Another King James Bible Believer

Subtitle

 

The true character of the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" Part One - Matthew thru Luke.

 

The usual mantra we hear today from those who promote the modern Vatican supervised text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. is that they are based on "the oldest and best manuscripts" and that the King James Bible (along with all Reformation Bibles in all languages) "added to the words of God from late manuscripts."  

The facts are that these so called "oldest and best" are among the most corrupt and contradictory of manuscripts out there.  They not only disagree with the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts, but also with each other. A far more logical and consistent explanation for their old age is due to the fact that they were recognized as being hopelessly corrupt and therefore were not used. That is why they didn't wear out.

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT, modern Catholic versions are  the new "Vatican Versions"https://webzoom.freewebs.com/brandplucked/oldest-and-best-one


http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm

 For an excellent and well documented article on the so called "oldest and best manuscripts"and their true character, see KJV Today site here - 

 

Aren't older manuscripts more reliable?

 

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

 

See also - 

 

Early Witnesses to the Received Text.

 

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/received.htm


 

The true character of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts - the so called "Oldest and Best Manuscripts"

Most of the over 5000 New Testament textual differences between the King James Bible and modern Bible versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Living Bible, and others, are the result of two manuscripts which allegedly date to around 350 AD called Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B).

 

As for the Papyri manuscripts so highly vaunted by men like James White, they are a very mixed bag.  They all come from the Alexandrian region in Egypt and most likely represent a localized text, and they frequently differ even among themselves.

 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume29/GOT029003.html

Manuscript Comparison Chart

PAPYRUS

(ALEPH) SINAITICUS

(B) VATICANUS

TEXTUS RECEPTUS

p 45 agrees with

19 times

24 times

32 times

p 66 agrees with

14 times

29 times

33 times

p 75 agrees with

9 times

33 times

29 times

p 45, 66, 75 agrees with

4 times

18 times

20 times

p 45, 66 agrees with

7 times

3 times

8 times

 

(The above chart data, taken from A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospel & Acts; part two 1949-1969, by A.F.K. Klijn.)

Papyrus (p45) contains excerpts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. It is presently in the Chester Beatty Museum, Dublin, Ireland.

Papyrus (p66) contains excerpts from the Gospel of John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

Papyrus (p75) contains excerpts of Luke and John. It is presently located at Cologne/Geneve, in the Bibliotheque Bodmer.

 

Note, please, that these lately discovered manuscript fragments, agree more frequently with the Textus Receptus, than they do with Westcott and Hort's favored Aleph and B (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). P45 is thought to date from the 3rd century. P66 is dated circa 200 A.D. And, P75 is dated from the beginning of the 3rd century.  But more research has been coming out lately that affirms these Papyri actually date to the 4th century.

 

Nicholas Lunn has recently done his own collations and tells us: "The P75 Bodmer Papyrus XV contains John 1-15 and disagrees with both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and agrees with the Byzantine text type at John 1:18, 4:31, 5:12, 8:41, 8:52, 9:11, 9:16, 9:17, 10:27, 10:29, and 12:9. Thus an Alexandrian manuscript that is more than 100 years earlier and in the same family as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preferred the Byzantine text type in the indicated instances.


The P45 Chester Beatty Papyrus contains Mark and disagrees with both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and agrees with the Byzantine text type at Mark 5:42, 6:2, 6:22, 6:41, 7:5, 7:6, 7:12, 7:29, 7:31, 7:32, 7:35, 8:20, 8:36, 9:2, 9:6, 9:20, and 11:28. Thus an Alexandrian manuscript that is about 100 years earlier and in the same family as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preferred the Byzantine text type in the indicated instances."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_75

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_45 

 



For a discussion of the Paparii (P75, P66, P45, etc.) and their Egyptian Gnostic sources, see Bridge to Babylon: Rome, Ecumenism & The Bible - A Lamp in the Dark Part lll at the 2:09 mark and forward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRCVDmiAts


 

 

Regarding James White's statements about no one being influenced to try and corrupt the biblical text, White does not tell the reader about those in the early church who were concerned about corrupters of the word. Here are a couple of quotes to demonstrate this.

 

Gaius (AD175-200) speaks of the source of corruptions that survive in the early papyri: "The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted, laying violent hands upon them, under pretense of correcting them." Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 323

 

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History), citing Clement of Alexandria: "The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed."

 

He doesn't tell us about some contemporary scholars' comments on early textual variations/changes.

 

Colwell (What is the Best New Testament Text?, p.119) "The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today. In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."

 

G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, pp 125-131)  "Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200 "as distinct from errors" all categories of deliberate alteration are present in both groups. Taitian is the last author of make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."

 


Gaius (AD175-200) speaks of the source of corruptions that survive in the early papyri: "The Divine Scriptures these heretics have audaciously corrupted, laying violent hands upon them, under pretense of correcting them." Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 323

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History), citing Clement of Alexandria:
"The worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within one hundred years after it was composed."

He doesn't tell us about some contemporary scholars' comments on early textual variations/changes.

Colwell (What is the Best New Testament Text?, p.119) "The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today. In the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately."

G.D. Kilpatrick (Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament, pp 125-131)  "Deliberate changes in all text types appear to antedate A.D. 200?as distinct from errors?all categories of deliberate alteration are present in both groups. Taitian is the last author of make deliberate changes. The vast majority of deliberate changes were older then A.D. 200. They came into being in the period A.D. 50-200."


 

Wilbur Pickering, ThM. PhD. writes in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, 2014 - 

"Bruce Metzger said, "It is understandable that in some cases different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence". A cursory review of the writings of textual scholars suggests that Metzger's "in some cases" is decidedly an understatement. In fact, even the same scholars will vacillate, as demonstrated by the "MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED CHANGES" introduced into the third edition of the Greek text produced by the United Bible Societies as compared with the second edition (the same committee of five editors prepared both).

K. Aland, M. Black, C.M. Martini, B.M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, eds., The Greek New Testament, third edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii. Although this edition is dated 1975, Metzger's Commentary upon it appeared in 1971. The second edition is dated 1968. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN THE SPACE OF THREE YEARS ('68-'71), WITH NO SIGNIFICANT ACCRETION OF NEW EVIDENCE, THE SAME GROUP OF FIVE SCHOLARS CHANGED THEIR MIND IN OVER 500 PLACES. IT IS HARD TO RESIST THE SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE GUESSING."

http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/Pickering/Miscellaneous/Pickering%20-%20Identity%20of%20the%20NT%204th%20edit..pdf




 

The changes between the 25th and 27th editions of the Nestle-Aland NTG are also interesting -- 763 changes, of which 408 occur in the Gospels.

 

Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland calculated that all the variants between all of the New Testament manuscripts calculated to a 37.1% difference. (Dr. Kurt Aland and Dr. Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 29.) That means that over a third of the New Testament has meaningful variants.


The Alexandrian Family is what underlies most of the modern versions of the Bible (NASB, ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.). The Alexandrian text is full of variants and makes up most of the 37.1% difference between all the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Early church father Origen (who lived in Alexandria) said about the local Bible copiers, "the differences among the manuscripts [of the Gospels] have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they lengthen or shorten, as they please." (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd ed. (1991), pp. 151-152.) 


Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Dean John William Burgon, personally collated Sinaiticus and examined the Vaticanus manuscript. In his book, "The Revision Revised", which he wrote in 1881, he gives his opinion and lists numerous examples of the textual blunders found in these two manuscripts.

Mr. Burgon states on page 11; "Singular to relate Vaticanus and Aleph have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a BLIND SUPERSTITION. It matters nothing that THEY ARE DISCOVERED ON CAREFUL SCRUTINY TO DIFFER ESSENTIALLY, NOT ONLY FROM NINETY-NINE OUT OF A HUNDRED OF THE WHOLE BODY OF EXTANT MSS. BESIDES, BUT EVEN FROM ONE ANOTHER. In the gospels alone B (Vaticanus) is found to omit at least 2877 words: to add 536, to substitute, 935; to transpose, 2098: to modify 1132 (in all 7578): - the corresponding figures for Aleph being 3455 omitted, 839 added, 1114 substituted, 2299 transposed, 1265 modified (in all 8972). And be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. IT IS IN FACT EASIER TO FIND TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THESE TWO MSS. DIFFER THE ONE FROM THE OTHER, THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE VERSES IN WHICH THEY ENTIRELY AGREE."

 

On page 319 of he remarks, "In the Gospels alone Vaticanus has 589 readings quite peculiar to itself, affecting 858 words while Aleph has 1460 such readings, affecting 2640 words."

In his book, Revision Revised, Dean Burgon wrote over a hundred years ago, concerning the ages of Codices Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph): Quote: "Lastly, - WE SUSPECT THAT THESE TWO MANUSCRIPTS ARE INDEBTED FOR THEIR PRESERVATION, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER,  which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of mount Sinai. HAD B (VATICANUS) AND ALEPH (SINAITICUS) BEEN COPIES OF AVERAGE PURITY, THEY MUST LONG SINCE HAVE SHARED THE INEVITABLE FATE OF BOOKS WHICH ARE FREELY USED AND HIGHLY PRIZED; NAMELY, THEY WOULD HAVE FALLEN IN DECADENCE AND DISAPPEARED FROM SIGHT." (Ref: P1)

IN SHORT, THESE TWO CODICES ARE OLD SIMPLY BECAUSE, FIRST, THEY WERE WRITTEN ON EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND DURABLE ANTELOPE SKINS, AND SECONDLY, THEY WERE SO FULL OF ERRORS, ALTERATIONS AND DELETIONS, THAT THEY WERE NEVER USED BY TRUE BELIEVERS AND SELDOM EVEN BY THEIR OWN CUSTODIANS. THUS THEY HAD LITTLE CHANCE OF WEARING AWAY."

 

Herman Hoskier also has written a 2 Volume set called: Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment. - Hoskier, Herman Charles (1864-1938) This thorough and scholarly work can now be seen online here: In it he documents many of the 4000 or more differences that exist just between these two "oldest and best" manuscripts.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb1.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hoskier/codexb2.html

The purpose of this article is to give you just a few of the many examples of just how contradictory and confusing these two "oldest and best" manuscripts really are when contrasted with the Traditional Greek Text that underlies the King James Bible of 1611. Literally thousands of words have been omitted from the KJB text primarily on the basis of Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, yet the modern versions follow no discernible or logical pattern as to when they decide to include or exclude readings from one or the other.  

For several concrete examples of how both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other and how the critical text versions keep changing from one version to the next, see my study on the book of Romans here - 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/textcritromans.htm

SINAITICUS (Aleph) completely omits the following verses while they are found in Vaticanus. Matthew 24:35 - "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away"; Luke 10:32 - "And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side."; Luke 17:35 - "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."; John 9:38 - "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. And Jesus said"(omitted in Sinaiticus original and P75, but found in Vaticanus and P66); John 16:15 - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."; John 21:25 - "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."; and I Corinthians 2:15- "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." and 13:1b -2 - "I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not - (charity, I am nothing)."

Sinaiticus also omits the words “BUT THE REST OF THE DEAD LIVED NOT AGAIN UNTIL THE THOUSAND YEARS WERE ENDED. This is the first resurrection.” from Revelation 20:5 and has some rather peculiar readings in the book of Revelation.

In Revelation 21:5 where Jesus says “Behold,I make all things NEW”, Sinaiticus reads: “I make all things EMPTY.”


And in Revelation 4:8 where the four beasts give glory to the Lord God Almighty saying “Holy, holy, holy” the Sinaiticus manuscript actually says “Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy” - 8 times instead of 3.

And in Revelation 10:1 where a mighty angel comes down from heaven, clothed with a cloud, and A RAINBOW was upon his head, the original Sinaiticus manuscript tells us that this angel was clothed with a cloud and HAIR on its head.”

