bible both verses are relevant and said as they should be...
20lesus sayd vnto them: Because of your vnbelefe. For I saye verely vnto you: if ye hadde faith as a grayn of a mustard seede, ye should say vnto thys mountayne, remoue hence too yonder place, and it shoulde remoue, neyther shoulde any thyng be impossible for you too do. 21Howe be it this kynde goeth not out, but by prayer and fastynge.
@@coryburns9161 if you was from above like jesus said you wouldn’t of text me this nonsense attitude you are satan children who judge and teachers of human not heavenly things and understanding you become satan ways
Fundamentalist Christian finds a coin on the floor. "It's a sign that I shall have a long and prosperous life". Splits his pants picking it up. "Trials and tribulations. It's a sign that the end times are here."
The Fundamentalist Christian was dressed immodestly by his own church's dress custom for males. If they're tight enough to split when you bend or crouch down, they're tight enough to show off your junk and your buns. For example, a limerick: There once was a young lad from Shoreham, Who wore pants made too tight but he wore 'em. He looked very discreet, 'Til he bent in the street, To pick up a dime, then he tore 'em. 😆
@@johncarbonetta7812 Revelations, and the tendency for religious people to interpret random events as significant. Christianity started off as a doomsday cult, and they have been predicting Armageddon since the very start. Polls show that most fundamentalist Christians think that the world will end during their lifetimes. And they've been thinking this for the last 2,000 years.
Probably, one of the most often cited verses that were later added & are not in the earliest manuscripts is the story of the adulteress caught in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11 in which Yeshua said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." and, "Has no one condemned you?" . . . "Neither do I condemn you."
Because it wasn't in the original manuscripts and was later added, so they removed it. Did they fix your Mathew 26:17 ? Because that verse made no sense compared to Leviticus 23. Some translations also added back the missing verse in Psalm 145, new ones I believe stick it at the end of 13 leaving the verse count at 21 however all these verses are alphabetic and there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and the 14th letter and verse was missing. A lot of these changes are restorations.
If verse 21 wasn't in the original writing, then why is it still acknowledged by omitting it? It only makes sense that 22 needs to become 21 and so on to honor the original text. Just curious as to why it's done the way it is instead of truly and completely omitting of text that aren't originally in it
Seems like half the comments didn't watch the video at all. "Why is fasting removed?" "Fasting is important to purity." "Demons are glad fasting was removed." The point is that people have changed the original scripture, and in this case someone felt like adding more references to fasting. It's like if I added extra phrases to my personal copy of the Bible like "Jesus proclaimed that the poor in wealth shall inherit the Earth" then I get upset when other people point out it's not what was originally said.
@@janetgillespie6590Liberals use C.E. to be politically correct. This man is a liberal because he uses "C.E." and trusts Westcott and Hort, two Darwinists who dabbled in the occult.
Why was 1 John 5:7-8 ,7:53,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 added to bibles? Why was Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5-7 changed to "Virgin " in in future tense?? Why are there hundred s of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources?
We don't *have* the original Koine Greek documents, nor the original Hebrew / Aramaic documents. Thus, we don't *know* if what we have reconstructed from documents only a few dozen (in the best cases) to 100 (in the worst cases) years later matches the original writings - or even if the originals were single writings in the case of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) - the original documents of what we know today might well have been compilations of even earlier documents. When we are dealing with copies (of copies, of still more copies), we must simply reconstruct the best we can - and we have a pretty solid grasp of what was in those original documents ... but there are exceptions, and places where time has revealed new evidence (like in this case) showing that what we once had actually had insertions. For those who are serious about studying the Scriptures, it is well worth using online Bible sites like BibleHub or Blue Letter Bible, where numerous translations can be compared, and (at least at BibleHub) variants of the Greek can also be compared. It is not hard to find good explanations of the reasons each variation are preferred or disfavored by specific scholars - and it can be a very profitable study.
Thanks for pointing this out, this verse is also not included in the Complete Jewish Bible, pretty much my go to for studying the word so not sure when they added Matthew 17:21 in Bibles.
I disagree with your conclusion. To me it looks like the second scribe was adding in the missing words which should have already been there. He had discovered that the original was missing words and so he was correcting the mistake.
There are medical benefits to certain kinds of fasting, but you might want to check with a doctor before doing so - especially if you have any health conditions.
It is mentioned in other places as a spiritual tool. Being added here is not (in my opinion) contrary to the original intent... but removing it is the right decision. Trying to get as close to the original text is the correct goal for most translators and revisors.
I always thought (though I wouldn't dare say it) that that verse was withdrawn on purpose because the clergy didnt like the idea of fasting , or self sacrifice, especially when it comes to food. People want spiritual things to be easy.
Finally someone putting out a video with some facts. Too many people even on YT just flat out dismiss the modern English translations. Without doing any sort of research. That can really discourage good people who are just trying to get closer to God. I read the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. All of which are excellent translations. Great video by the way very happy I stumbled across your channel!
@@hive_indicator318 of course they are any Bible today was translated from a source that wasn’t English, which makes them a translation. You can argue they are just interpretations or whatever no one cares. Call it what you like.
@@BeardedCaveman no. It wasn't translated in any way. It was an adaptation of the Bishop's Bible. And that wasn't even translated, but an adaptation of yet another adaptation. Unless it's possible to translate within a single dialect of a language.
@@hive_indicator318 ok think whatever you want, whatever makes yourself feel better. You are trying to start a stupid argument, you are worthless for doing so. I am going to say translations since they are considered translations. Do I care if “translation” is 100% correct? No. You are just a worthless troll trying to stir up bullshit. So that is that. Get out of mommies basement.
Prayer and fasting are extremely important when praying for intercession. This is a very important teaching whose weight is immeasurably significant when in combat with those forces that want them best forgotten.
Not true it in the NIV it says by prayer.. it doesn’t include fasting so the original comment makes complete sense. There is a reason why it was removed so that we wouldn’t know how to handle spiritual warfare there is no reason a whole verse should be deleted unless you trying to hide the power of it .
The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it. The translators of the older Bibles were not always as careful in the selection of the manuscripts they used. Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account.
Question, why do they skip to that verse in the labeling of verses instead of shifting the verse labeling so for example verse 22 is now verse 21 and so on, I believe what your saying just curious if you could explain this
If your pastor uses the KJV and says to go to Matthew 17:27 - but you are using the 1960 - 1977 NASB, you would be reading Matthew 17:26 according to the pastor's bible!
All the new versions I've discovered through many faithful scholars have a wholly different manuscript which they draw from than the Textus Receptus (new test) and Masoretic Texts (old Test). There is a very strong deception being perpetrated by the powers that be which sadly the majority have fallen for. The King James bible or Authorized version is the culmination of the received 5000 plus manuscripts. The New versions (all new critical texts) have hijacked the word of God by presenting their "DISOVERED MIRACULOUSLY" texts they state are now the oldest and greatest such as the Siniaticus found being burned by monks at St. Catherines monestary.....(how convenient). To find out the whole of it there have been faithful christians such as Mr. Pinto from Adullam Films which produced free here on YT "A Lamp In The Dark", and "Wheat Among the Tares". Also actual recent discovery of the vast forgeries perpetrated and made plain by mr David Daniels from Chick Tracts also found here on YT or on their website. This matter is deep and broad but you will see the hallmark of the enemy of our souls as you wade into those waters. The kingdom of darkness is still calling to man and pounding the drum of intellect and temptation by asking in the modern bible footnotes "Did God Say????" No different than the serpent in the Garden of Eden asked Eve.
