I deeply regret telling my daughter 15 years ago, that her NIV Bible was corrupt and was missing scripture. Now she views the Bible as not infallible. I was lied to.

What happens these days is people feel so lied to, so held in contempt, by the media and academics in general - and these authorities have been caught so many times either outright lying, or shading for the benefit of an agenda - be it for personal gain or other - that these knee-jerk reactions have become the norm, instinctual, and authorities have to go a much longer way, and provide much more evidence to the contrary than in times past. That's why I so greatly appreciate your patient, thorough, and thoughtful expositions on these matters - the MOST important matter, our relationship to our God. Keep up the great work, and please don't get discouraged if those of us who are not subject-matter experts are cynical and distrusting. I have been there myself, continue to do so sometimes without realizing it, which is why what you do is so important.

The section quoting Erasmus was great. I love it when "new" issues are shown to have been addressed a long time ago.

Great point that these important topics are often over simplified. They deserve far more than a few cutting words in a sermon or memes... Thanks for all you do!

Great video Mark, very clear and through. I pray that KJO followers will honestly consider your words and your heart. Thanks brother!

So informative! Thank you for your hard work on these topics. 🙏🏼

LOL Mark, I have only recently found your channel after watching you with Sean. I LOVE your channel! It's informative and so so entertaining =) TY TY TY for all you do.

Great overview from Proverbs (hearing the matter first) and the Gospels loving your neighbor. I appreciate the way you appeal to Scripture itself, church history, and logic.

This topic started a very important journey for me. When I first got saved all I had was the little red Gideons pocket Bible with the NT and Psalms. The pastor eventually gave me an NIV which I cherished. Several years later I encountered a presentation by a man I trusted who taught about the dangers of modern translations. He showed where the NIV had "missing" verses and how certain things were different. He made it sound like I was in serious trouble for using the NIV and he was very convincing so I adopted the KJV-only position. This also caused me to go down the IFB road and started accumulating some very bad theology from the bad teachers I was listening to. This eventually lead me to James White's KJV material. I eventually dropped the KJV-onlyism and started using the NASB, and also started listening to more of James White's content. Now after about 10 years I'm Reformed. One day on the Dividing Line I saw Nathan Cravatt talking about his debate with Mitch Canupp. That lead me to the Recovering Fundamentalists podcast, which is where I discovered Mark Ward.

I think it's pretty decisive to show the history of the TR and what it's authors have to say. KJV-onlyists seem to assume the TR is the exact text written in the apostolic age just copy pasted for centuries until someone decided to change it, instead of a renaissance era critical text based on previous manuscripts just like the modern critical text, which happened to be signed during the Reformation era and thus became standard among protestants for a long time. If someone wants to argue for it, it's better not on critical or historical grounds, but theological ones saying something like "yes they're not the oldest manuscripts, but they were the ones preserved by the church so their textual tradition is normative" or something or the sort, which is how Vulgate or Septuagint defenders argue their case, although I think making this case for the TR would be harder.

Is the NIV missing verses? Yes and No. It all depends what your textual foundation is. When it comes to verses, the current NIV (actually a revised TNIV from 2005) is quite faithful to its own textual foundation, which lacks many verses found in traditional versions such as the KJV.

Great video, Mark! You never disappoint to give us 1st class content! Request: Can you do a video(s) on the TR authors, how their greek manuscripts came about, and highlights of their textual critical decisions?

I just finished Authorized. Great book brother!

Mark I appreciate your dedication in continuing to make content on this topic. I do think you are addressing an issue that is a big deal for a lot of people.

Thanks for the excellent video and for the encouragement! I always appreciate your gracious and respectful presentation of truth.

Thank you, Mark. Spoken, once again, with clarity and grace. I especially loved the Erasmus quote.