(As a side note, there are many sections and even whole books missing from the Old Testament. Aleph -"Sinaiticus: written more than 200 years after the completion of the New Testament. It omits Genesis 23:19-24:46, Numbers 5:27-7:20, 1 Chronicles 9:27-19:17, all of Exodus, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Judges. It contains New Testament Apocrypha.)

Here you can see a page of the Sinaiticus manuscript that shows the many changes that were being made to it over the years.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1632954490293101&set=p.1632954490293101&type=1&theater

VATICANUS - 

Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, Paul's Epistles, and Hebrews 1:1 to Hebrews 9:14.  However the ending of Hebrews is missing from chapter 9:14 to Hebrews 13:15. It is also missing First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the book of Revelation.


VATICANUS omits the following verses while Sinaiticus retains them: Matthew 12:47. Luke 23:17 - This verse is omitted in B and the NASB, NIV yet it is in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all Greek texts "For of necessity he must release on onto them at the feast." 


Yet B omits Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the NASB, NIV. Go figure.


In the gospels alone, both SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:17; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV continues to omit these verses entirely.

See also - Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus


Matthew through Luke and a few examples from John - all in Greek.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus


Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."

This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

 

Vaticanus also omits Luke 22:43-44 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."

 Vaticanus omits all of these two verses.

Sinaiticus original had them in the text. Then a scribe took them out, and then another on put them back in again! They are also missing from A and P75. The Nestle-Aland critical text puts Luke 22:43-44 in [[double brackets]] indicating that they do not believe this is inspired Scripture.  Yet these two verses are found in the Majority of all texts including D plus at least 18 other uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Curetonian, Armenian, Ethiopic and Coptic Boharic ancient versions.

Justin (100-165 A.D.), says, "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His Apostles and those who followed them, it is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass" (Trypho 103:24)


 

Matthew 27:49 Here BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as codex C ADD the words "AND ANOTHER TOOK A SPEAR AND PIERCED HIS SIDE AND THERE CAME OUT WATER AND BLOOD."  

But NO bible version includes these words here. Why? Because this textual blunder would have our Lord Jesus being put to death, and then He continues to speak several whole sentences afterwards.

AFTER the event recorded in Matthew 27:49 when Jesus said "I thirst" (John19:28) and one gave him to drink a sponge filled with vinegar (Compare Matthew 27:34 (gall offered but not drunk) with Matthew 27:48 vinegar offered and drunk), they said: "Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.", THEN we have the Lord Jesus recorded as saying: "It is finished." in John 19:30 and finally "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And he gave up the ghost." in  Luke 23:46.


Dan Wallace footnotes: "Early and important mss (B C L  pc) have another sentence at the end of this verse: "And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out." This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by early, well-meaning scribes and inserted into Matt 27:49. Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W  Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy sa bo) is not nearly as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling." 

And yet these are the so called "oldest and best manuscripts upon which today's Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and Holman Standard are based.

Luke 23:17 "FOR OF NECESSITY HE MUST RELEASE ONE UNTO THEM AT THE FEAST."

This entire verse is found in the Majority of all texts as well as Sinaiticus. However Vaticanus omits the whole verse and so do the NIV, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV, the modern Catholic Versions and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. The NASB pulls its usual trick, and from 1963 to 1972 the NASB omitted the verse, but then in 1977 and again in 1995 the NASB scholars decided to put the verse back in the text. The brand new ISV of 2004 and the Holman Christian Standard of 2003 also retain the verse and place it in their modern versions, but The Message and the NET version continue to omit it. Aren't you glad we have the latest sure findings of modern scholarship to help us find out what God REALLY said?

Vaticanus also omits Luke 23:34, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", while it is retained in Sinaiticus and this time kept in the ESV, NASB and NIV, and placed in [brackets] by Dan Wallace and the Catholic St. Joseph NAB.  But James White says he does not believe it is inspired Scripture and he would not preach on it. Go figure.

Vaticanus also omits the entire verse of 1 Peter 5:3 but it is found in Sinaiticus and the Majority of all manuscripts and Bible translations - "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock."

In the gospels alone, BOTH SINAITICUS and VATICANUS omit the following verses. Matthew 16:2-3 (See the article on these two verses below) 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28; Luke 9:55-56, 17:36, 23:17, and John 5:4. They are all found in the majority of the remaining Greek texts we have today. The NASB of 1972 omitted these verses, but in 1977 put them back [in brackets]. The NIV and ESV continue to omit these verses entirely. 

 

Matthew 5:19 - "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom heaven; BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL DO AND TEACH THEM, THE SAME SHALL BE CALLED GREAT IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."

 

Sinaiticus omits all these capitalized words but they are found in Vaticanus.

 


Matthew 6:13

What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus). They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic.

These inspired words of our Lord Jesus Christ are also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, the Italian Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006, the Spanish Reina Valera 2011, Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter bible, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1998 and French Louis Segond 2007, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada and even in the NIV Portuguese bible 1999 - "porque teu é o Reino, o poder e a glória para sempre. Amém." (but not in the English NIVs) as well as the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible . 

However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words and the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, Catholic Versions and Jehovah Witness New World Translation omit them while the NASB, and Holman Standard put them in brackets.

Matthew 8:13 - "And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."

However Sinaiticus as well as C ADD all these words to the text - "AND THE CENTURION, RETURNING TO HIS HOUSE IN THAT HOUR, FOUND HIS SERVANT IN GOOD HEALTH." But these extra words are not in Vaticanus.


 

Matthew 16:2-3 The Utter Hypocrisy of modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Matthew 16:2-3 we read: "He answered and said unto them, WHEN IT IS EVENING, YE SAY, IT WILL BE FAIR WEATHER; FOR THE SKY IS RED.  AND IN THE MORNING, IT WILL BE FOUL WEATHER TO DAY; FOR THE SKY IS RED AND LOWRING.  O YE HYPOCRITES, YE CAN DISCERN THE FACE OF THE SKY; BUT CAN YE NOT DISCERN THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES?"

 

Matthew 16:2-3.  Here we see an example of how ridiculous it is to call modern textual criticism a "science" in any legitimate sense at all.  Modern textual criticism has more in common with Voodoo or the Ouija board than science.

 

It's the ol' "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble...For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."  (From Shakespeare's Macbeth) 

 

Before we get into the textual matters, I want to address the word "lowring".  This is not an archaic word.  Webster's 1999 dictionary defines it as meaning "frowning; dark and threatening, gloomy, or sullen."  

 

 The word "lowring" is also the English word found here in the Geneva Bible, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Worsley Version 1770, the Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, the Thomson Bible 1808, Webster's Bible 1833, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby 1890, the Clarke N.T. 1913, the Montgomery N.T. 1924, the Douay Version 1950, the KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Tomson N.T. 2002, the Knox Bible 2012 (lowering), the 2003 Updated Bible Version and The Work of God's Children Bible 2011.  

 

Now, to address the textual issues.

 


All these words in capital letters from "When it is" to "of the times?" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including C correction, F, G, H, K, L, N, O, W, Delta, Theta, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic and numerous Old Latin copies (a, b, c, d, e, f, ff1, ff2, g1, and is so quoted by such early Christian writers as Theophilus, Juvencus, Eusebius, Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine and Euthalius.  

 

However BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit all 32 Greek words in these sentences.  

The total inconsistency of modern textual criticism is seen here in all its absurdity.  There are literally hundreds of words and many whole verses omitted from most modern versions based primarily on the omissions found in Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, yet right here in Matthew 16:2-3, even though BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit all these words, versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, RV, ASV, ESV, ISV, NET and the Holman Standard, continue to include these two verses in their versions.  

 

Westcott and Hort put both verses [in brackets] to indicate doubt as to whether or not these 2 verses are inspired Scripture, and the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical Greek texts STILL have them in brackets today.

 

Versions that OMIT BOTH verses - Matthew 16:2-3 - because of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus

Actually, there are some versions that are based on the Critical Text that do omit all these 32 words from their translations because these words are omitted by the Sinaitiic and Vaticanus manuscripts. At least they are being consistent and more honest about it. 

 

These include The Anderson New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the James Moffatt New Testament 1913, the Riverside N.T. 1923, Goodspeed's translation of 1942, The English Bible of 1970, the Williams N.T. 1972, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The Christogenea New Testament 2009 - another Critical Text version.  The Jehovah Witness NWT puts the verses [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

 

Even in these two verses another significant omission is seen. The words "O YE HYPOCRITES" are in the Majority of Greek copies as well as the Old Latin copies a, air, b, c, d, ed, f, ff1, ff2, g1, l, q, the Coptic Boharic and the Diatessaron 170-175 A.D.

 

The word "HYPOCRITES!" is in the text of the Reformation Bibles in numerous foreign language Bibles as well.   But  there are a few manuscripts that contain all the words both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus leave out, except they omit the word "HYPOCRITES". So what do these modern versions do?  They also omit the words "O ye hypocrites" too.  

 

In other words, even though ALL these 32 words are NOT FOUND in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, these modern versions INCLUDE all of them except "O YE HYPOCRITES" which is omitted only by a very few, and is found in the vast majority.  Now how "scientific" is that???!

 

The words "O ye HYPOCRITES" are found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1582, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Youngs 1898, NKJV 1982, World English Bible 2000, Modern English Version 2014,  Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta,  Luther's German Bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 "Ihr Heuchler!", the French Martin Bible 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Hypocrites" (it's the same in French as in English), the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and Riveduta 2006 "Ipocriti", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Cipriano de Valera 1602 and Reina Valera 1909-1995 "Hipócritas", the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada "Hipócritas", the Afrikaans bible 1953 "Geveinsdes", Hungarian Karoli Bible "Képmutatók", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - "F??arnicilor",  the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "Gij geveinsden!", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos 1998 - "O, kayong mga mapagpaimbabaw!", the Albanian Bible, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible -.  and the Modern Greek Bible .

 

Matthew 16:2-3 are found in virtually every Bible translation ever made, in spite of the fact that BOTH Sinaiticus and Vaticanus completely omit them. They are found in all Reformation Bibles in all languages including the Modern Greek Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

If ever the omission of a particular reading speaks volumes, this is it. The words "O ye hypocrites" are missing from these modern versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET AND from all the aforementioned Catholic versions.  Do you think there might be a chance these bible translators will hear "O ye hypocrites!" loud and clear from the mouth of the Lord God Almighty in a coming day? 

 

Matthew 17:20 An error still retained in the NASB, ESV, Holman Standard and NIV is the result of following Aleph and B. When the disciples could not cast out a devil they ask Jesus why. The Lord tells them, "Because of your UNBELIEF: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove." 


In this instance they had no faith at all and Jesus tells them that if they had just a little bit of faith they could remove mountains.

However both Aleph and B read "little faith" instead of "unbelief", and so the NASB, ESV and NIV read, "Because you have SO LITTLE FAITH. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed. . .". If they had a little bit of faith to begin with, it doesn't make sense to tell them they only need a mustard seed of faith to accomplish great things. But if they had no faith, then Jesus's words make sense. The older Catholic versions like the 1582 Douay-Rheims and the 1950 Douay read like the KJB with "unbelief" (NO faith) but the more modern Catholic Versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 now agree with the false reading found in the NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman Vatican Versions.

Matthew 18:35 "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by * the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

This is obviously a quote from Psalm 78:2, and that particular Psalm was written by Asaph. It is labeled "Maschil of Asaph".  Yet Sinaiticus original says "which was spoken by ISAIAH the prophet, saying..."  Nobody followed this erroneous reading, but it does show something of the very poor quality of this "oldest and best" manuscript.

Matthew 19:29 "or wife" or not; an hundredfold or many times as much?  

The utter confusion of the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts.


Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall inherit everlasting life."

Here the words "or wife" are found in most texts including Sinaiticus, C, E, F, G, H, K, L, W, X, Y, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic, Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The King James Bible along with the foreign language Reformation bibles include the word "wife" along with the word "hundredfold".


Just a few of the Bibles that read just like the KJB are Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549, the Bishops? bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible, Young's, World English bible 2000, NKJV and the Modern English Bible 2014 - plus many more.

BUT Vaticanus, virtually all by itself, omits these two words  - OR WIFE and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT and the Holman Standard.

The second important textual variant is the difference between AN HUNDREDFOLD and MANY TIMES AS MUCH.  These are two very different Greek words. One literally has the word "a hundred" in it and the other one literally has the word "many" 

The vast majority of all manuscripts as well as the ancient versions read AN HUNDREDFOLD. This includes Sinaiticus, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, W, X, Delta, Theta, the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

BUT, once again, virtually all by itself Vaticanus reads MANY TIMES AS MUCH. The Critical texts used to read this way. Westcott and Hort followed this Vaticanus reading and so did the earlier Critical text printings. I have hard copies of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 and both read MANY TIMES AS MUCH.

BUT later on, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Vatican supervised Critical text changed this reading for the other one that is found in Sinaiticus and most others, and NOW the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts read "a HUNDREDFOLD"


And they did all this, not because they discovered some new textual evidence. They just changed their minds.

Not even the Revised Version 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 went along with Westcott and Hort on this one, but still read "an hundredfold", as now also do the RSV, NRSV,  ESV, NET, NIV, Holman, NKJV, etc.

BUT the NASB 1995, virtually all by itself except for the Jehovah Witness New World Translation STILL has the Vatican reading here and says: "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name?s sake, will receive MANY TIMES AS MUCH, and will inherit eternal life."


The Catholic Confusion

The Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay Version 1950 both read exactly like the KJB has it. - "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, OR WIFE, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive AN HUNDREDFOLD, and shall possess life everlasting."


BUT the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 includes the word WIFE but has MANY TIMES AS MUCH instead of "an hundredfold"

And then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 reverses itself and it now omits the word WIFE AND goes with A HUNDRED TIMES AS MUCH.


So, in this one verse alone, both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other twice, and most of the modern versions follow Vaticanus in one instance and Sinaiticus in the other, - but not all. The NASB differs from the others. And they call this the ?science" of textual criticism!


 
NASB Confusion - The two sons and the Father's vineyard - Matthew 21:28-31 


Matthew 21:28-31 - "A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in MY vineyard. He answered and said, I will NOT: BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, sir.; and HE WENT NOT. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The FIRST."

This is the reading of the King James Bible 1611, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV of 2001, the NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, the ISV 2010,  the Catholic Douay 1950 and Jerusalem bibles 1969,  1985, the NIV of 1984  and even the NET version.   These readings are found in the majority of all manuscripts and in the Siniaticus copy, one of the so called oldest and best. However Vaticanus or B, reverses the order of the two sons. Even the Catholic bibles rejected the Vaticanus reading,  and they have it in the Vatican library as one of their treasured possessions. Yet they chose to follow the reading that matches that found in the King James Bible. 

 When the Father came to the first son and told him to go work in his vineyard, instead of saying "I will NOT:BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT." the NASBs from 1962, 63, 68, 71, 72, 75 and 1977  say "I WILL, AND HE DID NOT GO.?  And when he comes to the second son, in the NASBs from 1962 to 1977 , instead of him saying "I GO SIR, AND HE WENT NOT? the NASBs have "I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT.?  Then, when Jesus asks which of them did the father's will, instead of ?the FIRST?, the NASBs (1963 to 1977) say "the LATTER"!!!

Other bible versions that also follow the reading found in Vaticanus are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961, the New English Bible 1970, Goodspeed 1943, and the Revised English Bible of 1989, put out as a recent joint effort between Protestants and Catholics.  All these versions follow the Vaticanus reading, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is wrong.

The NASB does not always follow the Vaticanus readings.   Siniaticus differs from it  over 3000 times in the gospels alone. In fact in verse 28 the ?my? of "MY vineyard" is in B, but not in Siniaticus, but the NASB did not put it in.  So the NASB goes back and forth between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, sometimes following one, sometimes the other, and sometimes changing their opinion from one year to the next. Here in verse 28 both the NIV and NASB have followed Siniaticus and rejected the Vaticanus and Majority reading of ?MY vineyard?and have merely "THE" vineyard. 

The NASBs then chose to follow the Vaticanus reading (and not the Sinaiticus nor Majority reading) in verses 29-31 in all their editions from 1960 through 8 different editions until 1995 when they again changed their "scholarly opinion", based on the same evidence which  they had all along! NOW the 1995  NASB ?update? reads as did the King James Bible and many others all this time. 

Which NASB was or is the true words of God?  Short answer- None of them.  There is no  ?science? in their critical text methods; only the fickle and every changing opinions of men who make change for change?s sake (and perhaps for a few dollars and personal fame tossed in as well.)   Their bogus bibles only serve to undermine the authority of God's true words and sow doubt and confusion among God?s people. 

Will Kinney

 

 

Matthew 21:28-31 - The two sons and the father's vineyard. 

 

Major Flip Flop found in the NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, Catholic versions, and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  

 


Matthew 21:28-31 The Two Sons of the Father and the Bible Babble Buffet in Action.


Matthew 21:28-31 KJB - "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said I WILL NOT; BUT AFTERWARD HE REPENTED, AND WENT. 


And he came to THE SECOND, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I GO, SIR; AND WENT NOT.

Whether of the twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, THE FIRST." 


This is the reading found in most texts including Sinaiticus, C, E, F G, H, K, L, O, W, X, Y, the Old Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Diatessaron ancient versions and is the reading not only of Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, the KJB but also of the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, NIV and the NKJV.

The Ever Changing NASBs and The Revolving Door of the Critical Text.

However the case with the NASB is quite interesting. From 1960 through 1977, a period of 9 revisions, the NASB followed the Vaticanus manuscript which reverses these two sons and has the first son not going into the vineyard but the second one does.

BUT then in 1995 the NASB reversed themselves from the previous NASB editions and changed their readings back to match that of all the other versions. The NASB 1995 Update now reads like the KJB.


From 1960 through 1977 the NASB read: "he came to the first and said, Son go work in the vineyard. And he answered and said, I WILL SIR, AND HE DID NOT GO.  And he came to THE SECOND  and said the same thing. But he answered and said, I WILL NOT, YET AFTERWARD HE REGRETTED IT AND WENT. Which of the two did the will of his father? They say, THE LATTER."

This reading that reverses the two sons and what they say comes from the Vaticanus manuscript, which stands virtually all by itself.

Also reading this way and having the LAST son doing the will of the father instead of the FIRST are the Moffat N.T. 1913, Goodspeed 1923, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902.

Also reading this way (reversing the two sons) is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 edition.  But it too has now changed their text in the Jehovah Witness 2013 edition and it now reads as it always has in the King James Bible.

Westcott and Hort as well as the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975 read this way, with the two sons reversed according to the Vaticanus manuscript.  I have hard copies of these. 

You can see the Westcott-Hort text for Matthew 21:28-31 here if you wish.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A28-31&version=WHNU

Even though Westcott and Hort and at least the first 21 editions of the Nestle Critical text reversed the order of the two sons, not even the Revised Version of 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 nor even the RSV followed this erroneous reading, but stuck with the Traditional reading of the KJB.

BUT later on, the Nestle-Aland Critical text reversed themselves and now in the 28th and 29th editions it reads as it stands in the Traditional text of the KJB, with the sole exception that they have changed "the second" which is the reading of the TR, Sinaiticus correction and Vaticanus, for "THE OTHER", which  is the reading of manuscript D.


The "new" NASB follows the reading of THE SECOND and so too do the RV, ASV, RSV and NRSV while the NIV, ESV, NET go with the other reading of THE OTHER son, even though "son" is not in any text.


The Catholic Connection

Both the Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay Version 1950 read like the KJB has it, with the first son saying he would NOT go and then changing his mind and going, and the second saying he would go but not going.

Then the St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 reversed the role of the two sons and what they said and did as the earlier NASB and Jehovah Witness versions had it for so long, with the first son saying he would go but didn't while the second son said he would not go, but then changed his mind and went.


 

But once again the Catholics have revised their "bible" versions and now the 1985 New Jerusalem reads like the others with the first son saying he will NOT go and then going, and the second saying he would go but he doesn't.

Nobody seriously believes that any of these constantly changing modern versions are the inerrant words of God. 



 Matthew 27:49 A very serious error occurs here in both of these so called "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based, which is not used by any Bible in any language I have ever seen though the reading is noted in the RSV footnote as, *Other ancient authorities insert - "AND ANOTHER TOOK A SPEAR AND PIERCED HIS SIDE AND THERE CAME OUT WATER AND BLOOD." Amazingly enough, I have seen several anti KJB sites that list this "omission" as being an error in the King James Bible!

None of the major English Bible translations in history ever included this added verse. This includes Wycliffe 1396, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV 1901, NASB 1963-1995, the NIV 1973, 79, 84 and 2011, the RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NKJV 1982, ISV 2011, Dan Wallace's NET Version 2006, Holman  Standard of 2003, Darby, Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the Message 2002, New English bible 1970,  Revised English bible 1989, the Common English Bible 2011, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Voice 2012 nor any of the Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1610, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 nor the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version.

It is an obvious textual blunder. Yet there are a couple of wackos going around the internet claiming that the KJB is wrong because it does not include this extra verse! We do live in interesting times. This reading of both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as well as C has a man killing our Lord rather than He Himself commending His spirit into the hands of the Father and voluntarily giving up the ghost.

This reading is also a serious error in that it has Christ being put to death at this time, and yet we see from the very next verse and the other gospels that He continues to speak. In Luke 23:44-46 Jesus says, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit", and John 19:30 says, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost".

It is not until AFTER our Lord said all these things, and He Himself voluntarily gave up His own life that we read in John 19:34, "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water".

Not even Daniel "anything but the KJB" Wallace includes this spurious verse in his NET version.  But he does footnote: "Early and important mss ( B C L  pc) have another sentence at the end of this verse: "And another [soldier] took a spear and pierced him in the side, and water and blood flowed out." This comment finds such a strong parallel in John 19:34 that it was undoubtedly lifted from the Fourth Gospel by early, well-meaning scribes and inserted into Matt 27:49. Consequently, even though the support for the shorter reading (A D W Ë1,13 33 Ï lat sy sa bo) is not nearly as impressive, internal considerations on its behalf are compelling." 

Well, Daniel's "early, impressive and important manuscripts" are only "impressively" corrupt, and yet it is primarily these two manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that are being used today with the direct influence of the Vatican to corrupt today's Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET and Holman versions people are ignorantly buying into.

Obviously some very careless scribes took this reading from John's gospel and placed it in Matthew 27:49, where it is completely out of order. Yet this reading is found in both of these "oldest and best" manuscripts upon which most modern versions are based.

Matthew 1:7-10. ESV errors from corrupt texts


Matthew chapter one lists the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ from the kingly line of David and Solomon. 


KJB - "And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat ASA ; and ASA  begat Josaphat (v.10) And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat AMON  and AMON  begat Josias."


ESV - "and Solomon the father of (Here the ESV changed the verb found in all Greek texts "begat" to a noun not found in ANY Greek text "the father of" Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of ASAPH, and ASAPH the father of Jehoshaphat"(v.10) And Hezekiah the father of Manasseh and Manasseh the father of AMOS  and AMOS the father of Josiah."


These different names - ASA versus ASAPH, and AMON versus AMOS are TEXTUAL differences. They are not variations in spelling the same names, but are totally different names that come from very different Greek texts.  And the texts followed by the ESV here in verses 7, 8 and 10 are the WRONG names.