Hey Dan! Great video. I do have to ask though, the reading Matthew 17:21 is listed in the "Text-Critical Greek New Testament" (edited by Adam Boyd) as having support of all Byzantine texts (Majority, F35, Antoniades, Byztext and TR) with the absence of this passage being supported by the Critical Texts with only 0.6% of the Greek manuscripts attesting this. Your support for the non-genuiness of this passage seems to be heavily dependent on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. What is it about these two manuscripts that gives us reason to believe their witness is so important? Many have suggested that modern Textual Criticism and the WH have weighed these too manuscripts too heavily in their decision. Genuine question in brotherly love. I've had all sorts of views represented on my channel, it's an interesting discussion!
Those two text are the oldest, and most well preserved for a reason! They were never used by the church. The TR was the text that had been used by the church from very early on. Notice how well preserved those two text were that he used. The only things left from the TR text are almost worn out. Why, because they were used. There are no original manuscripts. Why? Because they were used and worn out. Older does not always mean better. It could be junk text that were rejected. What is also not mentioned in this video is the many verses, that mess with the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, homosexuality, and many other key doctrines in those “most reliable manuscripts”. These text were very Gnostic in their interpretation. Therefore was rejected by the church. One was found in a monastery, “Catholic” the other from Alexandria Egypt. The TR originated in Antioch. This was where we were first called Christians and the central hub of Christianity. What good has come out of Egypt and the Roman catholics? Verses are being slowly and systematically removed from the modern translations to water down what God said. Just like Satan did in the Garden. Also the famous scholars Wescott and Hort practiced witchcraft and necromancy! Yeah let’s refer to these guys for our authority on the Bible. Nope. Give me my KJV. It’s tried and proven and comes from the correct manuscripts.
@@timsmith939you can feel that way, but you are intentionally ignoring what the authors of the bible wrote in favour of a translation that you enjoy as an English speaker
@@PasteurizedLettuce ok I don’t understand that statement at all. Intentionally ignoring? Are you saying that the two manuscripts that are referred in the video are the originals? Because that is not true at all. There are no original manuscripts any longer. English is one of the most common languages in all the world and has been for hundreds of years. Yes it just so happens to be the language I speak. How am I ignoring what the authors wrote? Is their a perfect original manuscript I can get my hands on in the original language? No there is not! It not about preferring a language, it is about two key Bible doctrines; Inspiration and preservation. God inspired His Word, and promised to preserve it. Where is your copy? What can you point to as the perfect preserved Word of God? You better have an answer because your very eternity depends on the what God says. Casting confusion on God’s Word is exactly what Satan did in Gen. 3. I know what God has said. If the only Bible that is true is in a monastery somewhere locked up, or pieces and fragments spread all over the world and in an ancient archaic language then we have a huge problem! The God I serve is bigger than that. if you don’t have Gods pure Word how can you trust it? Your faith, then rest, not on God‘s, Doctrine of preservation, but rather on man’s ability to source, piece together, scrapbook, something that is close, but not entirely perfect. Who is to say what parts are in error and what parts are God’s literal words? I choose to put my faith in God. Many scholars, choose to put their faith in their education in archaeological finds, I say, let God be true, and every man, a liar.
@@timsmith939 what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. The King James Version was quite literally also transcribed by scholars who were working with inconsistent manuscripts that were already very edited by the time it was being written because we didn’t have as early manuscripts. God had nothing to do with it. Otherwise why does god intervene when they were editing the King James Version but not other versions? Why King James? There are newer and better English translations, did God not intervene to preserve them?
@@timsmith939 like you’re still putting your faith in man. Just some men in 1611 hired by the king of England to edit an already existing translation from Geneva largely because the King didn’t like their anti monarchical footnotes and wanted a translation that didn’t challenge his authority.
The issue is that the oldest texts are also copies and that we do not have the originals & its also very possible that the copies that added it were putting it back where is belonged if it was removed from the greek. I still believe that the original texts would be from Hebrew and or Aramaic and not of Greek.
This isn't a big deal to me. What is a big deal is many people think you become a Christian by saying sinners prayer but No one actually did that in the bible. A sinners prayer was made up by men based on verses taken out of context such as ask and ye shall receive. It's largely based in Romans and called The Roman Road but the writer was not telling lost people how to become saved in romans, he was speaking to people who were already saved. How did they actually get saved? Same way everyone else did, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. That's how all Had to do it.
Without the original first writing, we have no idea what is or is not supposed to be in the scriptures. I would rather see the questioned passage be included with a footnote citing that it does not appear in the earliest copies than simply omit it.
Can you please expand your comment "...and with all of the end times nonsense that's being proliferated right now it seems to be more of a concern to a lot of people" . What exactly are you implying? Thanks
@@Halophage you mean, he’s outright sharing his opinion, man. Just because he says it with authority or confidence doesn’t make him right. I don’t think the end times are coming but I don’t deny they might be- because I’m not foolish enough to think I definitively know. I like to remain- how do you say? Hmmm “humble”
"The Expositor's Study Bible" Containing the Old and New Testaments Authorized Kind James Version, 1611 Elizabethan English is updated in some cases to reflect present terminology, without changing the true meaning of the word. Translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised. The exclusive comments following each Verse of the sixty-six Books of the Bible were authored by Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Designed to help anyone who wants to understand the Bible better and enjoy it more, the expositor's notes are beneficial to Bible study for every person who has a hunger for God's Word. They have beautiful leather bound editions as well as 'Large Print'. I've had numerous Bibles in my life and this one is all I'll ever need. God Bless!
kinda silly to pick some rando verse and say it was not "original" when none know of what any "original" is . a feaking definition of early vs "original" would be be a nice start.
What always intrigued me was how straightened these rare writhings appear to look almost perfectly placed in line. Even the "scribble scrabble" at the top of the one document is perfectly straightened and in formation. 😮
I’m glad you mentioned Metzger, Bart Ehrman also has a pretty good blog on this particular verse, another really good articles by Matt slick I know I know, you’re probably thinking “ dogmatic” The article is actually pretty unbiased. I found out about this passage because of the King James Bible, I mostly use the American standard Version, and the ESV, and why didn’t understand is why verse 21 wasn’t included in either but it wasn’t a KJV, I think it’s because the KJV has a lot of textual variants, it also includes John 5:7 which has a very interesting history, and John 7:53-8:11.
Yes, some demons can be expelled only by a combination of both prayer and fasting...fasting amplifying the prayer. Jesus did both. Strange that Dan chose to not even mention what was omitted.
The fact is demons all have different ranks and some only will come out by fasting and praying. They still have to be commanded out but without fasting they are not leaving
First, we don’t “know” that Matthew uses Mark. That’s a theory (albeit a good one in my opinion) and not an established fact. But to answer your question as to why Matthew didn’t pick it up - Mark may have never written that line. It could very well have been added later - AFTER Matthew used the manuscript of Mark that was available to him.