I honestly believe that you're being guided as I am and everyone who has viewed this video . Nothing is by chance. God has a perfect plan. Bravo 👏 and Thank you, Lord, for bringing brother Mark to clear out the fuzziness that sometimes appears from even the best of intentions. May God bless you and keep you Mark 🙏

I read that the longer ending of Mark was quoted by early church fathers before the date of the earliest extant manuscript of Mark. How do you answer to that? It seems like that would cast some doubt on the Alexandrian text type.

Ok. I just love this. Gave me a good chuckle. All based on truth, though. Thanks. Grew up on NIV and have a solid doctrine and understanding of Christ, his blood and his deity. Never had an issue.

Majority text shows the text was there right? We can't go by older scrolls because the ones unused and probably cause of errors will always last the longest.

I recently taught a lesson on this topic and for the lesson I used the NIV. Come to find out, nearly all the adults in class (30 or so) had a Bible that noted the verses not being in the earliest manuscripts. However, not a single person was previously aware of this before this particular sunday. It made for a very fun class and discussion, and well received. People are genuinely interested in this stuff, for good reason.

I dealt with that in Sunday school. I explained that certain verses were not found in earlier text that most modern translation uses. I told them not to worry because they can trust their translations they read and for them to read multiple translations.

The more i watch this video the more sense it makes. Very insightful. Thank you Mark 🙏

500 years after the writing of the Bible and 300 years after the canonization of the Bible, in Arabic as the original language, it is written: So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from God” - seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned. Quran 2:79 God knows what they did.

Only thing I don't like about the NIV 2011 is that they misstranslated a Hebrew word into "miscarry" in Numbers 5. The passage implies the woman would become barren. For this reason I do not and will never use the NIV2011.

Excellent! Been waiting on this for a while! I could happily attend a KJV church that said it "preferred" the KJV (or TR), or said it was "going with" the KJV (or NKJV, or TR based docs) out of an abundance of caution. I cannot attend a church where the leadership slanders modern translations and translators, and churches that go with them as heretical. That behavior reinforces the possibility they don't understand their own Bibles.

Oh, wow! Thank you for this! My ESV, NCV, NIV & NLT don’t show Matt. 18.11 (& 17.21) but a couple have notes at the bottom stating that some Greek copies added these verses.

We should be glad we have these translations. I like your channel brother! Thank you!

Another great video, Mark! I was mostly raised on the NIV and it’s still one of my favorite translations!

Whether or not the TR position is correct (I actually lean that way), accusing\ CT of removing verses is just a bad way of arguing.

A total side issue, but I look forward to someday meeting (and seeing rewarded) the countless, nameless people who hand copied the biblical texts throughout the centuries! Imagine such a task, with quill and parchment, by candlelight, many times under fear for their lives - it's extraordinary. And, again, it WAS preserved, to this day. This is God's work!

This was just what I needed - Thanks again Mark!

Thank you, Mark. Always helpful. Always edifying.

The NIV teaches the same exact Doctrine Theology and Christian practice as the KJV

I clicked on this, knowing versus were missing. I watched to confirl all the missing verses.

The KJV is missing Books. 66 today, but how many books were included in the original KJV!?

Having used the New American Standard for years, I have to say that I actually like the NIV.

Thank you for making this video! It was very helpful, especially the quotes from Erasmus and Dagg. They are surprisingly relevant to this modern debate. I also appreciate the insight about the clarity of a simplistic understanding. May God bless you and your family!

This is such a great point for the translations. Loved this video! Thank you for your wisdom!

Thank you Mark for openly discussing textual variants of the bible. Erasmus had some meaningful insights.

First step away from the TRO position was realizing that too many TR arguments were circular reasoning, and in this case we were guilty of trying to make the Bible say what we thought it ought to say in a passage, rather than letting God's Word inform our thoughts. Dear friend, harsh words aren't your style, but I know in walking away from the TR Only tradition, I had to cry some tears of repentance over specific statements I made about other translations, it was an insult to the Word of God. If something ever comes off as harsh it may be needed. Textual criticism was a good introduction to abductive reasoning. Good video.