Simply go back to 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in either the Hebrew Scriptures or even the so called Greek Septuagint and they both read the same.  ASA was the son of Abia, and AMON was the son of Manasseh. Even the ESV tells you this in 1 Chronicles 3:10-14.

The ESV has followed the Westcott-Hort, UBS critical Greek text in these places where they have the wrong names.  There were at least three men names Asaph and two names Amos, but neither one of them is listed anywhere in the Bible as being in the lineage of the man Jesus Christ.

The Majority of all Greek manuscripts, the Hebrew Scriptures, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta and even the so called Greek Septuagint read as does the King James Bible with ASA and AMON.


So where did the ESV get the names of ASAPH and AMOS?  They come from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Instead of just recognizing that these are two of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence, they have chosen to go against all historical evidence  to the contrary and have two guys in the lineage of our Saviour who simply do NOT belong there.

What is interesting here is that not even the NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, The Voice, the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 or even Dan Wallace's NET version followed the UBS, Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts here that falsely read "Asaph" and "Amos", but went instead with the Traditional Greek texts of the Reformation Bibles and the KJB and they all correctly read "ASA" and "AMON" instead of the ESV's "ASAPH" and "AMOS".


The other perverted bibles would be the previous RSV where they correctly have ASA in verses 7 and 8 but then footnote that "the Greek says ASAPH", which is not true at all.  Only a very few corrupt Greek manuscripts like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read this way, while the vast majority of them have it right.  But the RSV then went with the false reading of AMOS in verse 10, and then footnotes "others read Amon".


Then came along the NRSV of 1989 and it changed BOTH names to ASAPH and AMOS, just like the ESV 2001-2011 has it.  These are TEXTUAL errors that result in two of the wrong men being placed into the lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ, and even the NASB, NIV, Holman and NET translators had enough sense to see that these are the wrong names and they went back to the Traditional Greek text in these two instances.

God is a God of absolute Truth; He cannot lie.  If you find lies and falsehood in a book that purports to be the words of the living God and they are false, then this bible version is false and cannot be trusted.

"For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together."  Mark 14:56

 

Mark 1:2. Another error still retained in the NASB, ESV and NIV is found in this verse. The KJB reads: "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

Here we have two different prophets quoted. One is Malachi and the other Isaiah. That is why it says prophets - plural. It is the reading of the Majority of Greek texts. It is found in many ancient versions and quoted by Ireneaus and Tertullian who lived 150 years before Aleph and B ever saw the light of day. The NASB, ESV and NIV say, "as it is written in ISAIAH..." but only part of the quote is from Isaiah (40:3); the other part is from Malachi (3:1).

In Mark 1:1-2, both Aleph and B change "the prophets" to "Isaiah", and both omit the words "before thee". Sinaiticus omits THE SON OF GOD from verse 1, but it is found in Vaticanus.

Mark 6:22 - The Daughter of Herodias or Herod's daughter Herodias? - The Ever Changing Lunacy of Modern Textual Criticism

 

 

In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF the said HERODIAS (mentioned in verses 17 and 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee." 

 

Common English Bible 2011 - "Herod's daughter Herodias came in and danced...

 

Dan Wallace's NET version - "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced, she pleased Herod..."

 

The 2003 Holman Standard reads: "When Herodias's own daughter[a] came in and danced..."

 

And then footnotes - Mark 6:22 Other mss read "When HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS"

 

In the Lexham English Bible 2012 we see the same thing. It rejects the latest "scholarship"of the UBS/Nestle-Aland editors and goes with Traditional reading of the KJB. 

 

It says: And when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced and pleased Herod and his dinner guests, the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you want, and I will give it to you."  

 

Then it footnotes: In place of "the daughter of Herodias herself" some manuscripts have "his daughter Herodias". And what exactly are these "some manuscripts"?  They are our old "friends" Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Two of the most corrupt manuscripts to see the light of day, that not only contradict the Traditional Text of the Reformation Bibles but contradict each other literally thousands of times.

 

To see the true nature of these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, the Jehovah Witness NWT and the modern Catholic versions are based, see my article here -

http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

 

Herodias was previously the wife of Phillip, the brother of Herod, and she had a daughter by Phillip.  At some point Herod took Herodias, his brother's wife, to be his own and John the Baptist reproved Herod for this. "For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Phillip's wife; for he had married her. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." Mark 6:17-18.

 

Matthew 14:6 clearly tells us: "But when Herod's birthday was kept, THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS danced before them, and pleased Herod."

 

The reading that repeats the information and tells us that this girl who danced at Herod's birthday party was THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS is that of the Majority of all Greek texts as well as Alexandrinus and C.

 

However the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that this was Herod's daughter named Herodias, instead of saying that it was Herodias' daughter and not mentioning her name.

 

Obviously the two readings cannot both be inspired by God at the same time, and the reading found here in Mark 6:22 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the so called oldest and best upon which most modern versions are based) obviously contradicts what Matthew 14:6 tells us about this girl being "the daughter of Herodias".

 

Part of what makes this obvious textual blunder of such interest is to see how the critical text "scholars" have dealt with it. The textual differences are quite obvious in the Greek. The Traditional Greek text and that of almost every Bible version in all languages in history that tells us this was the daughter of Herodias  whereas the Vatican mss. reads  HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS.

 

THE CONSTANTLY CHANGING CRITICAL TEXT EDITIONS 

 

Westcott and Hort originally adopted this strange variant reading because of their blind devotion to the Vatican manuscript, but not even the Revised Version of 1885 or the ASV of 1901 followed this strange and contradictory reading, but stayed with the traditional - "when THE DAUGHTER OF HERODIAS HERSELF came in and danced".

 

However later on the Nestle critical Greek text 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition of 1975 both read like the King James Bible and the traditional Greek text. They did NOT adopt the Vatican/Sinaitic reading. 

 

But then again the latest Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts 27th and the most recent 28th edition have once again changed their Greek text and have gone back to the one first followed by Westcott and Hort. The most recent Nestle Aland critical Greek texts now read "HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS" 

 

We can see part of this fickle change in the RSV, NRSV and the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV.  The RSV read -" For when HERODIAS' DAUGHTER CAME IN" but the NRSV of 1989 said: "WHEN HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced," and then the ESV 2011 went back to reading: For when HERODIAS'S DAUGHTER came in and danced..."  

 

This means that the ESV, along with the NIV and NASB are not even following the latest musical chairs reading found in the last few printings of the "updated" UBS/Nestle-Aland critical text editions.

 

Agreeing with the correct reading that this was "the daughter of Herodias" and not "Herod's daughter Herodias" are  Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the  Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901 - "when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced", Living Bible 1971, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard 2009, NKJV 1982, Complete Jewish Bible 1998, Easy-to-Read Version 2006, the ISV 2014.

 

 Those following the corrupt Vaticanus-Sinaiticus, United Bible Society/Vatican/Nestle-Aland 28th edition and that tell us this girl was Herod's daughter and her name was Herodias are Daniel Wallace and company's NET version, the latest critical text version called The Common English Version of 2011, the NRSV of 1989, The New Living Translation 2007, and the Disciples New Literal N.T. 2011.


The Living Bible 1971 followed the Traditional text, but this latest "update" has now gone for this blunder found in the Vatican manuscripts.

 

The New Living Translation 2007 now says: - "Then HIS DAUGTER, ALSO NAMED HERODIAS, came in and performed a dance".  

 

Since the ever changing critical text scholars have lately adopted this obvious blunder as their preferred Greek text I suppose we will see some more in the future.



Mark 10:24 - "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter the kingdom of God."

ESV - "But Jesus said to them again, Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!"


FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES - This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek texts including Alexandrinus, D and C, the Old Latin copies aur, b, d, f, ff2, l and q which witness to a text written long before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus saw the light of day, the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. and 425 A.D., the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic, the Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.

The first major English version to come out that omitted these words was the liberal RSV of 1952. Not even the previous "revisions" based on the Westcott-Hort critical text went along with this innovation. The Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 BOTH kept these words in their English texts - "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"

The whole meaning of the passage is radically changed when omitted by such versions as the NASB, NIV 1984 and 2011 editions, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, Common English Bible and Holman Standard. 

They end up saying: "Children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God." It is not hard at all; we enter the kingdom by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV 1978 edition (I have a hard copy of it) said: "How hard it is FOR THE RICH to enter the kingdom of God." But then they removed these words in the 1984 edition.  

The 2011 NIV edition now says: "But Jesus said again, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God."

The phrase "for them that trust in riches" is also found in the following Bible translations: the Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew?s Bible 1549 - "chyldren howe harde is it for them, that truste in rychesse, to enter into the kyngdome of God.", Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's N.T. 1755, the Living Oracles 1835,  Darby 1890, Young?s 1898, Weymouth 1913, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, James Moffatt's N.T., the New Life Bible 1969, Bible in Basic English 1960, the New Berkeley Version in Modern Speech 1969, the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, Third Millennium Bible 1998, Green's MKJV 2000, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2000 and the Knox Bible of 2012.

It is also found in a multitude of foreign language Bibles including Luther's German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlachter Bible, the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and the Louis Segond of 2007 -"Mes enfants, qu'il est difficile à ceux qui se confient dans les richesses d'entrer dans le royaume de Dieu!", the Portuguese Almeida and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués, the Portuguese O Livro of 2000 - "Filhos, quão difícil é, para os que confiam nas riquezas, entrar no reino de Deus!", the Spanish Reina Valera 1995 and R.V. Gómez 2010 - "Hijos, ¡cuán difícil les es entrar en el reino de Dios a los que confían en las riquezas!", the Italian Diodati 1649, La Nuova Diodati 1991 and the 2006 Nuova Riveduta Bible - "Figli, quanto è difficile, per coloro che confidano nelle ricchezze entrare nel regno di Dio." and the Modern Greek Bible  and the Modern Hebrew Bible.


What is funny to see is how even some of the more modern versions that usually follow the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts (which completely omit these words from their text)  are now rejecting the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus readings here and are going back to the Traditional text used in the King James Bible. 

The Amplified bible of 1987, which is put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB, includes the phrase "those who trust in riches", and the ISV (International Standard Version) of 2012 as well as The Voice of 2012.  Even though the ISV and the Voice usually follow the critical texts they have now put these words back into the text where they belong reading: "Children, how hard it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN THEIR WEALTH to get into the kingdom of God!? 

Eugene Peterson's horrible paraphrase called the Message of 2002, which almost always follows the UBS critical Greek text, includes the phrase, but paraphrases it as it does almost everything else.  It says: "Jesus said, "Do you have any idea how difficult it is FOR PEOPLE WHO "HAVE IT ALL" to enter God's kingdom?" 

As usual, we see the same thing happening in the Catholic versions. The older Douay-Rheims of 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both contain the words "for them that trust in riches" but the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 omit it, just like the new Vatican Versions ESV, NIV, NASB, NET. BUT now in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version they have put these words back in the text and once again it reads:  "Little sons, how difficult it is FOR THOSE WHO TRUST IN MONEY to enter into the kingdom of God!"

"Scholarship" is an amazing thing to behold, isn't it. 

Luke 1:26 "And the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of GALILEE, named Nazareth." Sinaiticus reads "a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth" - a clear geographical error (one of many). Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea.

Luke 8:43-45 And the Silly "Science" of Modern Textual Criticism


In Luke 8:43-45 we find just a couple of the hundreds of examples in the Bible where we can clearly see the silly, arbitrary and capricious nature of what the unbelievers in a complete and infallible Bible like to call "the science of textual criticism." This so called "science" is about as scientific as the Ouija board, and just as deadly.  It will end up leaving you with NO infallible Bible in any language on the face of this earth. Guess who wants you to think this way about God?s Book?