@@dondgc2298 Well I'll say this. For Matthew to have not used Mark yet they both have the same omissions in key parts, that would be wildly coincidental
@@dondgc2298 It's beyond a "theory" at this point. They literally quote each other verbatim and in the same order of events throughout along with Matthew making omissions and tack ons at the same points of a story. If you and i both tell a story about the same U.S president there's no way that can happen if we're using different independent sources and perspectives. But at least you get it
This is very interesting commentary. "Just the facts please" is very appreciated.
HERE'S A FACT, GOD/ GODS HAVE NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST!
You are told to use "faith" basically lying to yourself.
Religion has a horrible history and is bad for humanity. That said, God reportedly existed solo for an eternity. What changed? Does allowing undeserved suffering make the companionship better?
@@fukenbiker GOOD QUESTION, let me put your mind at rest, god/ gods
are only imaginary! Religion is the best tax-free Ponzi scheme ever!
Unfortunately, these days, people's opinions are taken as facts.
Whatever you identify with is a fact to you and only you
Wonderful. Thank you for the detailed explanation and for the graphics too!
You can't call any explanation a reasonable explanation when you changing the words of God and this is unacceptable, can you sing any human beings can be smarter than God and can change the words
This not true this is not the only scripture that's missing out of som of these Bible and not just NIV Bibles. An example are as follows and satan is a lier. On the other hand'
now I see why God said in the endtime that man would try to find the word of God but won't be able to find it. Meaning we're entering into the beast system and God is taken his
word and mercy away little by little. We only have a small window open before the mark of the beast will be fully implemented and the so call church world is
sleep or choose to be. Not to mention, that I read in one so call bible whereby God called the disciples idiots when the wind was boisterous and the water was coming on the
boat. It stated that Jesus said why are you so afraid you idiots. Most people that don't know the word will believe that it was alway in the scriptures.
* Matthew 18:11
* Mark 9: 44
* Mark 15:28
* Luke 17:36
I'm so glad that you brought up Metzger given his heavy involvement with the RSV and NSRV. Bart Ehrman (who was Metzger's student) has a semi-recent episode of his podcast that gets into 20th century translation and revision efforts for those interested!
Would you happen to remember the episode title?
@@sunh1213 How to Translate the Bible: Problems and Pitfalls
@@J_Z913 Thanks.
Why would you listen to someone who admits that they are no longer a Christian?? Bart Ehrman left the Christian faith some time ago.
@@katehite9551 Dr. Ehrman is the leading public scholar of Early Christianity. His insights into this topic are valuable.
Mathew 17: 21 is in the KJV Crusade Alphabetical NT TIC Family Register, and in Gideons Alphabetical TOC format. It seems to be speeking to the " lunatick" in 17: 14 as 17:21 is speaking to a certain " kind " of character defect, after the deciples couldn't cast out the demon. If we look at the illustration of James " faith without works is dead ", and " not all who cry unto the Lord will be saved ", it would seem that the " work " would have to be " fasting ", and praying on the epiphany of profound insight. This does bring vision. Tesla also makes this point.
Hold on. So sinaiticus omits completely vs 21 in Matthew 17 and omits the phase and fasting in mark 9:29. And the later scribe is trying to “correct” both verses. 1) by adding the whole verse in Matthew 21 and 2) by adding “and fasting” in mark 9. So the later scribe has a 3rd reading that does not appear at all in sinaiticus. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that the scribe has access to a/other manuscripts that has the entire reading and he is trying to correct what he feels was omitted in sinaiticus. If he was purely trying to “harmonize” Mark 9 with Matthew 21 then there would be no need to add “and fasting” to Mark 9. He would simply copy Mark 9:29 as it appears in sinaiticus and transpose it to Matthew 21.
I was thinking the same thing.
No. You completely misunderstood.
The earliest manuscripts of those passages (even though they are fragments of larger manuscripts) do not have those phrases.
So either a scribe had access to an earlier manuscript that we don't know of and was making a correction or a scribe decided to harmonize the gospels and added the text.
@@markjeffries7150
Earliest doesn't equal best!
Appreciate the description with what seems like actual evidence. Thx
I think the best translations either out the verse in brackets and explain everything Dan says in a footnote, or leave it out and put in the footnote. Don’t leave people guessing, tell them the truth.
I agree; I have one like that.
@@clonetrooper71 Believe it or not, Catholic Bibles contain pretty much whatever scholars think is right. So in mine the verse is in a footnote as a variant reading. It then refers to the same verse in Mark where the explanation is more detailed.
Since Fundamentalism dominates Christianity in the news and on TV, Christianity must be 100% Fundamentalist in the eyes of most people. Many people, particularly many American Catholics, would be stunned at what their church actually holds about the Bible because obviously the people on TV are what matters.
I’m a practicing catholic. I practice because I suck at it.
@@philsphan4414 Same here, but it's in mine.
@@philsphan4414 Same! I use the New American Bible, to be honest. How about you?
@@clonetrooper71 Same.
That’s why I liked the NAB I had. It has soooooo many annotations, and always pointed out when things were likely not original very clearly. Annotations and cross reference verses made it so much more awesome to read
I have an NASB Bible from 1987 and it also has the footnote and the verse in brackets. However, Mathew 28:1, 1Corinthians 16:1-2, and other verses containing first day of the week phrase in translation bibles, doesn't have a footnote that it says Mian Sabbaton, Opse De Sabbaton, etc. in the early Greek manuscripts. Protes emera tis evdomada is the real way to say first day of the week in Koinea Greek. So I won't be using NASB but Westcott-Hort Interlinear Bible only for the Greek portion.
You guys all must be Catholics?
Are there any in-print versions of the New Testament for critical reading that leave these passages in tact but somehow mark them or color code them to draw attention to their later addition?
‘The Text-Critical English New Testament’ does. It gives statistics in footnotes about what % of manuscripts and which ones omit verses or give different readings.
New American Standard Bible 1995 (NOT 2020) is a *very* close word-for-word translation to the original text if you're not into the KJV. They put these commonly redacted verses in brackets.
The Legacy Standard Bible does this as well.
The NKJV is alright but they don't bracket or annotate that verse in any way. The NKJV also does a couple questionable things in it's translation that I don't much care for, but I might be splitting hairs.
@@dumpsterfire9797what do you think a good bible version to read cover to cover is? KJV is too confusing to me, and all the versions that are easy to read have missing verses which makes me not want to read an incomplete bible
@@_clownworld NASB 95 doesn't cut anything, NKJV does a solid job imo but they have a couple quirks. LSB does a very good job but is very new so tread carefully because not a lot of people have dug into the translation.
Keep in mind dol a lot of the missing passages are only missing because they're not historically well-supported. I agree though, I'd rather they be in there. That's why the NASB95 and LSB put those redacted verses in brackets. To indicate they may or may not belong.
The demons are glad that the fasting part was removed.
have u fasted before? how long did you go for?
Exactly
@@oswaldomontes1234 i have and 6 days.
@@oswaldomontes1234 I have stage four lung cancer, and the immunotherapy is attacking my adrenal glands and my thyroid for 24 hours. All I do is drink water and then I get very weak till I can’t even walk . I don’t hope Jesus forgives me for all of my sins. Amen people will actually die not eating I’m hyperglycemic .. i’m using my speakerphone because I don’t know how to spell but I need to have sugar in order to live. I think that God will allow me to have some candy and how long are you supposed to fast for how many hours how many days because it would kill me
About 3 years ago I got sick and fasted for 40 days. Not because I wanted to, but just didn’t feel like eating. Fortunately someone took me to a hospital and I discovered I had covid, pneumonia and a blood clots, and a brain bleed. They kept me 6 days then physical therapy at home until I was stronger again.