This is a solid video on an important subject, complete with the academic nuance and texture vitally necessary for such an important subject. Well done Mark - keep up the great work! 🙂

9:34 Thank you for the side by side comparison of TR / CT!

The thing that drove me AWAY from the NIV is when I looked up Peter's dream in one of them, (I don't know which edition it was), and it ADDED interpretation to a verse saying something like, "and by this God showed Peter that all foods are clean to eat" (or something to that effect). I have a BIG problem with that, as I do NOT see Peter's dream as even being ABOUT what to eat or not eat, especially when Peter himself later in the same chapter, who was confused by the dream at first, concluded that it was about PEOPLE, not food. I have noticed that some NIVs do not add that line anymore and have no idea if that was just one edition of it or not.

The NASB95 actually has the "missing" verses in text.

Wow! Thank you so much for this. I began true Bible study with some friends using my NIV1984 Bible. I was saved reading that Bible version. Then some KJV Onlyists came along, confused me and stated that I was using a perverted Bible. I could never get a handle on the KJV Bible rendering of the text no matter how hard I tried. I was that kid who struggled with reading comprehension well into adulthood. Even in college I had to work 3x harder than my peers because of my weak reading comprehension. I wanted to read the Bible and understand it. I was introduced to the NIV, and reading that version was enjoyable for me. I had my struggles in certain areas, but nothing compared to the KJV. My husband’s native language isn’t English, and he says that it isn’t fair that these people (KJV Onlyists) condemn you for reading a version other than the KJV. It’s a shame!

I’m very glad to hear the in depth history of the various manuscripts. I’m thankful for the good translations we have. Not all of them are good but there’s life outside the KJV.

Regarding your point #3, I have two questions: 1) Are the variants found within the TR similar in nature to the variants you gave in your point #1? Do these TR variants merely used different words, or do they exclude whole verses? 2) Are the men you are quoting and their concern for variant readings a concern for words or whole verses?

Thank you brother Mark The KJV only position is FULL of faulty logic..the knife cuts both ways: NIV missing verses??? Oh really!!! KJV adding verses!!! The real question is: 1 . What did the inspired apostles write? 2. Which are the better GK Mss for any PARTICULAR verse? Brother Mark Ward is spot on!!! God bless

“The shallows are always clear” is metaphorically analogous to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I think I’m going to use that from now on.

Hey Mark! Do you have a video where you talk about the CT bibles having a different reading in Mark 1:2 verses the TR Bibles? The NIV reads a quote from Mark but it says it’s from Isaiah, when the quote is actually from Malachi. I’m assuming it’s a similar issue to where in the KJV (and other translations) that say they quote from Jeremiah in Matthew 2 and Matthew 27, but the quote is actually from Zechariah. SOME scholars I’ve read from say that some of the early manuscripts were grouped under a single name, such as Isaiah, and it included more than just Isaiah’s writings, but it carried his name over the entirely of the scroll. Care to comment or point me in a good direction?

This is very helpful. It clears the confusion.

Thank you Mark for this explanation. This showed me just how fast people will spread false news, without even trying to prove it to be facts. I feel more confident in my NIV Bible 👍🏾

King James only might be too dogmatic, but removing verses is a problem, honestly or good intentions. Maybe in the footnotes placing verses is better than not. One version I saw didn't even do that. Some rewording that changes oviparous Deity wording would be a problem, even if the excuse being two manuscripts disagree with KJV. I would side on the Deity version.

the takeaway from watching this video is that we should be gracious with people we disagree with and hold our ridgid beliefs loosly as we keep studying in humility. disagreements need not divide us necessarily but launch us into deeper study.

Matthew 5:18, Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. This verse isn't about translation.

Excellent stuff. Folks are afraid that people will lose faith when they learn about variants. Truth is they will lose faith when they learn you have been concealing evidence about variants. J. Warner Wallace has some good stuff about variants on KZfaq.