Here is Luke 8:43-45 we read: "And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, WHICH HAD SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS, neither could be healed of any, (44) Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched. (45) And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter AND THEY THAT WERE WITH HIM said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, AND SAYEST THOU, WHO TOUCHED ME?"


All the capital lettered words are missing in several modern versions. But as we shall soon see, the Critical Text Catholic and Evangelical versions are continually in a state of flux and do not even agree among themselves.


The words WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS are found only here in the entire Bible.


There is a similar passage in Mark 5:25-26, but most of the words and their order are quite different from what we find here in Luke 8:43. 



When we compare these verses we see that they only have 7 words in common ("And there was a woman", an issue of blood" and - "twelve") and they aren't even in the same order.


The words "which spent all her living upon physicians" in Luke 8:43 are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts INCLUDING SINAITICUS, A, C, D, K, L, P, W, Delta, Theta, Xi, Pi as well as the Old Latin a, aur, b, c, f, ff2, l, q, r1, and the Syriac Curetonian, Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient bible versions.


The words are omitted in just two Greek manuscripts - Vaticanus and P75. That's it.


So, what have our critical text scholars done with these words?  Well, Westcott and Hort originally left them all in the text without brackets.  Then later the Nestle-Aland critical text completely took them out of the text.  I have a Nestle text 4th edition from 1934 and the words are completely gone from the text. 


But later still they decided to put them back in the critical text editions where they stand today in the UBS 1st-4th editions and the Nestle-Aland 21st and 27th and 28th editions.


How do the Critical Text (Vatican) versions treat these words? Let's take a closer look.


The words WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS in Luke 8:43 are found in the Revised Version of 1885 and in the ASV of 1901.


But then the NASB 1960-1995 omitted all these words, as do the NIV 1984, 2011 editions, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the RSV 1946, 1973, the Jehovah Witness NWT, God's Word Translation 1995, the New Century Version 1991 and Dan Wallace's NET version. 


However all these words ARE FOUND in the NRSV 1989, the ESV of 2001-2011 (notice the RSV omitted them, the NRSV put them back and the ASV put them in, but the NASB took them out!), A Conservative Version 2005, the Lexham English Bible 2012, The Voice 2012, and The International Children's Bible 2015.



The "ever dependable" NIVs


Even though the NIVs in English have decided to omit all these words from the Bible Text, yet the NIV Portuguese editon HAS THEM! 


The Portuguese Nova Versao Internacional 1993 and 2000 editions read: - "E estava ali certa mulher que havia doze anos vinha sofrendo de hemorragia E GASTARA TUDO O QUE TINHA COM OS MEDICOS; mas ninguém pudera curá-la." But the Spanish NIV omits them.  Go figure. 


The words are also included in the other Critical text versions like the Holman Standard 2003, the ISV of 2014 and the critical text Common English Bible of 2011.


The reading "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS" in Luke 8:43 is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Corpus Christi Manuscript 140 of 1000 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which had spent all her substaunce vpon phisicions", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, The Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, The New European Version 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010 The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 (just to name some of them)


All these words are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - 


and in the Modern Hebrew Bible 


Among foreign language translations the words "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS? are found in the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. -"in fluxu sanguinis ab annis duodecim quae in medicos erogaverat omnem substantiam" , Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "die hatte alle ihre Nahrung an die Ärzte gewandt", the Portuguese Almeida, O Livro 2000, Sagrada Biblia and NIV Portuguese edition - "E certa mulher, que tinha uma hemorragia havia doze anos e gastara com os médicos todos os seus haveres e por ninguém pudera ser curada", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera's of 1909, 1960, 1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997, and Contemporánea 2011 - "y había gastado en médicos todo lo que tenía" (but NOT the Spanish NIV), in the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 1910 and 2007 - "souffrait d'hémorragies depuis 12 ans; elle avait dépensé tout son bien chez les médecins", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, La Paroa é Vita 1997 and Italian Riveduta 2006  - "E una donna, che aveva un flusso di sangue da dodici anni ed aveva speso con i medici tutti i suoi beni senza poter essere guarita da alcuno."

 


The Catholic Connection -


The Catholic Versions are all over the board, as usual. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included the words, as does the 1950 Douay Version, reading: "And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians and could not be healed by any."


But then in 1968 the Catholic Jerusalem bible removed the words; then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in.  Then in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible took them out again; but now once more in 2009 the Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has put them back in again!


It should be obvious by this time that the multiple choice Critical Text bible editions are consistently inconsistent, and yet they are all allegedly put together by studying "the science" of textual criticism. Their "science" has nothing at all to do with "the new discovery of ancient manuscript readings" or "transcriptional probabilities" or anything remotely logical or faith based at all.


They are just guessing, changing their minds on a whim and they don't even agree with each other.  What a joke! And all the while fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Muslims, Atheists and Bible Mockers are having a Field Day of it. 

 

 

Luke 8:47 - "AND WHEN THE WOMAN SAW THAT SHE WAS NOT HID, SHE CAME TREMBLING, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people FOR WHAT CAUSE SHE HAD TOUCHED HIM, AND how she was healed immediately."

Sinaiticus omits all the capitalized words, but they are found in Vaticanus.


Luke 10:1, 17 - "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"


Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It's found in Article XII - "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science." 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17 KJB, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, Holman, ISV  - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV, NIV, NET, Catholic versions - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770, Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions. It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida - "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 - "il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible -  and the Modern Hebrew Bible.


However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, Dan Wallace's NET version and ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70. The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all. I have a hard copy of it here in my study. But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO? It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong. 

The King James Bible is always right. Accept no substitutes.

Luke 10:42 How many things are needed? "ONE THING" or "A FEW THINGS"?  Bible Babble Buffet at its Best.

 

King James Bible -  Luke 10:42 - But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."


NASB 1963-1977 editions - "But ONLY A FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."


NASB 1995 edition - "But ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

 

NIV 1973, 1978 and 1982 editions - "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

NIV 2011 edition - "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her."  

 

Did you notice that both the NASB and the NIV changed THE TEXT from one edition to another, AND that they REVERSED THEIR CHOICES?  What is going on here in Bible Babble Buffet Land?


This section of Luke tells of the time when Jesus came to the house of Martha and Mary, and Martha was cumbered with much serving and Mary sat at the feet of Jesus and heard his word. In Luke 10:42, after Jesus told Martha that she was careful and troubled about many things, he says: "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her."


The one thing that is needful is to sit at the feet of Jesus, to hear his words, and be in fellowship with him.


"BUT ONE THING is needful


The "But one thing is needful" is the reading found not only in the Majority of all manuscripts and the TR, but also of P45 and P75, both of which predate the vaunted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also found in Alexandrinus, C original, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V, Gamma, Delta, Theta, Lambda, Pi, Psi. And it is the reading of the Old Latin aur,  f, g1, q, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Coptic Sahidic and Vulgate ancient versions.

 

"BUT ONE THING is needful" is the reading of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the highly praised precursor to the NASB), the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace's 2006 NET version.


But in the NASBs of 1963, 1972 and 1977 we read instead: "FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, REALLY ONLY ONE."

 

This ridiculous reading comes from the Vaticanus manuscript.   The Siniaticus goes back and forth, being corrected three times in this one phrase alone. First Sinaiticus actually read "but few things are the one" (Deep, huh?) Then a scribe changed it to read like the Majority text; and then another scribe changed it back again to read like Vaticanus.   


Also reading this way are the Jehovah Witness New World Translation 1961 and the 2013 J.W. Revision which say: A FEW THINGS THOUGH ARE NEEDED, OR JUST ONE. For her part, Mary chose the good portion.  


The Amplified bible of 1987 still non-sensically reads: THERE IS NEED OF ONLY ONE THING OR BUT A FEW THINGS. Mary has chosen the good portion. Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 read this way - "OF FEW THINGS, IS THERE NEED, OR, OF ONE; Mary, in fact, hath chosen, the good part," as does the Lexham English Bible of 2012 - "But FEW THINGS ARE NECESSARY, OR ONLY ONE THING, for Mary has chosen the better part"


But the NASB update of 1995 has reversed itself, and now reads as the KJB and the NIVs EARLIER EDITIONS and the ESV. Why? Not because of any new manuscript evidence recently come to light; they simply changed their minds.


The Catholic versions have done the same thing.  The early Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the 1950 Douay followed the Traditional texts and read like the KJB - "But ONE THING IS NEEDFUL, and Mary hath chosen that good part".  But then the 1968 Jerusalem bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible followed the Vaticanus reading and read: FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED, INDEED ONLY ONE.


But now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has also gone back to the Traditional reading and once again says: "And yet ONLY ONE THING IS NECESSARY. Mary has chosen the best portion"


Likewise the Nestle-Aland Critical Greek texts have changed over the years. Westcott and Hort originally went with the nonsensical reading, which is not even grammatically correct and literally is "few things is necessary the one".  So also did the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975. I have hard copies of both of these and this is how their critical text reads.


 But not even the RV, ASV or even the RSV were that far gone that they actually followed this absurd reading found in their own critical Greek text editions. The first major translation to adopt it and put it in their text was the NASB in 1963 and the NASB stuck with it through 7 different editions until 1995.  Then sometime later they changed the Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts and they now read as does the KJB with "but one thing is necessary.?" 

 

But wait!  There is more.  The NIVs 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions had it right. The read: "BUT ONLY ONE THING IS NEEDED. Marry has chosen what is better."  But now that the UBS/Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts have changed their reading to the correct one, which reads this way, the NEW NIV 2011 edition has come out, and now gone with the OLD Vaticanus reading the the critical text editors and the NASB just got done correcting.  The New NIV of 2011 now reads: "BUT FEW THINGS ARE NEEDED - OR INDEED ONLY ONE. Mary has chosen what is better."!!!


    So the critical text promoters have abandoned in this place their beloved "oldest and best" manuscripts, all in the name of "the science" of Textual Criticism, don't ya know. The question remains - Which NASB or which NIV was inspired and inerrant? The first 7 editions of the NASB from 1963 to 1977 or the 1995 update?  Or the first three editions of the NIV, or this latest one done in 2011 where it doesn't even follow the late$t $cholarly Finding$? Well, actually, there is NO NASB or NIV user who believes their ever-changing versions are the inspired and infallible words of God.


 The 1995 NASB update changed 20,000 words and deleted another 8000 words from the previous 1977 NASB edition. This is not fantasy. I have the book Double Jeopardy, by Lawrence M. Vance, that documents in black and white every change that has taken place between these two different editions of the NASB.   


What we see among these bogus bible versions that are based on the ever changing Nestle-Aland/UBS/Vatican critical Greek texts (both  the "Evangelical" NASB, ESV, NIV, and the modern Catholic versions) is the fact that they have no settled Scripture. What may be fa$hionable $cholar$hip today, will change with the wind tomorrow.  And their so called "oldest and best manuscripts", that these new Vatican Versions are based on, are in fact among the most corrupt in existence.


Get yourself the King James Holy Bible and "meddle not with them that are given to change"- Proverbs 24:21


 Luke 11:11 "If a son shall ask BREAD...WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?


The perversion of God's word in the present day, began in 1881 with the publication of the Revised Version in England. This is when Christiandom began to accept the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, and literally thousands of changes were made in an attempt to overthrow the authority of the King James Bible and the Biblical text of the Reformation Bibles.  Satan is subtle, and he introduces his changes little by little.

 

The next bible version that gained some acceptance was the American Standard Version of 1901. They still kept all of the "thee"s and "ye"s, and actually the ASV is textually much closer to the KJB than its later counterpart, the NASB. Each new version departs from the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible a little bit more. The NKJV is not primarily based on the same Greek text as the NIV, but it does not wholly follow the KJB either in at least 40 instances in the New Testament, and has changed the meaning of hundreds of verses and introduced false doctrines into the Bible.