I am glad that there is still an effort being made to clean the additional text added to please humans and their ideas of what it should be there.
So how can we believe anything that's written ?
Your a very brave man to call any of Gods words 'trivial'@christsavesreadromans1096
It's also worth noting that translations are based on a particular edition of the Greek text, (which is noted in the introductory notes), which text is assembled and published by textual scholars such as Metzger, but also many others. They make most of the decisions as to what should be considered original, and their published text will usually be followed by translators. Since most translations are based on the same Greek text, they generally agree on which verses are in doubt. The differences arise because the King James was based on a Greek text that was available in Europe in 1500 before much textual work had been done, known as the Textus Receptus.
Great job! I get asked about verses like this when we study how we got the Bible. The evidence is so important.
Dan is one of the very best Bible scholars I have ever heard. He explains everything so well in understandable terms for laymen!
Others include - Jacob Prasch and pastor Chris from Calvary chapel Chester springs who live streams. Both have tremendous biblical knowledge.
Well if thats the reason they better cut out the whole trip to bethleham with gay joe!
So interesting to see how the manuscripts were altered. The fact that the alterations took place suggests that the writings were thought of quite differently in the past than how we think of them today. Although I'm sure there are still many who would like to make little changes here and there, and perhaps a bit of that goes on in the translation choices of some editions, idk.
It does. I often read Bible passages with the interlinear text and translation. Some key words are translated differently for no apparent reason - other than that it matches modern - usually Christian - theology.
A Christian example is Isaiah 9:1. The NiV translation makes the past oppression of Galilee into a prophecy of the future.
One monotheist example is Exodus 7:1 “See, I have made you _like_ a god to Pharaoh.” The word Like is not in the Hebrew text and the word for God, _elohim,_ has no prefix, etc, to indicate any additional meaning.
@@79k65 Do you also believe that Aisha was fit to be married at 6 years old to a 47 year old man? Was she old enough to be penetrated by him 3 years later?
The verses werent added but many were removed in the fake codex sinaiticus supposedly and coincidentally discovered shortly before westcott and hort worked on replacing Erasmus' received text and create a new standard which is still in use. David w Daniels researched it.
All the new versions I've discovered through many faithful scholars have a wholly different manuscript which they draw from than the Textus Receptus (new test) and Masoretic Texts (old Test).
There is a very strong deception being perpetrated by the powers that be which sadly the majority have fallen for.
The King James bible or Authorized version is the culmination of the received 5000 plus manuscripts - NOTHING MISSING!
The New versions ON THE OTHER HAND (all new critical texts) have hijacked the word of God by presenting their "DISOVERED MIRACULOUSLY" texts they state are now the oldest and greatest such as the Siniaticus found being burned by monks at St. Catherines monestary.....(how convenient).
To find out the whole of it there have been faithful christians such as Mr. Pinto from Adullam Films which produced
free here on YT "A Lamp In The Dark", and "Wheat Among the Tares".
Also actual recent discovery of the vast forgeries perpetrated and made plain by mr David Daniels from
Chick Tracts also found here on YT or on their website.
This matter is deep and broad but you will see the hallmark of the enemy of our souls as you wade into those waters.
The kingdom of darkness is still calling to man and pounding the drum of intellect and temptation by asking
in the modern bible footnotes "Did God Say????"
No different than the serpent in the Garden of Eden asked Eve.
@@alanx4121Claims of Codex Sinaiticus being a 19th-century forgery are nothing new. They have all been thoroughly debunked but its like playing whack-a-mole with the rabid KJV-onlyists who seem determined to keep resurrecting them. Funny thing, though, they can't even agree amongst themselves who the forger was - some mysterious Jesuit (even though Sinaiticus was never in the RCC's possession) or Constantine Simonides. And it wasn't discovered just 'shortly' before Westcott and Hort used it for their 1869 Greek New Testament - Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus at Saint Catherine's Monastery some 25 years earlier, in 1844.
Would have helped if you said what the verse actually says. I haven't managed to memorise the Bible yet.
He did
"But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."
@@NateWilliams190 thanks
transfiguration ... look it up ... not hard Matt.17-21
My question is, if it was added later on, then why are we NOW saying it was omitted? Why do we even have new bibles skipping over v 21, if there never was a v 21? I think it's more confusing to do that. Shouldn't v22 just be put in as v21?
That's what I'm saying
It's so the verse references line up regardless of which translation is used...
The verse AND the verse number are deleted so as to prevent ambiguity and confusion. There would be mis-references. For example, if a commentator referenced v. 22, which had been renumbered, the reader of an uncorrected text would be scratching his head, as the commentary would be misapplied. It also is a default way to inform readers that some bibles contain scribal additions (mostly in the western texts) which have been textually edited. Any good bible student can compare different versions.
Because everyone is committed to using the kjv of what scripture should be instead of what the original writings say
Men lies
Awesome work as usual Dan, thanks for the efforts and please keep it coming!
There's that fallible infallibility again.
Im finding this out the hard way That one is defined by the things denied of ones self . Upon meditation and fasting you deny youfself indulges and urges , pleasures. As pointed out the messiah fasted 40 days. And immediately after that the demon king himself confronted the taunted messiah. Honestly in 17:21. I think the monks and bishops were being sneaky about snacking. But gluttony is a serious crisis in America. The demons hate it when we quit playing thier game .
The reason this verse is omitted is because it is Tremendously powerful! This is why Jesus went into the wilderness for 30 days Is to pray and fast. Then the devil came and tempted him and Jesus fought him with scripture. And the devil fleed from Jesus. This is what we are to do as well. Jesus said resist the devil and he will flee from you.
Then why was Mark 9:29 left in if “they” were trying to hide the power of fasting?
Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. Yes, fasting is powerful! Jesus tells us " when you fast" ....not "if you fast"! We are expected to fast!
No it’s because there is little to no textual support for it the earliest manuscripts this verse probably isn’t even until the 12th century, at the earliest it might be the seventh century.
He just said cus it wasn’t there on the original transcripts it was added by man nt god
The Devil will change the Bible and take out powerful parts.
The devil won’t change the Quran because we all know it’s false.
Thanks Dan! It's so nice to see visual evidence of the funny business that has so often occurred in the Bible.
Like?
Thank you for your research. Just a note here - if End Times arrival were based merely on the lack of this verse, then that would be weird. The signs and symptoms of the End Times being in motion now are enormous. The prophetic bible references and connected evidence is somewhere in triple digits now.
You don't think it is the end times because a verse is missing?
I didn't get that link from the video either, but... A lot of people who were raised christian, (more or less) turned their backs on God and the bible (at least here in Europe). Now that the world turns so grim, they remember the biblical end time and try read the bible without knowing how to read it and without efficient help to understand it. That's when those kind of questions rise. I think. (I've always had a bible that points out why some verses are omitted. They are always mentioned by an 'empty' verse# and an explanation which states what other translations write).
