This Bible's no good. I want my money back!

A Christian discovers his new Bible is missing a key verse. From "Look What's Missing" by David W. Daniels.

Book available at www.chick.com or www.amazon.com.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bible
• baptism
• baptize
• missing words
• modern Bible
• KJV
• King James Bible
• God's Word
• Look What's MIssing
• Acts 8:37
• Did Jesus Lie?
• Bible party
• This Bible's no good
• I want my money back
• Chick Publications
• Is hell missing

[jhfoote9]

@rodwyr The KJV shows no footnotes or marginal notes because they have ommitted them. If you look at the facimilie bibles you will see where the King James translators couldnt agree on which words to use. I believe the KJV is the best bible and has done the greatest good for english christendom. But perfect as this man believes no.

[r0baa]

my bible has that verse. whoop whoop

[rodwyr]

@BLCFrenzy

In regards to omitted passages or sections, Mark 16:9-20. The KJV shows no footnotes, but I have a copy of an NASB. It shows verses 9-20, but adds a footnote in the margin showing that later manuscripts add these verses. As I said before, both the KJV committee and the committees of the modern translations strove to achieve the same goal...the most accurate translation possible, with the most available manuscripts, in the language of today.

[rodwyr]

@BLCFrenzy

Sorry for the ambiguity on the last post. Stars, brackets, or what-have-you, I've seen in the modern translations, not necessarily the KJV. I have a KJV that uses numbers, like the modern translations, showing a more literal translation or a different way of translating a word or phrase. One example in my copy of the KJV in Mark 16:14. Ex. "Afterward he appeared to the eleven as they sat (1)at meat..." In the center column, it shows (1)together. There are other examples, too.

[BLCFrenzy]

To rodwyr - Apples and Oranges. When the KJV uses notes and letters, it is for cross referencing. When Modern Translations use the same it is because they are pointing out the keys that have been omitted. If there are stars or letters inndicating that the KJV has omitted scripture, then it is up to you to prove it - in the words of my football coach, "Put up or shut up." The KJV I have and read uses letters for cross references, not omissions. Per your claim, put up the proof.

[rodwyr]

@BLCFrenzy

Not as big as you might think. I've seen in both the KJV and the modern versions use numbers and letters to indicate other points. Numbers used to indicate another way to translate the word(s) and letters to indicate other passages to look at. Even seen something like stars or other indicators to indicate whether some manuscripts added or omitted parts. Either way, there are indicators to the footnotes.

[BLCFrenzy]

@rodwyr - It makes a difference, friend. If it isn't quoted or placed in line like the Authorized King James Version, it is easily passed over, easily omitted. However, if it is entered in-line, it is usually read, italics notwithstanding. The Originals error may be "noted", but they are not corrected. Big difference...

[rodwyr]

@SamuelinDetroit

The footnotes in the modern translations give the same testimony of the honesty of the translators. I never had a problem with the KJV's usage of the italicized words, and I never had a problem with footnotes in the modern translations. It's all about showing all of the evidence available, nothing more.

"Originals" error noted. No biggie. It happens, brother. I've done it, too.

[SamuelinDetroit]

@rodwyr (Italic 2) Second is a selection of words that may have been missing in some of the Greek manuscripts they had in that time but they had evidence from other languages. This suggests that that missing words were errors made by the person copying the manuscript.

**Sorry, I noticed an error in my last post referring to manuscripts that the translators had as "originals". Of course they were not the original penned manuscripts.

[SamuelinDetroit]

@rodwyr (Italic 1) The italicized words in the KJV is NOT like the footnotes in the modern versions. They are actually a testimony of the honesty of the translators. Two different scenarios are available. First scenario is some words were needed for the sentence structure of the English language to make sense. But as these words were not in directly in the originals the translators italicized them to differentiate them. (continue to Italic 2)