Luke 11:11 KJB - "If a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" 

 

ESV -  "What father among you, if his son asks for A FISH, will instead of a fish give him a serpent."


All of the capitalized letters are omitted in the new Vatican Versions like the ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman, CEB, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation and some modern Catholic versions. The NASB says: " Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a FISH (not bread), he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?"

 

There is no "now suppose" in any text; they have changed the active verb "ask" to the passive "is asked" and they have omitted the words "BREAD...WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK". 

 

 The reading of "if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?" is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor who of you axith his fadir breed, whether he schal yyue hym a stoon? or if he axith fisch, whether he schal yyue hym a serpent for the fish?", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation of 1755, Young?s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, The Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Version 1969, Hebrew Names Version, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible and the Jubilee Bible 2000.



Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome?s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - "¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente?", the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther's German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - "E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? ", the Portuguese de Almeida, the Chinese Union Traditional, the Russian Synodal Bible, the Tagalog Ang Dating Bible 1905, the Romanian Cornilescu Bible,  the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - "Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN?", the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament and in the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

 

The NIV and ESV are similar to the NASB. This is because Vaticanus does not have these words and Vaticanus (B) has substitued "Fish" for "bread".  However all these words ARE in Sinaiticus as well as the Majority of all Greek texts including A, C, D and the ancient Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and Gothic ancient versions. Even Tischendorf's 8th edition agreed with the reading found in the King James Bible. It was Westcott and Hort who chose the Vatican reading over all the others.

 

P45 and P75 are also in disagreement with each other, as well as the Majority of all Greek texts.  P45 agrees with Vaticanus and has "FISH" (ixthun, not BREAD - arton) BUT P75 has a unique reading not found in any bible version I know of.  P75 actually has a completely different word here - isxun - STRENGTH, or MIGHT = "If a son asks STRENGTH..."  These two partial, paprus manuscripts often differ one from the other, sometimes following Vaticanus and at others Siniaticus, and sometimes going their own separate ways. For example, both P45 & 75 omit "neither under a bushel" in verse 33, yet the NASB, NIV, ESV include these words because they are found in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  


 

It should be noted that the KJB reading is also that of the Revised Version of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 which was so highly praised by the NASB as being the Rock of Biblical Honesty. Not even these two early Revised English versions went with the reading found in Vaticanus and the Westcott-Hort text.  The RV and ASV both read: "And of which of you that is a father shall his son ask A LOAF, AND HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR a fish, and he for a fish give him a serpent?"

 

 

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual pattern. The Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay of 1950 and even the Jerusalem bible of 1968 all went with the Traditional reading found in the King James Bible - "And which of you, if he ask his father BREAD, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE? OR a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?"

 

But then in 1970 the St. Joseph NAB and in 1985 the New Jerusalem both went with the Vatican mss. reading and read like the ESV, NIV, NASB.  BUT now the latest Catholic version has come on the merry-go-round bible scene and guess what. It has gone back to the original reading once again.  It is the 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version and it now reads: "So then, who among you, IF HE ASKS HIS FATHER FOR BREAD, HE WOULD GIVE HIM A STONE? Or if he asks for a fish, he would give him a serpent, instead of a fish?"

 

Can we expect the same random changes in the Bible of the Month Club English versions?  Most definitely.  In fact, it has already happened among those modern versions that follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort, UBS type of fickle scholarship.  They have come out with a new bible version called the International Standard Version and it has gone back to the original reading found in the King James Bible all along.  


The brand new, updated according to $cholar'$ late$t finding$, I$V now reads in Luke 11:11 - "What father among you, IF HIS SON ASKS FOR BREAD, WOULD GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASKS for a fish, would give him a snake instead of the fish?"

 

 

Modern scholarship is nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

The first major version the change the Greek and English text to omit the words ?WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE, OR IF HE ASK" and to change BREAD to FISH was the liberal RSV, then followed by the NASB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, Message, the Holman Standard and Wallace?s NET version.

 

If you are trusting the modern "bibles" to give you the complete truth of God, you are getting something "fishy" instead of the true bread of God.

 

Luke 14:5 "an ass" or "a son or "a sheep"?


Luke 14:5 - KJB - "And (Jesus) answered them, saying, Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?"


NIV, RSV, NASB, Jehovah Witness NWT, ESV, Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "Then he asked them, "If one of you has A SON or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"


Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745 - "And said unto them, Which of you shall have A SHEEP or an ox fallen into a pit on the sabbath-day and will not straightway pull him out?"(Manuscript D actually reads "a SHEEP or an ox")


Let?s see....AN ASS, A SHEEP or A SON?  Yep, pretty close in meaning, right?  What is going on here?  


Well, as usual, the so called "oldest and best Greek manuscripts" are once again in disagreement with each other and the scholars can't seem to make up their minds which reading God inspired.  Sinaiticus reads as does the KJB with "an ASS or an ox", while Vaticanus has "a SON or an ox" and Mss. D reads "a SHEEP or an ox", and the bible versions are all over the board.  

 

There is actually one manuscript that could be seen in a humorous light.  It is mss. Theta and it actually reads "If your ASS SON or ox falls into a pit" 

 

The reading of "AN ASS  or an ox" is that found in Sinaiticus, A, K, L, X, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin a, air, b, c, ff2, i, l, r1, the Syriac Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Slavonic ancient versions. It is also the reading found in the Modern Greek Bible - "Which of you AN ASS or an ox that will fall into a well..." and it is the reading found in the Modern Hebrew Bible - "And he answered and said unto them, Which of you whose ASS or his ox fall into a well..."  

 

So once again we see that the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern Vatican Versions are based differ the one from the other, as they do some 3000 times just in the 4 gospels alone.  

 

It is interesting to point out that even though Westcott and Hort rejected the Reformation text of the King James Bible that says "an ASS or an ox" and they went with "SON  or an ox", yet neither the Revised Version of 1881 nor the ASV of 1901 agreed with them, but stuck to the traditional reading of "an ASS or an ox".

 

 

The reading found in the King James Bible of "an ASS or an ox" is that found in Wycliffe 1395 - "Whos ASSE or oxe of you schal falle in to a pit", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which of you shall haue AN ASSE or an oxe fallen into a pytt", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557-1602, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the KJB 1611, Wesley 1755, Worsley Version 1770, the Revised Version of 1881, and American Standard Version of 1901 - "Which of you shall have AN ASS or an ox fallen into a well", Webster's 1833, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Worrell Version 1904, the Douay Version 1950, the Bible in Basic English 1961, J.B. Phillips Translation 1962, the New English Bible 1970, New Berkeley Version 1969, New Life Bible 1969,  the NKJV 1982, KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, God's First Truth 1999, the Jubilee Bible 2000, the Thomson N.T. 2002, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2003, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, the Mebust Bible 2007, the American Bible Union Version 2008, The New European Version 2010, The Modern English Version 2014 and The New Matthew Bible 2016.


However, the first major English bible to adopt the Vaticanus reading of SON instead of ASS was the liberal RSV in 1952, even though Sinaiticus reads AN ASS and both the RV and the ASV kept that reading too.  This was then followed by the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, the Message, the Jehovah Witness New World Translation, Common English Bible and Dan Wallace?s NET version.

 

The Living Bible 1971 just flat out OMITTED either "ass" or "son" and said: "If your COW falls into a pit, don't you proceed at once to get it out?"  


The Catholic Versions


As usual, the Catholic versions are in a state of constant change.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read "an ASS or an ox", but then changed to "A SON or an ox" in the 1969 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible.  However in the brand new 2009 The Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version they have once again gone back to read "an ASS or an ox".


Foreign language Bibles that read ASS


Jerome?s Vulgate 382 A.D., Vulgate 405, Clementine Vulgate 2005 - ?vestrum ASINUS aut bos in puteum cadet?


The Western-Saxon Gospels 990 A.D. - "eowres ASSA oððe oxa ", Anglo-Saxon Gospels, mss. 140 circa 1000 A.D, and mss. 38 circa 1200 A.D. - ?eowres ASSA odde oxa befealp on anne pytt?

 


The Spanish Evangelio Según San Lucas, Rey de Alfonso X, El Sabio done in 1260 A.D. - "¿Cuyo ASNO o cuyo buey cae en el pozo el dia del sabado, e nol saca ende luego?", Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, 2011, the Spanish Reina Valera Gomez 2004 - "¿Quién de vosotros, si su ASNO o su buey cae en algún pozo, no lo saca inmediatamente, aunque sea sábado?"

 

 

Italian Diodati 1649, and the Nuevo Diodati 1991 - "Poi, rispondendo loro disse: «Chi di voi se il suo ASINO o bue cade in un pozzo, non lo tira subito fuori in giorno di sabato?"


Portuguese A Sagrada Biblia em Portugués, Almeida Corrigida E Fiel, and O Livro 2000 - "Se o vosso JUMENTO (an ass or donkey) ou o vosso boi cair numa cova, não tratam logo de o tirar?"


French - La Bible de Geneva 1669, French Martin 1744, and the French Ostervald 1996 - Puis il leur dit: Qui de vous, si son ANE  (ASS) ou son buf tombe dans un puits, ne l'en retire aussitôt le jour de sabbat?"


German Luther 1545, Schlachter 2000 - "Und antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Welcher ist unter euch, dem sein Ochse oder ESEL (an ASS) in den Brunnen fällt, und er nicht alsbald ihn herauszieht am Sabbattage?"


Russian Synodal Version, Chinese Union Traditional bible, Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Ki az közületek, a kinek szamara vagy ökre a kútba esik" = "having a donkey or an ox fallen into a pit", the Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - "asno o isang baking lalake", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - "În ziua sabatului, care dintre voi dac îi cade un mgar sau un bou într-o groap nu îl va scoate imediat?"

 

John Gill comments on Luke 14:5 - " which of you shall have an ass, or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? being just ready to be drowned there; and therefore it must be much more right and necessary to cure a man, a reasonable creature, just drowning with a dropsy, as this man was. The Syriac and Persic versions, instead of "an ass", read "a son", very wrongly: a like kind of reasoning is used by Christ, in Matthew 12:11, Luke 13:15."


What we see once again is the total confusion of the modern versionists, and their so called "oldest and best manusripts" (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) differ from each other thousands of times, and the "scholars" who put together today's conflicting Bible of the Month Club versions keep changing their minds with practically every new version to come down the pike.


Stick with the time tested King James Bible and you will never go wrong.  

 

Luke 16:12 and 15 and the Vatican manuscript  

 

In Luke 16:12 we read: "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is YOUR OWN?" 

 

This is the reading found in the Majority of all manuscripts as well as P75, Sinaiticus, A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.  It is so quoted by numerous early church writers.  However the Vatican manuscript (one of the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern versions are based) standing virtually all by itself actually says - "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is OURS?"  

 Westcott and Hort were so enamored with the Vatican manuscript, that they actually put this reading in their new Greek text.  However nobody followed it. Not even the Revised Version of 1881 or the ASV of 1901. They both stuck with the Traditional reading of "who shall give you that which is YOUR OWN?". 

In fact, so did everybody else. I have not seen a bible version yet that follows the Vaticanus reading of "who will give to you that which is OURS", as Westcott and Hort erroneously believed was the best reading here, not even the Catholic versions or the NET,NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV.  The closest thing to it I am aware of is the Catholic New Jerusalem bible of 1985 which in the text reads: "who will give you what is YOUR VERY OWN?", but then it footnotes: VARIANT - "OUR VERY OWN". They've got to at least create doubt in your mind, right?

Nobody has followed this corrupt reading in the so called "oldest and best".  Luke 16:15 "And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight OF GOD."