Dan you're a fella that understands "Don't bore us, get to the chorus." well done sir.
I'm instantly leery of any claims on any Biblical topic by New Testament authorities who use 'Common Era (CE)'. Oh really, the 'Common Era'? And what or who divides 'Common Era' from 'Before the Common Era (BCE)'? Was there something--oh I don't know--notable happening during that period of time that prompted the big divide, or was it an arbitrary move to tidy up the timeline? A commonly agreed-upon administrative decision?
Let secular authorities use BCE and CE. That said, this is the first video of yours I've watched and for all I know you might be one of those purely secular authorities, but even so I've noticed Woke pastors in Woke churches preaching sermons nowadays who come across as indistinguishable from such authorities, as godless and secular in their way as any old-school Soviet commissar.
“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
The context is about believing then the verse 21 contradicts that.
@@MrDragpics It most certainly is not a contridiction. Faith and prayer go hand in hand. Prayer is nothing without faith but our prayer is fortified by fasting.
The Bible frequently links fasting with prayer, and some say that fasting can increase the effectiveness of prayer. Here are some examples from the Bible that mention fasting and prayer:
Nehemiah 1:4
Nehemiah "fasted and prayed before the God of heaven" in his prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls.
Daniel 9:3
Daniel "devoted himself to plead with God 'in prayer and petition, in fasting'".
Acts 13:3
"While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'".
Fasting is a spiritual discipline. It helps us grow in our faith (belief). Fasting is a tangible way to deny ourselves-to declare before God that we know it's all about Him, Not about us.
@@Bl_eu what do you mean by fasting?
@@Bl_eu Checked older manuscripts most say fasting was not in the originals, pray when you pray you believe check what Jesus says about fasting thanks for your reply just spent time in the word checking it out.
@@Bl_eu Just found this Mark 2:18 everything must fit.....
People's are really something else. Always has been but praise be to God for revealing truth to his children,us, amen
Like 1John 5:7 was not in the oldest copies but was added to prove the trinity.
Well it actually has a pretty complicated history, end it was never actually put in the KJV Bible until the 1800s, it was originally only in the marginal notes, I only dates back to the 12th century, but it was in some of the Latin manuscripts Desiderius Erasmus was using, and he was pressured by the Catholic Church, and he knew there wasn’t that much textual support for it so he ended up only putting it in the marginal notes. I recommend reading the NET bible commentary on this passage.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 When the writers of the kjv first translated the bible it was not in there. They had to ask them to put it in but they said it's not in the earlier greek but they ended up putting it in.
@@trabob4438 yeah it was originally only in the footnotes until the 1800s.
7:53 and 8:11 not in original koine Greek.
Nor Mark 16:9-20.
Dozens of other changes made to koine Greek new testament and Hebrew Scripture by church fathers.
A Man made theology .
Glad someone on RUclips gets this right :). I taught on this and several other examples for our church to understand the history of human interaction with the early Bible texts.
Actually, you're totally backwards wrong. See the following excerpt:
"Most of the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us are of what scholars call the Byzantine (or Antiochan) family of texts. These manuscripts, though not the oldest, are the ones preserved by the Greek church. Because they represent the vast majority of Greek manuscripts they are sometimes referred to as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus. This is the text from which the King James translation of the New Testament was made. However, beginning in 1881, other Greek texts have been published that have been the basis for nearly all subsequent translations, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New English Bible. These published texts have relied heavily upon two ancient Greek manuscripts, called Codex Vaticanus (also known as 'B') and Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph). Where did these manuscripts originate?
Vaticanus was "discovered" in the Vatican in 1481 and was released as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible in 1582. It differs from the Textus Receptus in nearly 8,000 places. The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, reveals that Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one as late as the twelfth century. Noted scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger states: "A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand." The corrector "omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 74).
The Sinaiticus manuscripts were discovered by Constantine von Tischendorf in a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1850s. They differ in about 9,000 places from the traditional Byzantine Text (Textus Receptus). Dr. Bruce Metzger describes the carelessness of transmission that marks the Sinaiticus manuscripts. He declared that at least nine "correctors" had worked on the manuscripts over the centuries. "Tichendorf's edition of the manuscript enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text" (p. 77). Later use of ultra-violet lamps showed multiple additional places where the original reading had been erased.
Not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, but also they disagree with one another perhaps a dozen times on every page. While many of these disagreements are small and may involve merely a preposition or the spelling of a word, others omit whole verses such as the ending of Mark's gospel.
When the Apostle John put our New Testament into its final form, shortly before his death at the end of the first century, he was living in Ephesus, a Greek-speaking city located near the western coast of ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey). This is the same city that had served as the repository of the copies of Paul's writings decades earlier. It is the city used in Revelation 2 to represent the entire first stage of the Church of God. The Greek manuscripts that come from this area are the ones labeled by scholars as the Byzantine type.
Scholars fleeing from the Turkish invasion in the 15th century brought copies of Byzantine texts west. Many of these Greek scholars and the manuscripts that they brought with them ended up in the area of Basel, Switzerland after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is from these manuscripts that printed texts of Erasmus (1516) and Stephens (1520) were primarily derived. Stephen's printed text was known as the Textus Receptus and was the accepted standard of the Greek New Testament until the latter part of the 19th century.
Since the 19th century, Bible translation has undergone a further change. Dismissing the idea that the Bible was supernaturally inspired and preserved, many scholars have taken the approach that the oldest manuscripts, whatever their source, are closer to the original and therefore must be more accurate. Most 20th century Bible translations, apart from the New King James Version, have used these texts touted by such critics, and relegated the readings of officially preserved texts to footnotes. While these translations can be useful for Bible study, they should be treated with caution, and not accepted to the exclusion of the more historically sound texts.
The Creator God not only inspired the writing of the Bible, He also guided the process of both canonization and preservation of the text. In spite of numerous attempts by carnal men through the centuries to suppress or distort the word of God, God has been faithful to ensure that His "instruction book" for life is still available for us today."
Thank you and may God Bless you!!
Would you say that Mark 9:29 would also have been added later? Or just the part "and fasting" would have been added later to Mark 9:29?
Think he was saying the “and fasting” was later added because it was written in the margins
What I got was the words "and fasting" were later additions to Mark. And then that whole verse including "and fasting' was then added to Matthew.
@@djfrank68 But they are missing from Matthew. Not Mark. So how could the Matthew verse be a harmonization to Mark when Mark includes the word, "fasting" and Matthew doesn't?
@@milkthenmeat You solved the riddle
According to MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," there are only a couple hundred thousand textual variances in the New Testament, only 40 or 50 of which "are of great significance."
Thank you for that explanation. I constantly have questions like that.
Would you ever go on MythVision?
I've been on MythVision once or twice already and I'm scheduled to be back next month.
@@maklelan oh great! Guess I somehow missed those episodes.
Good question: do you have a word study on the words "no man" (or "no one") Matt. 24:36. The
The Greek is "oudeis oiden".. oida is the generic verb "know". For example if a person describes something, and you say "I know that" [ intellectual ascent ]. Oudeis is a contraction of 3 small words, ouk (not) de (but) and eis (the number 1), so "not but one" or "not a single person" is conscious knowledge of that event. And of course since angels are people (not intending to mean "human" ) he includes them for clarification. Knowledge of the event is reserved for the godhead. Certain information is hidden from the enemy.
