earlier manuscripts. It is believed by some older manuscripts, upon which the A.V. and some other versions, added the verse to conform with Luke 19:10.The NASB includes it in brackets with a note________________God-HonoringChrist-CenteredBible-BasedSpirit-Led
I was kind of teasing there because of the way the wording of Mark’s post came across to me.It is my understanding (and this may oversimplify it) that there are two groups of manuscripts and the older ones (or you could say earlier) make up one group. The other group is not as old, but some people consider them more reliable. This second group is what the KJV came from.
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. .Agreed, many Greek scholars, especially within the educational system, maintain that they must go by the oldest known manuscripts, which is the Alexandrian text, and that the NASB has been considered as the most literal English translation.(However, there are plenty of others not convinced)There may be some merit to the climate preservation viewpoint for the Majority Text, but that, admittedly is speculative.A close comparison of the English translations reveals some significant differences and an increasing number of Pastors are returning to the KJV and NKJV.
I wouldnt think they were the older ones because the NIV goes from verse 10 to verse 12. The authors must have known something is missing. The verse number is missing because verse numbers aren’t actually in the Biblical text, they are put there to help us find things. So they simply skipped the number rather than re-number the whole thing.Here is an interesting article on the subject of NIV vs. KJV:www.anointedlinks.com/why_niv.html.________________[Jesus] will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. – Nicene Creed
Old Timer, I just want to expound on something you bring up here when you say original text. I am assuming you are referring to the Greek from whence the English is translated. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people I have met assume that original text means the original AUTOGRAPH, as in the papyrus or what-have-you that the Apostle Paul or Matthew wrote.A little over a month ago, when our pastor was talking about fasting, he claimed that the phrase in Matthew 17:21this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting was in the original text. I’m not sure what he meant (and I’m not sure he knew what he meant, either).
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV.
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. But painful for people that know English to read – thus not a popular English version.And your use of the words original text sounds like those guys saying their $500 sheepskin qualifies them to use the title Doctor.Please let us know what Paul’s handwriting looks like if you have the original text________________
Well, I git the idea, but it don’t hardly seem like at’s precisely tha right word. I reckon ya can kindly feel for the translators of the Bible, tryin ta git tha right nuance an all.
When researching for a message, I use a variety of Bible translations. However, when I preach , I usually use the New King James. When I quote from another translation, I always give the Bible I quoted from credit for the translation.About a year ago, I ministered to an Independent Baptist Church. They use the KJV only. Blessings to all!Pastors Frien________________
Instead of older mss including the passage, the earlier mss upon which AV is based include it.Other versions are based upon older mss.Sorry for the confusion. I shouldn’t write when I’m in a hurry.Also, regarding Matthew’s Gospel, there is sufficient historical and linguistic evidence to suggest the following:One, the original text of Matthew was Hebrew/Aramaic based upon Hebrew idioms, expressions and other literary devices.Two, there is an underlying oral tradition from which Matthew relied upon, which would not be uncommon for the day and thought in some cases more reliable than written texts which can (and in some cases have been) corrupted (though not intentionally)________________God-HonoringChrist-CenteredBible-BasedSpirit-Led
But KJV added it.
earlier manuscripts. It is believed by some older manuscripts, upon which the A.V. and some other versions, added the verse to conform with Luke 19:10.The NASB includes it in brackets with a note________________God-HonoringChrist-CenteredBible-BasedSpirit-Led
I was kind of teasing there because of the way the wording of Mark’s post came across to me.It is my understanding (and this may oversimplify it) that there are two groups of manuscripts and the older ones (or you could say earlier) make up one group. The other group is not as old, but some people consider them more reliable. This second group is what the KJV came from.
.This is correct. Simplified because there are volumes of info on the subject matter:There are several Greek text-types, but basically
Re: Why is Mat 18:11 Left out of some bibles?
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. .Agreed, many Greek scholars, especially within the educational system, maintain that they must go by the oldest known manuscripts, which is the Alexandrian text, and that the NASB has been considered as the most literal English translation.(However, there are plenty of others not convinced)There may be some merit to the climate preservation viewpoint for the Majority Text, but that, admittedly is speculative.A close comparison of the English translations reveals some significant differences and an increasing number of Pastors are returning to the KJV and NKJV.
I wouldnt think they were the older ones because the NIV goes from verse 10 to verse 12. The authors must have known something is missing. The verse number is missing because verse numbers aren’t actually in the Biblical text, they are put there to help us find things. So they simply skipped the number rather than re-number the whole thing.Here is an interesting article on the subject of NIV vs. KJV:www.anointedlinks.com/why_niv.html.________________[Jesus] will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. – Nicene Creed
Old Timer, I just want to expound on something you bring up here when you say original text. I am assuming you are referring to the Greek from whence the English is translated. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people I have met assume that original text means the original AUTOGRAPH, as in the papyrus or what-have-you that the Apostle Paul or Matthew wrote.A little over a month ago, when our pastor was talking about fasting, he claimed that the phrase in Matthew 17:21this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting was in the original text. I’m not sure what he meant (and I’m not sure he knew what he meant, either).
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV.
Your conclusion, Pastor Nations, while nothing wrong with it per se, is subjective at best. Most any Greek biblical scholar will tell you that the NASB is closer in accuracy to the original text than either the KJV or NKJV. But painful for people that know English to read – thus not a popular English version.And your use of the words original text sounds like those guys saying their $500 sheepskin qualifies them to use the title Doctor.Please let us know what Paul’s handwriting looks like if you have the original text________________
Well, I git the idea, but it don’t hardly seem like at’s precisely tha right word. I reckon ya can kindly feel for the translators of the Bible, tryin ta git tha right nuance an all.
When researching for a message, I use a variety of Bible translations. However, when I preach , I usually use the New King James. When I quote from another translation, I always give the Bible I quoted from credit for the translation.About a year ago, I ministered to an Independent Baptist Church. They use the KJV only. Blessings to all!Pastors Frien________________
Instead of older mss including the passage, the earlier mss upon which AV is based include it.Other versions are based upon older mss.Sorry for the confusion. I shouldn’t write when I’m in a hurry.Also, regarding Matthew’s Gospel, there is sufficient historical and linguistic evidence to suggest the following:One, the original text of Matthew was Hebrew/Aramaic based upon Hebrew idioms, expressions and other literary devices.Two, there is an underlying oral tradition from which Matthew relied upon, which would not be uncommon for the day and thought in some cases more reliable than written texts which can (and in some cases have been) corrupted (though not intentionally)________________God-HonoringChrist-CenteredBible-BasedSpirit-Led