"in the sight OF GOD" is the reading found in every known manuscript to man except the Vatican manuscript. It alone differs from all others and says "in the sight OF THE LORD". But nobody followed this Vaticanus reading, not even Westcott and Hort.  This in itself can be considered a minor variation, but throughout both the Vaticanus and Sinaitic manuscripts, upon which most modern versions are based, we find literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, and both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ even between themselves in over 3000 significant ways in just the 4 gospels alone.

 

 Luke 20:23 "Why tempt ye me?"

 

Luke 20:23 KJB - "But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, WHY TEMPT YE ME?"

 

ESV, NIV, NASB - "But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them,"

 

The reading of "Why tempt ye me?" is that found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including A, C, D and many other uncial copies, the Old Latin and the Syriac ancient versions.  However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words.

 

Yet Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with each other several times in just this one chapter.

 

 For example, in Luke 20:14 "This is the heir: COME, let us kill him." 


The word "come"is found in the Majority of all texts including Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus omits it.  In Luke 20:19 we read of "the chief priests and the scribes" in the Majority and in Sinaiticus, but Vaticanus reverses the order of words and has "the scribes and the chief priests", and in Luke 20:28 Sinaiticus original omitted all these words: "and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife", but they are found in the Majority and Vaticanus.


Among the Catholic versions the words "Why tempt ye me?" are found in the Douay-Rheims bible of 1582 and the Douay of 1950. But then in 1968 in the Jerusalem bible, and again in the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible they omitted these words. But now in the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version they have put them back in again - " But realizing their deceitfulness, he said to them: "WHY DO YOU TEST ME?"

 

Modern versions that omit the words "Why tempt ye me?" are the ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and the Jehovah Witness New World Translation. 

 

The reading at the end of this verse "Why tempt ye me?" is found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels of 900 A.D. and 1200 A.D. - " Hwi fandige mín;", Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley N.T. 1755, Etheridge 1849, Murdock 1852 and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Godbey Translation 1902, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - " ?Why are you testing me??, NKJV 1982, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 and the Jubilee Bible 2000.

 

Foreign language bibles that include the words "Why tempt ye me?" are the Spanish Evangelio Según San Lucas Rey Alfonso X El Sabio of 1250 A.D. (this is really old Spanish) - "El, entendiendo el enganno dellos, dixo les: ¿Por que me temptades ?", las Sagradas Escrituras, Cipriano do Valera 1602, the Reina Valera 1909 - 1995 - "¿Por qué me tentáis?", the Portuguese Almeida Corregida E Fiel and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - " Porque me tentais?",Russian Synodal Bible, Romanian Cornilescu and 2009 Fidela Bible - "Pentru ce Mispiti?i?",  Tagalog Ang Dating Biblia 1905 - " at sinabi sa manila", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and French Louis Segond 2007 - " pourquoi me tentez-vous?", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter Bible 2000 - "Was versucht ihr mich?", Dutch Staten Vertaling, and the Italian Diodati 1649 and Nuova Diodati 1991 - "Perché mi tentate?", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - "Waarom versoek julle My?", the Hungarian Karoli Bible - "Mit kísértetek engem?, the Modern Greek Bible  and the Modern Hebrew Bible.

 

If you want a whole Bible with ALL the words God inspired to be in His Book, then get yourself the Authorized King James Holy Bible.  Accept no substitutes.

 


Luke 22:43-44 - "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." 

 

The total hypocrisy of the modern versions is shown by how they deal with these two verses. They are found in the Majority of all texts including D, E, F, G, H, K, L, Q, X, Delta, Theta, Psi,  the Old Latin copies a, aur, b, c, d, e, ff2, i, l, q, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, Armenian, Slavonic and Ethiopic ancient versions.  They are also found in the Greek Diatessaron 170 A.D., and quoted by such early church writers as Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Arius, Eusebian, Hilary, Gregory-Nazianzus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Augustine, Nestorius, Theodoret, and John-Damascus.   

 

This evidence alone should tell us about how "reliable" the Vatican manuscript (upon which most modern versions heavily rely)  really is.

 

Even Alford's 1870 New Testament contains the verses. He then footnotes: "Verses 43, 44 are not found in some of the oldest manuscripts; but they are contained in the greater number, and in the earliest versions, and are quoted by the primitive Fathers, Justin, Irenaus, and Hippolytus."

 

However, Vaticanus omits all these words, and so do P75, A, N, T, W, the Coptic Sahidic, Armenian and Georgian ancient versions.  Sinaiticus original contained all these words; then a scribe omitted them, and then another scribe put them back in again!  

 

Westcott and Hort put [[double brackets]] around them indicating strong doubt as to their authenticity and that is how they appear in today's Nestle-Aland/UBS Critical Greek texts.

 

Even though Vaticanus omits all these words, and the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV omit thousands of words because of the Vaticanus readings, yet the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV and Holman continue to include these two verses in their versions.

 

Daniel Wallace's NET version also includes them [in brackets], but reveals the mindset of many scholars today in his footnotes. Mr. Wallace tells us: "Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus' humanity and an angel's help. But even if the verses are NOT LITERALLY AUTHENTIC, they are PROBABLY HISTORICALLY AUTHENTIC...Nevertheless, because of the SERIOUS DOUBTS as to these verses' authenticity, they have been put in brackets."

 

So, in other words, even though God may not have inspired them, and they were later added by mere human hands, it may be OK to keep them in our bibles, but we should continue to call them into question!!! Do you see how these guys think? 

 

Some bible versions actually omitted both verses from the text, while others [put them in brackets] indicating doubt as to their authenticity. 

 

OMIT BOTH VERSES from the Text

 

Versions that omit both these verses are - Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 (completely gone), Godspeed's New Testament 1923 (a critical text version), The Revised Standard Version 1946, 1952 1973 (Some editions have the verses and others omit them both - the online editions omit them), William's N.T. 1972, and The Christogenea New Testament 2009

 

[BRACKETS indicating doubt]

 

Versions that put them in [brackets] are Moffatt N.T. 1913,  Twentieth Century N.T. 1904, Montgomery N.T. 1924,  the NRSV 1989, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2112.  

 

The ESV footnotes them saying "Some manuscripts omit verses 43 and 44."

 

The NIV footnotes: "Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44."

 

 

Luke 23:34 - "THEN SAID JESUS, FATHER, FORGIVE THEM; FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.  And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."

This is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts as well as Sinaiticus original and Sinaiticus 2nd correction, A, C, D correction, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, Q, S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Lambda, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin copies air, b, c, e, f, ff2, l, r1, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harclean, Palestinian, some Coptic Boharic and Sahidic copies and well as the ancient Armenian and Ethiopian versions.  The whole sentence was originally in the Sinaitic mss.  Then some scribe removed it, and then another scribe put the words back in the text.

However Vaticanus omits all the capital lettered words "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." But it has the rest of the verse - "And they parted his raiment, and cast lots."

Every Bible version I am aware of includes these words in Luke 23:44 but the NRSV 1989 puts them in [[double brackets]] and the Holman Standard [brackets the words] to indicate doubt as to their authenticity. The latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition and the UBS 4th edition critical texts both [[put the words in double brackets]] indicating serious doubt as to their authenticity.  So they may very well disappear from the up and coming "late$t in $cholar$hip Advance$ in the future.  Meanwhile the RSV, ESV and NIV all cast doubt as to whether or not they are God's inspired words by footnoting: "Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence."

 We see the same pattern among the Catholic versions. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the 1950 Douay and even the 1968 Jerusalem bible all include the words with NO footnotes. But then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 [bracket] the words (St. Joseph) and footnote (New Jerusalem) "This verse is retained despite its omission by some good and diverse ancient authorities."

Dan Wallace's NET version also includes the words but he has these mind numbing, typical Bible agnostic mumblings that cast doubt on whether or not these words are inspired Scripture or not. He says: "Many important mss (Ì75 ?1 B D* W ? 070 579 1241 pc sys sa) lack v. 34a. It is included in ?*,2(A) C D2 L ? 0250 Ë1,(13) 33 Ï lat syc,p,h. It also fits a major Lukan theme of forgiving the enemies (6:27-36), and it has a parallel in Stephen?s response in Acts 7:60. The lack of parallels in the other Gospels argues also for inclusion here. On the other hand, the fact of the parallel in Acts 7:60 may well have prompted early scribes to insert the saying in Luke?s Gospel alone. Further, there is the great difficulty of explaining why early and diverse witnesses lack the saying. A decision is difficult, but even those who regard the verse as inauthentic literarily often consider it to be authentic historically. For this reason it has been placed in single brackets in the translation."

In other words, maybe it is, maybe it isn't; "a decision is difficult",  it might be "literally inauthentic" but it is "historically authentic" - Say what?  As long as they can cast doubt with their "Yea, hath God said...?" footnotes, the Jesuits have accomplished their goal of overthrowing the final authority of God's words.

 

Numerous early church writers made allusion to this verse -

 

Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes: and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."[531]

 

Clementine Homily XI: prayed to the Father that the sin of those who slew Him might be forgiven, saying, `Father, forgive them their sins, for they know not what they do.'[8]

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II: For our Saviour Himself entreated His Father for those who had sinned, as it is written in the Gospel: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."[88]

 

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book V: And a little afterward, when He had cried with a loud voice, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,"[114]

 

Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: but prayed for His enemies, "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do."[82]

 

Gospel of Nicodemus I The Acts of Pilate: Then Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Father, let not this sin stand against them; for they know not what they do.[106]

 

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III: And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,"[348]

 

Of the Journeyings of Philip the Apostle: was made to drink gall and vinegar, and said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.[14]

Recognitions of Clement VI: Wherefore, in short, the Master Himself, when He was being led to the cross by those who knew Him not, prayed the Father for His murderers, and said, `Father, forgive their sin, for they know not what they do!'[7]  

All these words are found in the Latin Vulgate 405 A.D., the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi mss. Aelfric circa 1000 A.D. - " Ða cwæð se hælend. fæder. forgyf him forþam hig nyton hwæt hig doð; Soðlice hig dældon hys reaf & wurpun hlótu." Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bibld 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay Rheims 1610, and in the more modern versions like the RV, ASV, NASB (ft.), RSV, [[NRSV]], ESV (ft.), NIV (ft.), Holman (ft.), NKJV, the Modern Greek Bible with NO brackets - 

the Orthodox Jewish Bible and the Modern Hebrew Bible (again, with NO brackets) -

 

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8


ALL of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.


Will Kinney

https://webzoom.freewebs.com/brandplucked/oldest-and-best-one

Return to Articles - https://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm


The reading of ?if a son shall ask BREAD of any of you that is a father, WILL HE GIVE HIM A STONE?  OR IF HE ASK a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?? is found in the Majority of all manuscripts, and in such Bible translations as: the Anglo-Saxon Gospels Corpus Christi Manuscript circa 1000 A.D., Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor who of you axith his fadir breed, whether he schal yyue hym a stoon? or if he axith fisch, whether he schal yyue hym a serpent for the fish?", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops? Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557 - 1602, the Douay-Rheims of 1582, the King James Bible 1611, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley?s translation of 1755, Young?s, Darby, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, Lamsa?s 1936 translation of the Syriac, Weymouth Version 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the New Life Version 1969, Hebrew Names Version, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the Amplified Bible 1987 (put out by the same Lockman Foundation that prints the NASB), the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible and the Jubilee Bible 2000.