@@deanmason1564 the phrase "no man" or "no one" is used several times in the NT. The reason I ask is a lot of denominations think they can determine (predict) when they think Christ will return. It doesn't work that way. No man, or No one, means no man. Only the Father knows. The attempts to guess the time of Christ's return have failed. Ever hear of the Church of Christ? No, not Mormon.
How can God let his word be changed ?
It's changing because the stage is being set for the antichrist even the KJV Bibles are supernaturally changing can't you see this world is not the same.
What’s in the Textus Receptus?
The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus & it does not omit v.21. If that helps?
@@robd2721 The KJV is not based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is based on the KJV!
There was no such thing as a Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611. The Textus Receptus wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it.
The Textus Receptus is a printed version of the Greek text underlying the KJV. It was first compiled in 1894 (i.e. 283 years after the 1611 KJV) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it.
The Textus Receptus contains supposed Greek readings that have absolutely no manuscript support, especially in Revelation. For example, the reference to "Thou art righteous, O _Lord,_ which art, and wast, _and shalt be_ " in the KJV and Textus Receptus at Revelation 16:5 is not supported by _any_ manuscript evidence. _Every_ known manuscript contains the equivalent of "Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, _thou Holy One_ ". Indeed, there is _no_ Greek manuscript support for the Textus Receptus' last six verses of Revelation - Erasmus simply created his own version of the Greek text by translating from the Latin Vulgate's text into Greek. The KJV translators used Erasmus' 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament for their translation. Erasmus' 3rd edition includes the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus. From there, it found its way into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus. Additionally, we now _know_ that the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition to John's Gospel and that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to Mark's Gospel. As such, none of these passages deserve the canonical status the KJV and Textus Receptus give them.
great video. Jesus prayed "that they may be one" and here we are always arguing about who's the most right... (John 17:20-21)
Stop seeking only to validate your own viewpoint. Read your Bible, compare notes with multiple translations to help you get a higher resolution understanding, and seek Truth with a sincere heart. (Mark 1:15, John 8:31-32)
Paul wrote about this Christian tribalism when folks were claiming allegiance to their human teacher instead of recognizing their kinship in Christ. (1 Corinth 1:12)
Why does the Word of God change so much without so much as a word from God?
In my modern Bible Matthew 17:21 is not even mentioned while Mark 9:29 only says "You can only cast away those only with prayer." while fasting is not even mentioned. But from my mother's old Bible both verses are relevant and said as they should be...
20lesus sayd vnto them: Because of your vnbelefe. For I saye verely vnto you: if ye hadde faith as a grayn of a mustard seede, ye should say vnto thys mountayne, remoue hence too yonder place, and it shoulde remoue, neyther shoulde any thyng be impossible for you too do. 21Howe be it this kynde goeth not out, but by prayer and fastynge.
@Doctor1933 you can't be a Dr
@@coryburns9161 you have no say who i am i think you need to work on your own problems before telling me who i am
@@Doctor1933 if you were a Dr you would know how to spell more like a patient 😉
@@coryburns9161 if you was from above like jesus said you wouldn’t of text me this nonsense attitude you are satan children who judge and teachers of human not heavenly things and understanding you become satan ways
Fundamentalist Christian finds a coin on the floor. "It's a sign that I shall have a long and prosperous life". Splits his pants picking it up. "Trials and tribulations. It's a sign that the end times are here."
The Fundamentalist Christian was dressed immodestly by his own church's dress custom for males. If they're tight enough to split when you bend or crouch down, they're tight enough to show off your junk and your buns. For example, a limerick:
There once was a young lad from Shoreham,
Who wore pants made too tight but he wore 'em.
He looked very discreet,
'Til he bent in the street,
To pick up a dime, then he tore 'em. 😆
A fundy wd read his kjv
Dumb.
"End time nonsense?" Do you know something that we need to know?
@@johncarbonetta7812 Revelations, and the tendency for religious people to interpret random events as significant. Christianity started off as a doomsday cult, and they have been predicting Armageddon since the very start. Polls show that most fundamentalist Christians think that the world will end during their lifetimes. And they've been thinking this for the last 2,000 years.
Probably, one of the most often cited verses that were later added & are not in the earliest manuscripts is the story of the adulteress caught in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11 in which Yeshua said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." and, "Has no one condemned you?" . . . "Neither do I condemn you."
Because it wasn't in the original manuscripts and was later added, so they removed it. Did they fix your Mathew 26:17 ? Because that verse made no sense compared to Leviticus 23. Some translations also added back the missing verse in Psalm 145, new ones I believe stick it at the end of 13 leaving the verse count at 21 however all these verses are alphabetic and there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet and the 14th letter and verse was missing. A lot of these changes are restorations.
I still don't understand why verse skips from v. 20 to v. 22. It's like a tooth is obviously missing.
If verse 21 wasn't in the original writing, then why is it still acknowledged by omitting it? It only makes sense that 22 needs to become 21 and so on to honor the original text. Just curious as to why it's done the way it is instead of truly and completely omitting of text that aren't originally in it
Thank you Dan!
It is a very powerful verse
God Bless You
Seems like half the comments didn't watch the video at all. "Why is fasting removed?" "Fasting is important to purity." "Demons are glad fasting was removed."
The point is that people have changed the original scripture, and in this case someone felt like adding more references to fasting. It's like if I added extra phrases to my personal copy of the Bible like "Jesus proclaimed that the poor in wealth shall inherit the Earth" then I get upset when other people point out it's not what was originally said.
I think you meant 4th century AD, not CE.
How does that change the date?
It doesn't. Anno Domini (AD), Year of Our Lord honors our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. BC means Before Christ.@@rodshop5897
AD is Latin / CE is Christian Era.
Simply English translation.
CE/BCE=Common Ere/Before Common Era. Blame the tribe for that one.@@janetgillespie6590
@@janetgillespie6590Liberals use C.E. to be politically correct. This man is a liberal because he uses "C.E." and trusts Westcott and Hort, two Darwinists who dabbled in the occult.
Verses containing fasting have been omitted from many new translations.
Why was 1 John 5:7-8 ,7:53,8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 added to bibles?
Why was Isaiah 7:14 and 9:5-7 changed to "Virgin " in in future tense??
Why are there hundred s of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources?
We don't *have* the original Koine Greek documents, nor the original Hebrew / Aramaic documents. Thus, we don't *know* if what we have reconstructed from documents only a few dozen (in the best cases) to 100 (in the worst cases) years later matches the original writings - or even if the originals were single writings in the case of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) - the original documents of what we know today might well have been compilations of even earlier documents. When we are dealing with copies (of copies, of still more copies), we must simply reconstruct the best we can - and we have a pretty solid grasp of what was in those original documents ... but there are exceptions, and places where time has revealed new evidence (like in this case) showing that what we once had actually had insertions. For those who are serious about studying the Scriptures, it is well worth using online Bible sites like BibleHub or Blue Letter Bible, where numerous translations can be compared, and (at least at BibleHub) variants of the Greek can also be compared. It is not hard to find good explanations of the reasons each variation are preferred or disfavored by specific scholars - and it can be a very profitable study.
@@gradypatterson1948 Yes ..Koine Greek papyrus p75 125CE .