Thanks Mark. I so agree with your points. Especially asking people not to create distrust in the Bible 🙏🏻

Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture (most likely the LXX), preached Jesus to him. Philip didn't say you have close but erroneous translation. No, using the version at hand, he shared the Good News. Though our words change somewhat, God's Word is the same.

You are appreciated brother Mark. I have a few concerns. 1. You seem to imply perfection is determined by an exact copy (no variation) of the original (autograph). - Without an extant copy of the original (autograph) how could perfection or imperfection ever be determined today? 2. You seem to imply that variance is proof of imperfection. - Yet there are distinguishable variances in copies of the 10 Commandments (Exodus vs Deuteronomy, what & how the prophets, Jesus & the apostles quote the 10 Commandments), quotes of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament, and variance in the words of Christ as reported by the Apostles, i.e. the wicked 𝘰𝘯𝘦 (Mt 13:19), Satan (Mk 4:15), the devil (Lk 8:12). 3. You seem to imply that the Church of God must determine what is and what is not (missing or added) in the written word of God (Scriptures, the Bible) by the opinions of conservative scholars using the latest axioms of textual criticism. Those opinions are filled with variances! What now? Feel free to correct any misunderstanding of your position that I may have. Could you give some Scriptures that teach us how the Church of God should recognize what is and what is not (added/missing) the written word of God? What danger is the Church of God in if it believes and preaches all the additions (as opined by some conservative scholars today) as the very word of God? I realize this is probably not the best medium to discuss these matters. I will say that we probably agree on more things than we disagree.

Thank you for making that website, I've always wanted to know all those differences. Would be amazing if someone do the same with the spanish versions of Reina Valera and the NBLA or the NVI versions in spanish.

Here are some phrases and sentences missing from the NIV (supplied in brackets from the Knox Bible): Acts 5.15: As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by [and so they would be healed of their infirmities.] Acts 15.32-34: Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [But Silas had a mind to remain there; so Judas went back alone to Jerusalem.] Acts 15.41: He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches [and bidding them observe the commands which the apostles and presbyters had given.] Acts 18.4: Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks [by confronting them with the name of the Lord Jesus.] Acts 23.23-25: Then he called two of his centurions and ordered them, “Get ready a detachment of two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen and two hundred spearmen to go to Caesarea at nine tonight. Provide horses for Paul so that he may be taken safely to Governor Felix.” [He was afraid that the Jews might seize on Paul and kill him; and that he himself might be falsely accused of taking a bribe from them.] He wrote a letter as follows: Romans 4.5: However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness [according to God’s gracious plan.] Romans 12.17: Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone [as well as in God’s.] 1 Corinthians 16.19: The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. [It is with them I am lodging.] Jude 1.24-25: To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy [when our Lord Jesus Christ comes] - to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. Can you imagine leaving these lines out? What were the translators of the NIV--and the KJV, for that matter--thinking when they overlooked these perfectly good verse readings from the most trusted and beloved Bible translation in Christian history, the Vulgate? Did they think they knew better than the devoted Christians who had been using the Latin version for a millennium? 😛

I am in general agreement with you here. The Body of Christ would be much better served if those on both sides of the issue would point out the agreement of the texts. The only thing I would disagree with is, at the end, when you asked are there missing verses in the NIV? You said no. I would say maybe. So are there added verses in the KJV? Maybe.

I was reading in John 21:5 this morning in the NKJV and the translators substituted "food" for what the KJV translators used, "Meat" for.... I can't believe they'd do this....... the NKJV translators must have been vegans! Unbelievable and unconscionable that they'd do this!

It amazes me that a person can argue that two texts found in the 1800's, arguably dated as older than the majority texts, are more accurate than the majority text. Older doesn't mean more accurate.

NIV authors tried so hard to make it easy to read, they heretically engaged in a lot of interpreting instead of faithfully translating, as the KJV translators did!