Foreign language Bibles that read the same way as the King James Bible are Jerome?s Latin translation of 382 A.D., the Latin Vulgate of 405, the Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, Cipriano de Valera Bible 1602, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 - ?¿Qué padre de vosotros, si su hijo le pide pan, le dará una piedra? ¿o si pescado, en lugar de pescado, le dará una serpiente??, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 (by the same Lockman Foundation), Luther?s German Bible 1545, the German Schlachter Bible 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the New Diodati 1991, and the 1997 La Parola e Vita - ?E chi è tra voi quel padre che, se il figlio gli chiede del PANE, gli dà una pietra? ?, the Portuguese de Almeida, the Chinese Union Traditional, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, French Ostervald 1996 - ?Qui est le père d'entre vous, qui donne à son fils une pierre, lorsqu'il lui demande du PAIN??, the Modern Greek used throughout the whole world in the Greek Orthodox churches and the Modern Hebrew New Testament and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????

 

 

 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.It?s found in Article XII - ?We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.? 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version,  Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.  It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 -"il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "???? ?? ????? ???????? ? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????????" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????"

However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, and ALL Catholic versions like the  Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

 The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  

The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no substitutes.

 

 Luke 10:1, 17 -  "How many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach, 70 or 72?"

Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God.  In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right.It?s found in Article XII - ?We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.? 

Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement.  IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth?  If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right? 

Luke 10:1, 17  KJB - "After these things the Lord appointed other SEVENTY also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come." V.17 "And the SEVENTY returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name."

ESV -  "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY TWO others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two...V.17 The SEVENTY TWO returned with joy, saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name."

The reading of SEVENTY is found in Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - "the LORDE appoynted out other seuentie, and sent them two and two before him", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "the Lord appoynted other seuentye also", the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Whitston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Worsley Version 1770,  Living Oracles 1835, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Godbey N.T. 1902, Weymouth 1912, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdock's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, NASB 1963-1995, the Holman Standard 2009, the 2007 International Standard Version,  Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Names of God Bible 2011 and The Voice 2012. 

Seventy is the reading found in the Majority of all Greek manuscripts including Sinaiticus, A, C the Old Latin f, q, r1 and the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Palestinian, Coptic Boharic, Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.  It is also so quoted by Irenaeus, Clement, Tertulian, Origen, Eusebiou, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome and Cyril. It is also the Greek text reading of the Majority text, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Greek Orthodox text, and even Tischendorf's 8th edition. 

Foreign language Bibles that also read "SEVENTY" in Luke 10:1 and 17 are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602, the Reina Valera's 1909-1995 - "el Señor designó también a otros setenta", the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - " le Seigneur en ordonna aussi soixante-dix autres", Luther's German Bible 1545 and German Schlachter bible 2000 - "HERR andere siebzig aus und sandte sie zwei ind zwei", the Portuguese Almeida -  "o Senhor outros setenta", the Italian Diodati 1991 and the Italian Riveduta Bible 2006 -"il Signore ne designò altri settanta", the Modern Greek Bible - "???? ?? ????? ???????? ? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????????" and the Modern Hebrew Bible - "????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?????"

However the Vaticanus manuscript and D read SEVENTY TWO and so the NIV, the ESV, New English Bible 1970, Common English Bible 2011, and ALL Catholic versions like the  Douay-Rheims 1582, Douay 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, St. Joseph NAB 1970, New Jerusalem bible 1985 and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - "After this the Lord appointed SEVENTY-TWO others and sent them two by two ahead of him..." (NIV). Notice that the previous RSV, NRSV went with 70, but the latest revision of the revision of the revision, the ESV, now goes with 72.

But many newer modern versions that are based on the Critical Text have gone back to the reading of SEVENTY. Among these are the NASB 1995, the Holman Standard 2009, The Voice 2012, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, the Message 2002, Names of God Bible 2011 and the International Standard Version.

 The Nestle-Aland critical Greek textbooks keep changing as well. Westcott and Hort put SEVENTY [TWO] in their text, bracketing the number [TWO]. However not even the Revised Version 1881 or the ASV of 1901 followed this reading of 72 but stayed with 70.  The Nestle Critical text 4th edition 1934 says 70 with no "two" in the text at all.  I have a hard copy of it here in my study.  But some time later the Nestle Critical text went back to putting the number [two] in brackets, indicating doubt, and this is how it stands in todays UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical textbooks.

So if all these versions are equally the inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God, how many men did the Lord Jesus send out to preach - SEVENTY or SEVENTY TWO?  It is impossible that God inspired both readings in the same place. One is right and the other is wrong.  

The King James Bible is always right.  Accept no substitutes.

 

85tc There are a number of variants at this point in the text: ??? (eis, ?to?) in ? B Ï sams syhmg;??? (apo, ?from?) in D E ? 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ?? (ex, ?from?) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? (ex Ierousalhm ei" Antioceian, ?from Jerusalem to Antioch?) in {a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala}. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons??? can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, ? and B being very strong evidence. The other readings, ?? and ???, are different from ??? yet bear essentially the same meaning as each other; this seems to suggest that scribes had problems with ??? and tried to choose an acceptable revision. If ??? is the earliest reading, ??? may be a clarification of ??, and ?? could have arisen through confusion of letters. Or ?? and ??? could both have independently arisen from ??? as a more acceptable preposition. Despite such arguments, however, the case for ??? is not airtight: either?? or ??? could be preferred on other lines of reasoning. The reading ?? enjoys the earliest support, and ??? could have arisen through the same confusion of letters mentioned above. The immediate and wider context seems to mitigate against ??? as the original reading: The aorist participle ???????????(plhrwsante", ?when they had completed?) seems to signal the end of the mission to Jerusalem with the famine relief, so it would make sense in the context for the team to be coming from Jerusalem (to Antioch) rather than to Jerusalem, and 13:1 certainly presents the scene at Antioch. The later addition ??? ??????????? after ??????????? in some mss seems to be a clarification in light of 13:1 (notice that some of the mss that read ?? add ??? ??????????? [945 1739], and some that read ??? also add ??? ??????????? [E 323 1175]). Thus, the idea of spatial separation from Jerusalem is strongly implied by the context. This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading ??? should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution.
85tc There are a number of variants at this point in the text: ??? (eis, ?to?) in ? B Ï sams syhmg;??? (apo, ?from?) in D E ? 36 323 453 614 1175 al; ?? (ex, ?from?) in Ì74 A 33 945 1739 al; ?? ??????????? ??? ??????????? (ex Ierousalhm ei" Antioceian, ?from Jerusalem to Antioch?) in {a few later manuscripts and part of the Itala}. A decision on this problem is very difficult, but for several reasons??? can be preferred. It is the most difficult reading by far in light of the context, since Paul and Barnabas were going to Jerusalem in 11:30. It is found in better witnesses, ? and B being very strong evidence. The other readings, ?? and ???, are different from ??? yet bear essentially the same meaning as each other; this seems to suggest that scribes had problems with ??? and tried to choose an acceptable revision. If ??? is the earliest reading, ??? may be a clarification of ??, and ?? could have arisen through confusion of letters. Or ?? and ??? could both have independently arisen from ??? as a more acceptable preposition. Despite such arguments, however, the case for ??? is not airtight: either?? or ??? could be preferred on other lines of reasoning. The reading ?? enjoys the earliest support, and ??? could have arisen through the same confusion of letters mentioned above. The immediate and wider context seems to mitigate against ??? as the original reading: The aorist participle ???????????(plhrwsante", ?when they had completed?) seems to signal the end of the mission to Jerusalem with the famine relief, so it would make sense in the context for the team to be coming from Jerusalem (to Antioch) rather than to Jerusalem, and 13:1 certainly presents the scene at Antioch. The later addition ??? ??????????? after ??????????? in some mss seems to be a clarification in light of 13:1 (notice that some of the mss that read ?? add ??? ??????????? [945 1739], and some that read ??? also add ??? ??????????? [E 323 1175]). Thus, the idea of spatial separation from Jerusalem is strongly implied by the context. This problem is so difficult that some scholars resort to conjectural emendation to determine the original reading. All in all, the reading ??? should be preferred as original, recognizing that there is a good measure of uncertainty with this solution
The extant New Testament of the Vaticanus contains the GospelsActs, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, ????[????); it is lacking 1 and 2 TimothyTitusPhilemon, andRevelation

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

Matthew 12:47 reads: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." This verse is found in the Majority of all texts, in Sinaiticus correction, C and D. However Vaticanus omits it.

The RV and ASV included the verse. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1952 omitted it, but the NRSV of 1989 but it back in again. But wait. Now the 2001 ESV again omits it! However the NASB, NIV, ISV, Wallace's NET version and the Holman all keep it in their texts. Some "science", huh?

Matthew 5:19:  Whoever therefore shall make void one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens.
The reading "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS" in Luke 8:43 is found in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels, Corpus Christi Manuscript 140 of 1000 A.D., Wycliffe's Bible 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "which had spent all her substaunce vpon phisicions", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599, Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley N.T. 1770, The Alford N.T. 1870, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, Darby 1890, Young's 1898, Weymouth's N.T. 1912, Godbey N.T. 1902, the Bible in Basic English 1961, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998, The Lawrie N.T. 1998, The Last Days N.T. 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Pickering N.T. 2005, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005, The Mebust Bible 2007, The Christogenea N.T. 2009, The New European Version 2010, The Jubilee Bible 2010 The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Common English Bible 2011, Lexham English Bible 2012, Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, The Work of God's Children Bible 2011, The Voice 2012, The Biblos Bible 2013, The Pioneer's N.T. 2014, The Modern Literal N.T. 2014 and The Modern English Version 2014 (just to name some of them)


All these words are also found in the Modern Greek Bible - " ???? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????",

and in the Modern Hebrew Bible - ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????

Among foreign language translations the words "WHICH SPENT ALL HER LIVING UPON PHYSICIANS? are found in the Latin Vulgate 382 A.D. -"in fluxu sanguinis ab annis duodecim quae in medicos erogaverat omnem substantiam" , Luther's German Bible 1545 and the 2000 German Schlachter Bible - "die hatte alle ihre Nahrung an die Ärzte gewandt", the Portuguese Almeida, O Livro 2000, Sagrada Biblia and NIV Portuguese edition - "E certa mulher, que tinha uma hemorragia havia doze anos e gastara com os médicos todos os seus haveres e por ninguém pudera ser curada", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera's of 1909, 1960, 1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997, and Contemporánea 2011 - "y había gastado en médicos todo lo que tenía?(but NOT the Spanish NIV), in the French Martin 1744, Ostervald 1996, Louis Segond of 1910 and 2007 - "souffrait d'hémorragies depuis 12 ans; elle avait dépensé tout son bien chez les médecins", the Russian Synodal Version 1876, the Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Italian Diodati 1649, Nuova Diodati 1991, La Paroa é Vita 1997 and Italian Riveduta 2006 - "E una donna, che aveva un flusso di sangue da dodici anni ed aveva speso con i medici tutti i suoi beni senza poter essere guarita da alcuno."


The Catholic Connection -

The Catholic Versions are all over the board, as usual. The earlier Douay-Rheims of 1582 included the words, as does the 1950 Douay Version, reading: "And there was a certain woman having an issue of blood twelve years, who had bestowed all her substance on physicians and could not be healed by any."

But then in 1968 the Catholic Jerusalem bible removed the words; then in 1970 the St. Joseph New American Bible put them back in. Then in 1985 the New Jerusalem bible took them out again; but now once more in 2009 the Sacred Bible Catholic Public Domain Version has put them back in again!

It should be obvious by this time that the multiple choice Critical Text bible editions are consistently inconsistent, and yet they are all allegedly put together by studying "the science" of textual criticism. Their "science" has nothing at all to do with "the new discovery of ancient manuscript readings" or "transcriptional probabilities" or anything remotely logical or faith based at all.

They are just guessing, changing their minds on a whim and they don't even agree with each other. What a joke! And all the while fewer and fewer Christians believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible and the Muslims, Atheists and Bible Mockers are having a Field Day of it.