Much of the earliest koine Greek manuscript papyrus is intact.
does that make Matthew 17:21 reliable? Can we trust that?
This explain just how the bible was cobbled together by the church
Why take it out when most comments or additions from the translator is usually put in parenthesis. It seems to be devious to remove it completely.
Thanks for pointing this out, this verse is also not included in the Complete Jewish Bible, pretty much my go to for studying the word so not sure when they added Matthew 17:21 in Bibles.
So if its not what they originally wrote... then the whole passage is numbered wrong??
Everything was written by hand, with great difficulty, so was it deliberate or just happened?
I disagree with your conclusion. To me it looks like the second scribe was adding in the missing words which should have already been there. He had discovered that the original was missing words and so he was correcting the mistake.
So should we fast?
yes
There are medical benefits to certain kinds of fasting, but you might want to check with a doctor before doing so - especially if you have any health conditions.
Of course
It is mentioned in other places as a spiritual tool. Being added here is not (in my opinion) contrary to the original intent... but removing it is the right decision. Trying to get as close to the original text is the correct goal for most translators and revisors.
If we want to rid people of epilepsy...I mean demons! Woops!
I always thought (though I wouldn't dare say it) that that verse was withdrawn on purpose because the clergy didnt like the idea of fasting , or self sacrifice, especially when it comes to food. People want spiritual things to be easy.
Not within the Catholic faith, at least until the Novus Ordo, which only came into place in the 1970s.
Fasting is part of most religions but Christians are more into the "a la carte" beliefs.
Yea, hath God said
Finally someone putting out a video with some facts. Too many people even on YT just flat out dismiss the modern English translations. Without doing any sort of research. That can really discourage good people who are just trying to get closer to God. I read the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. All of which are excellent translations.
Great video by the way very happy I stumbled across your channel!
The KJV and NKJV aren't translations, though
@@hive_indicator318 of course they are any Bible today was translated from a source that wasn’t English, which makes them a translation. You can argue they are just interpretations or whatever no one cares. Call it what you like.
@@BeardedCaveman no. It wasn't translated in any way. It was an adaptation of the Bishop's Bible. And that wasn't even translated, but an adaptation of yet another adaptation. Unless it's possible to translate within a single dialect of a language.
@@hive_indicator318 ok think whatever you want, whatever makes yourself feel better. You are trying to start a stupid argument, you are worthless for doing so. I am going to say translations since they are considered translations. Do I care if “translation” is 100% correct? No. You are just a worthless troll trying to stir up bullshit. So that is that. Get out of mommies basement.
So why would it have been added?
Prayer and fasting are extremely important when praying for intercession. This is a very important teaching whose weight is immeasurably significant when in combat with those forces that want them best forgotten.
Fasting & praying must be so powerful that Satan will try anything 2 omit! Dnt be blind people!
Huh? That verse is still in the Gospel of Mark.
😂 So Satan wants that language out so badly that he deleted Matthew 17:21 from the Bible but forgot to delete the same language from Mark? 🤔
That's why people say read the bible
Did you even watch the video?
Not true it in the NIV it says by prayer.. it doesn’t include fasting so the original comment makes complete sense. There is a reason why it was removed so that we wouldn’t know how to handle spiritual warfare there is no reason a whole verse should be deleted unless you trying to hide the power of it .
I never knew this until I saw the title of this video!!! I went in my bible app, and I’ll be- it’s gone! Goes from verse 20 straight to 22! 🤔
The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it. The translators of the older Bibles were not always as careful in the selection of the manuscripts they used. Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account.
Read:Atomic power with God thru prayer and fasting. Franklin Hall
Question, why do they skip to that verse in the labeling of verses instead of shifting the verse labeling so for example verse 22 is now verse 21 and so on, I believe what your saying just curious if you could explain this
Because the standard verse numbers would change.
If your pastor uses the KJV and says to go to Matthew 17:27 - but you are using the 1960 - 1977 NASB, you would be reading Matthew 17:26 according to the pastor's bible!
So many bible commentaries, devotionals, books, articles, papers reference the bible as it is. Suddenly all of the references would be wrong.
It's only in Orthodox Bibles. Thank the Lord!
What was the reason for the addition? Where is the inspiration to make such an edit?
Much thanks.
That is what I was wondering.
All the new versions I've discovered through many faithful scholars have a wholly different manuscript which they draw from than the Textus Receptus (new test) and Masoretic Texts (old Test).
There is a very strong deception being perpetrated by the powers that be which sadly the majority have fallen for.
The King James bible or Authorized version is the culmination of the received 5000 plus manuscripts.
The New versions (all new critical texts) have hijacked the word of God by presenting their "DISOVERED MIRACULOUSLY" texts they state are now the oldest and greatest such as the Siniaticus found being burned by monks at St. Catherines monestary.....(how convenient).
To find out the whole of it there have been faithful christians such as Mr. Pinto from Adullam Films which produced
free here on YT "A Lamp In The Dark", and "Wheat Among the Tares".
Also actual recent discovery of the vast forgeries perpetrated and made plain by mr David Daniels from
Chick Tracts also found here on YT or on their website.
This matter is deep and broad but you will see the hallmark of the enemy of our souls as you wade into those waters.
The kingdom of darkness is still calling to man and pounding the drum of intellect and temptation by asking
in the modern bible footnotes "Did God Say????"
No different than the serpent in the Garden of Eden asked Eve.
Hey Dan! Great video. I do have to ask though, the reading Matthew 17:21 is listed in the "Text-Critical Greek New Testament" (edited by Adam Boyd) as having support of all Byzantine texts (Majority, F35, Antoniades, Byztext and TR) with the absence of this passage being supported by the Critical Texts with only 0.6% of the Greek manuscripts attesting this. Your support for the non-genuiness of this passage seems to be heavily dependent on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. What is it about these two manuscripts that gives us reason to believe their witness is so important? Many have suggested that modern Textual Criticism and the WH have weighed these too manuscripts too heavily in their decision.
Genuine question in brotherly love. I've had all sorts of views represented on my channel, it's an interesting discussion!
Those two text are the oldest, and most well preserved for a reason! They were never used by the church. The TR was the text that had been used by the church from very early on. Notice how well preserved those two text were that he used. The only things left from the TR text are almost worn out. Why, because they were used. There are no original manuscripts. Why? Because they were used and worn out. Older does not always mean better. It could be junk text that were rejected. What is also not mentioned in this video is the many verses, that mess with the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, homosexuality, and many other key doctrines in those “most reliable manuscripts”. These text were very Gnostic in their interpretation. Therefore was rejected by the church. One was found in a monastery, “Catholic” the other from Alexandria Egypt. The TR originated in Antioch. This was where we were first called Christians and the central hub of Christianity. What good has come out of Egypt and the Roman catholics?
Verses are being slowly and systematically removed from the modern translations to water down what God said. Just like Satan did in the Garden. Also the famous scholars Wescott and Hort practiced witchcraft and necromancy! Yeah let’s refer to these guys for our authority on the Bible. Nope. Give me my KJV. It’s tried and proven and comes from the correct manuscripts.