No one is saved by what English Bible translation they use, but by Jesus Christ, the Savior, alone. And the part about having their name removed from the book of life (Rev. 22:19) is an error inserted into the Textus Receptus from Erasmus' Greek Text, because he only one copy of Revelation and it was missing the last ten or so verses of chapter 22, which made him have to back-translate from a Latin version that had "book of life" where "tree of life" should be as it is in all other copies that precede his copy. The words in Greek for "tree of life" and "book of life" can appear similar, and so a previous scribe, probably working by dim candlelight with tired eyes, translated it as "book of life" by accident. The Bible is clear that nothing can cause a person to have their salvation taken away, which is what someone's name taken out of the book of life would mean. The actual correct translation, "tree of life", makes sense because not only is the "tree of life" mentioned not long before v. 19 but having one's part taken away from the tree of life in the new Jerusalem is a disciplinary action but not one that takes away someone's eternal life/salvation.

I grew up in a KJV-only church full of wonderful, theologically conservative, God-fearing people who I love dearly. I don't agree with their stances on scripture translation and I do my personal study out of the CSB. That said, if I'm having discussions about scripture with them, I just use the KJV for that conversation. It's not a matter that I think is worth getting into an argument with a fellow believer over, and if I'm in a situation where I know the use of a non-KJV translation is going to be a needless distraction, I just use the KJV. All that being said, there is one question that I've asked of some of my KJV-only peers which I've never even gotten an attempt at an answer to - why not the Geneva Bible? Every single argument I've ever heard in favor of the KJV applies equally to the Geneva Bible, and yet the KJV is still supposedly the only inspired Word in English. I guess nobody before 1611 had the privilege of knowing Christ.... I have a working theory about KJV-onlyism, and that theory is that deep down inside, it stems from the same place as churches who worship exclusively with old hymns, not as a matter of preference but as a matter of doctrine. That theory is that people grew up with something, they are familiar with that thing, and so they latch onto whatever they can find to make their preference into the "objectively correct" way of doing things.

The word of God tells us not to follow blindly. As I see that happening on this board. Mat 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

It’s my understanding that KJV comes from Antioch/byzantine where the church was established … and the Critical text came from Alexandria Egypt Also that Westcott & Hort had bad theology And that the “Older manuscripts = Better” argument just doesn’t make sense as unused documents will outlast daily handled documents 9/10 Also, im having trouble reconciling the rules of textual criticism, e.g., the “harder reading is preferred” I love your channel and content. Just got these questions still… Great job. Ps. I use the KJVER from Whitaker House publishing .. they have underlined & provided definitions for archaic words in their Bibles .. I also use the King James version, new, living translation, amplified, even The Message Bible when i wanna half listen and drive and various dramatized version, including the Bible Experience NIV

This is so great, thank you!! I have wondered about this forever. I definitely wish I knew Hebrew and Greek but I'm just not there (maybe after I finish homeschooling my three kids? 🤔😉) I really appreciate all your hard work! Thank you for addressing this!

Thanks very much for a very clear explanation of the amount of errors in the original 5,000 plus manuscripts - and that those errors are inconsequential - or very slight in that the essential text is not turned in it’s head and in fact very very similar and accurate - as accurate as thousands of differing manuscripts can be - but still a miracle that they are so similar. I actually felt guilty at one stage after I bought my ESV expositional commentaries after being told I bought into an inferior translation. I now know better and your video makes it again clear - thank/you

Mark you failed to rightly divide ( 2 Timothy 2:15 orthotomeo means to cut straight)The warning in Revelation 20:19 is talking about the book of Revelation.

I have been studying this topic for weeks, and you seem to be the only person that looks at it from a neutral, non-offending perspective. Can you please tell me if “ god breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) is how it is translated from Greek, or is that us putting our own spin on it? Because I love how that verse reads in NIV , but I want to accurately quote it as possible Thank you for all your work.

Thankful Jesus has me covered. I was saved reading the NIV translation. Acting like a Calvinist isn’t an answer. Why not redirect your energy into saving people?

Beautiful. A video on translations methods would be most welcomed. Thank you.