@@timsmith939you can feel that way, but you are intentionally ignoring what the authors of the bible wrote in favour of a translation that you enjoy as an English speaker
@@PasteurizedLettuce ok I don’t understand that statement at all. Intentionally ignoring? Are you saying that the two manuscripts that are referred in the video are the originals? Because that is not true at all. There are no original manuscripts any longer. English is one of the most common languages in all the world and has been for hundreds of years. Yes it just so happens to be the language I speak. How am I ignoring what the authors wrote? Is their a perfect original manuscript I can get my hands on in the original language? No there is not! It not about preferring a language, it is about two key Bible doctrines; Inspiration and preservation. God inspired His Word, and promised to preserve it. Where is your copy? What can you point to as the perfect preserved Word of God? You better have an answer because your very eternity depends on the what God says. Casting confusion on God’s Word is exactly what Satan did in Gen. 3. I know what God has said. If the only Bible that is true is in a monastery somewhere locked up, or pieces and fragments spread all over the world and in an ancient archaic language then we have a huge problem! The God I serve is bigger than that. if you don’t have Gods pure Word how can you trust it? Your faith, then rest, not on God‘s, Doctrine of preservation, but rather on man’s ability to source, piece together, scrapbook, something that is close, but not entirely perfect. Who is to say what parts are in error and what parts are God’s literal words? I choose to put my faith in God. Many scholars, choose to put their faith in their education in archaeological finds, I say, let God be true, and every man, a liar.
@@timsmith939 what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. The King James Version was quite literally also transcribed by scholars who were working with inconsistent manuscripts that were already very edited by the time it was being written because we didn’t have as early manuscripts. God had nothing to do with it. Otherwise why does god intervene when they were editing the King James Version but not other versions? Why King James? There are newer and better English translations, did God not intervene to preserve them?
@@timsmith939 like you’re still putting your faith in man. Just some men in 1611 hired by the king of England to edit an already existing translation from Geneva largely because the King didn’t like their anti monarchical footnotes and wanted a translation that didn’t challenge his authority.
“However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
NKJV
The issue is that the oldest texts are also copies and that we do not have the originals & its also very possible that the copies that added it were putting it back where is belonged if it was removed from the greek. I still believe that the original texts would be from Hebrew and or Aramaic and not of Greek.
Why did the scribe want to add this?
This isn't a big deal to me. What is a big deal is many people think you become a Christian by saying sinners prayer but No one actually did that in the bible. A sinners prayer was made up by men based on verses taken out of context such as ask and ye shall receive. It's largely based in Romans and called The Roman Road but the writer was not telling lost people how to become saved in romans, he was speaking to people who were already saved. How did they actually get saved? Same way everyone else did, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. That's how all Had to do it.
Without the original first writing, we have no idea what is or is not supposed to be in the scriptures. I would rather see the questioned passage be included with a footnote citing that it does not appear in the earliest copies than simply omit it.
Kind of like how the last half of Romans 8:1 is missing from the NIV from what is written in the King James Version!
I haven't been so blown away since George Carlin announced that scientists had discovered a new number.
It's between 7 and 8 and it's called "been."
Your a very brave man to call any of Gods words 'trivial'.
How do you know they are "God's words"?
Can you please expand your comment "...and with all of the end times nonsense that's being proliferated right now it seems to be more of a concern to a lot of people" . What exactly are you implying? Thanks
I don't think it's "implying" so much as outright saying that the end times ideas floating around the zeitgeist are nonsense.
@@Halophage you mean, he’s outright sharing his opinion, man. Just because he says it with authority or confidence doesn’t make him right. I don’t think the end times are coming but I don’t deny they might be- because I’m not foolish enough to think I definitively know. I like to remain- how do you say? Hmmm “humble”
@@DADNITE77 I wasn't stating *my* opinion at all, but I don't really know what "end times" entail so I can't comment.
so why wasn’t there a Matthew 21 At all ?
They discover that verse because that's the one they need at that time.
I need a Bible which Bible should I purchase?
King James Version
"The Expositor's Study Bible" Containing the Old and New Testaments Authorized Kind James Version, 1611 Elizabethan English is updated in some cases to reflect present terminology, without changing the true meaning of the word. Translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised.
The exclusive comments following each Verse of the sixty-six Books of the Bible were authored by Evangelist Jimmy Swaggart. Designed to help anyone who wants to understand the Bible better and enjoy it more, the expositor's notes are beneficial to Bible study for every person who has a hunger for God's Word. They have beautiful leather bound editions as well as 'Large Print'. I've had numerous Bibles in my life and this one is all I'll ever need. God Bless!
One for $2 at a thrift store.
kinda silly to pick some rando verse and say it was not "original" when none know of what any "original" is . a feaking definition of early vs "original" would be be a nice start.
So you believe someone added to Jesus' words?
It's not a believe, it's a textual fact.
Many verses and books are missing
What always intrigued me was how straightened these rare writhings appear to look almost perfectly placed in line. Even the "scribble scrabble" at the top of the one document is perfectly straightened and in formation. 😮
I believe the pages were ruled with charcoal first.
What about Syriac Petisha and the oldest English Bible translations??????
I’m glad you mentioned Metzger, Bart Ehrman also has a pretty good blog on this particular verse, another really good articles by Matt slick I know I know, you’re probably thinking “ dogmatic” The article is actually pretty unbiased. I found out about this passage because of the King James Bible, I mostly use the American standard Version, and the ESV, and why didn’t understand is why verse 21 wasn’t included in either but it wasn’t a KJV, I think it’s because the KJV has a lot of textual variants, it also includes John 5:7 which has a very interesting history, and John 7:53-8:11.
Yes make sure the believe HIS STORY , because as we see even today it's always recorded perfectly as it happened , just like that day in 2001
This is the one that basically states you can get rid of negative energy by fasting and prayer right?
Yes, some demons can be expelled only by a combination of both prayer and fasting...fasting amplifying the prayer. Jesus did both. Strange that Dan chose to not even mention what was omitted.
As they were described by the Quran, they remodel their religion as it suits their whims.
How can you believe in a book that contains errors
so how many other things are added or subtracted. I am 56 years old and had been in church from my birth to my mid 20s. Then started losing my beleif.
The fact is demons all have different ranks and some only will come out by fasting and praying. They still have to be commanded out but without fasting they are not leaving
Interesting. The authorised Danish translation does have this verse.
So because some manuscripts don’t have it, and none of them before 300, we know that the vast majority of manuscripts are wrong?
Idk. If Mark has "and fasting" and we know Matthew uses Mark, then it would be expected that "and fasting" would've initially been in Matthew too
First, we don’t “know” that Matthew uses Mark. That’s a theory (albeit a good one in my opinion) and not an established fact. But to answer your question as to why Matthew didn’t pick it up - Mark may have never written that line. It could very well have been added later - AFTER Matthew used the manuscript of Mark that was available to him.
@@dondgc2298 Well I'll say this. For Matthew to have not used Mark yet they both have the same omissions in key parts, that would be wildly coincidental
@@exillens which is exactly the reason I believe it’s a good theory.
@@dondgc2298 It's beyond a "theory" at this point. They literally quote each other verbatim and in the same order of events throughout along with Matthew making omissions and tack ons at the same points of a story. If you and i both tell a story about the same U.S president there's no way that can happen if we're using different independent sources and perspectives. But at least you get it
obviously, he did not like the idae of skipping meals for any reason.