Could you answer a question that I have please. Rev 13;16 KJV And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: The modern versions say on, not in. Which is correct as this is a reason for debate and division. Thank you for your time. I am hoping that you can help with this question.

without your works and by your works are quire big diffrences regarding one says works DONT count and another says they DO count.

In point one, the translation usually says law as you show here. Law, to a Jewish person in first century meant Torah. What we call pentetuc. So e also thought of prohets and writings, but most would go for the five books of Torah

Sounds like my grandmother. I don’t think there’s anything I can say.

Re your clear shallow water illustration: Once in time past, there was a small lake near a major source of acid rain. Some folk found they could see tiny details 20 feet down in the water. Later learned the water was so very clear, because the low pH had killed all life in it. The lake was dead! :--}>

The massive problem your defining time 1:36 exist so now what

I believe that God was very intentional to ensure that there were many different textual variations, and even translations. I think that’s how God wanted it to be because I believe God’s Word is the message and not the letter.

They do remove and change verses. And oldest isn't always best.

Loosed from our sin VS Cleansed of our sin, is a good example of a slight Greek transcription error. 🕊️

Below, you'll find the timestamps to each part of my assertion. (This sentence removed at the request of Dr Mark Ward.) The whole context of your video and your point #1 is that of WHOLE VERSES being removed or added. Your title says "Is the NIV Missing *Verses* ? Your point #1 at 2:42 asserts the vast majority of faithful evangelical Christians who believe the Bible and read Greek think that the KJV has extra *VERSES* not that the modern versions have missing *ones* . You repeat this at the conclusion of your point #1 at timestamp 13:45. What we would expect from an honest treatment of the subject is an argument that actually dealt with whole verses. Rather, you discuss the nature of New Testament manuscript variants that are a distinction without a difference. Lets look at all the variants you mentioned to see if you are actually talking about whole verses or individual words: 5:45 "for" vs ""concerning" 7:30 "saw" vs "found" 10:32 "blood of bulls and goats" vs "blood of goats and bulls" 12:58 "he" vs "Jesus" 13:30 "shall cover" vs "covereth" After arguing all of these variants (distinctions without difference), you CONCLUDE with the assertion that many believe the the KJV has added VERSES to the text. Not one of your examples deals with a textual variant regarding a whole verse. All of your examples deal with variant words. Thus, your conclusion that the KJV has added VERSES to the text DOES NOT FOLLOW from your argumentation. You have only discussed variant readings. You have not discussed the addition or removal of WHOLE VERSES, which is the context of the video and the assertion in your point #1. Your only argument that the KJV has added VERSES to the Bible is the example where the KJV translated "Jesus" instead of "he". I expect better argumentation from you Dr Friend. Title of Video: Is the NIV missing verses? 0:00 Is the NIV missing verses? 0:11 Portions and full verses missing! 0:29 - 1:50 Your asserted context here is missing WHOLE verses; mentioned 5 times and with a picture of a bible with missing verses. 2:41 The KJV has extra verses; the modern versions do not have missing verses. 5:45 The actually differences between these two sets of manuscripts are outweighed by their similarities and the actual differences are very minor such as the difference between "for" (tr) and "concerning" (ct). 7:30 Another example of a minor variation between "saw" (tr) and "found" (ct) 8:35 Whether the church prayed "for" or "concerning Peter is a distinction without a difference. 8:40 The vast, vast majority of differences among Biblical manuscripts are like that one (the difference between "for" and "concerning"), inconsequential. You've built a whole website demonstrating this vast inconsequentialness of these variations. 10:03 We have somewhere around 5000 handwritten copies of various portions of the New Testament...and none of them of any size is exactly the same as any other. Before you translate into English, you have to decide which variant you are going to go with. 10:32 Another random example of a variant you have to choose "blood of bulls and goats" or "blood of goats and bulls". 12:58 the KJV tended to mildly expand and clarify the text by naming a person, for example instead of using a pronoun like replacing "he" with "Jesus". So, for people who study these things the KJV is, in a sense, adding to God's word. 13:22 modern translators attempting to weed out extraneous words that have crept into the Greek New Testament manuscript tradition TO COME UP WITH THE BEST CHOICE OF THE BEST VARIANT. 13:30 another variant example "shall cover" vs "covereth" 13:45 You may want to stick to the tried and true,the choices made by the KJV translators... but at least be aware that the vast majority of faithful evangelical Christians who believe the Bible and read Greek think that the King James has some extra verses in it; not that the modern versions have missing verses. Edit: I haven't yet listened to your points 2 & 3. Edit: I have listened to your point #2. I'm not a KJVO and so I have no problem with your point #2. But your point #2 doesn't really address the question of missing verses in the modern translations and so is irrelevant to the discussion of that topic. Edit: I've finished point #3. I see no evidence that the KJV added WHOLE VERSES to its translations based on the variant readings of the TR. You gave not evidence of the sort; only that there were variant readings within the TR, which is not news.

One thing is was curious about is if you speak the Greek and Hebrew languages fluently?

The greatest part of this is to show the necessity of studying ancient texts, instead of relying only on one 'translation'. God knew in allowing His word to be placed in such debates on which is better only sharpens our desires to know the infallible word of God in all of its variations - truly the best translation is the one which follow wholeheartedly to glorify Christ in our lives. The Christian is thus called to be the best translation so that all can easily read the words of Christ from both actions and speech. May we all follow, as Paul follow me as I follow Christ!

So helpful

Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance", any translation taking out "to repentance"(all but KJV and NKJV) at the end is a pretty big deal... A salvation issue...

Thank you for this in-depth explanation.

There are 8,000 differences between New modern versions from the Geneva Bible- King James Bible. Textus Receptus Vs Alexandria text, Sinicitus, vaticanus. Why would Elohim want to change His. Word. Deut 4v2, Pro 30v6 and Rev 22v18n19. Matthew 4v4 Luke 4v4 Every word of Elohim.

Superb take of the issue! Pastor Mark - there are just translations that are worrisome (The Message and that of the Jehovah's Witnesses' which anybody can grab in the open market). Can you please give more clarity on why people must avoid these translations?

HA! I used the same Dagg quote in my midweek Bible study, June 2022. 👊🏼

i think the overal message is right: no translation is perfect and even if it where, the original texts aren't perfect since oral traditions and third party witnesses played a role in writing them. What matters is the soul of what's written, which is pretty universally understood anyway. So we might just be nitpicking over stuff that doesn't matter at all and only subtracts from the message of God.

I appreciate your videos. I am a KJV guy but most people at my church use ESV. My problem is not with individual words, even KJV users can disagree on meanings and doctrines. More importantly are the whole verses that are "missing" (added, according to CT). I've heard it said plenty that this verse is not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts but I have yet to see any actual analysis of the varying manuscripts. Even on your website, you show the variations but no comparison of the manuscripts. Please, can you give a detailed explanation on just one verse, like Mat 18:11, and show the manuscripts. Many scholars before Wescott knew there were variations in manuscripts, like Dagg, but did they actually support what you say that these verses were additions and should be removed from our bibles? Prior to him, John Gill was aware of variations but was certain these "additions" actually belonged. You seem very sincere in your approach and your love of Christ. May God bless you and use you to further the gospel.

Would it be safe to say if Acts 8:37 (the eunuch’s confession) was not there originally, confession can be found in other Scriptures- to know that confession of Christ is necessary?

The shallows are not always clear. That's how crocodiles get so close to their prey, before striking.

I enjoyed this discussion, thank you. After my rebirth into Jesus Christ, I developed an insatiable hunger for the gospel. I have an embarassing number of the authorized editions, and I study through at least 3-5 translations. What I truly love is what God has done to "open the eyes of my heart" which is the way to understand. I really love everything from the poetry of the 1611 KJV, to the paraphrase of the NLT. ❤ and I have a copy of George Lamas' Peshitta.

What about the Majority Text