The repetitious deletion of words, phrases, and sentences from the modern versions is an overwhelming indictment against their supposed reliability as faithful translations of God's Word in English. Why were these 17 words bracketed or snatched from the pages of God's Word? The New American Bible gives us the answer in a footnote: "This verse...is omitted in the best manuscripts. It was probably added by copyists under the influence of Mt.6:15." So-called "scholars" repeatedly rely on conjecture, guesses, and "probability thinking" to defend their shortened Greek text. We hate to think of what these men will do to the English translation of the Bible in the next one hundred years as they continue to labor to produce a stream-lined text that is suitable to a theology based on the lowest common denominator.
It is well-known by seminary students that the book of Daniel is greatly maligned by liberal scholarship, many of whom state that Daniel was not the author of the book. The hypothesis is that the contents were passed down for several hundred years via oral tradition, and then later committed to writing around 165 B.C. Such critics are led to these assertions because of their vehement denial of the prophetical forecasts that are related in such detail by Daniel. They simply will not believe that Daniel's prophecies could have been written down beforehand with such marvelous precision, rather choosing to believe that a later writer (or redactors) penned these visions and revelations after they had come to pass. Unbelieving scholarship simply refuses to believe in the supernatural element of revelation. Because of their naturalistic presumptions, they reject the authenticity of prophetical predictions that were given by divine omniscience.
Understanding the bias of liberal scholarship, should we be surprised to discover that the Greek text that liberals produced chose to excise the words of Jesus that support Daniel's authorship of his book? The words of the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the KJV make it clear that the Son of God believed that Daniel was the author of the book that bears his name. Incredibly, when the authoritative statements of Christ disagree with the beliefs of agnostics, these men have the audacity to delete his words from both their Greek and English texts. One thing should becoming clear to the reader of these articles on the translational differences: The repeated deletions of the modern translations support the beliefs and teachings of higher criticism, causing these new versions to line up with the unbelieving assertions of textual critics who reject the Bible as a supernatural book. The omission of these six words, "spoken of by Daniel the prophet," undermine the authoritative statements of Jesus Christ, and call into question his omniscience in textual matters.
We trust that the reader understands the importance of retaining the words in Mark 13:14 that are found in the majority of Greek texts that are in existence today. Please realize that liberal scholars would be most comfortable in using the NIV, NAB, or NWT translation since they agree with the assertions of "doctors" in higher places of learning. However, those same men would reject the King James Version rendering since it conflicts with their own naturalistic assumptions. Who will you believe? Who will you rely upon as your infallible guide? The Lord Jesus, or men who question the deity of Christ?
Suffice it to say that the promoters of the NIV are continually in league with the bibles of Rome and Brooklyn, i.e., the Catholic and Kingdom Hall translations. The NAS repeatedly forces its readership to act as textual critics and make a decision on the validity of a passage. The NAS states in a sidenote: "Many mss. do not contain this verse". Thus, the verse becomes suspect and doubtful to the reader since it was placed in brackets. Perhaps the reader should get a bottle of "white-out" and remove the verse. But no, the easier thing to do is to purchase a copy of the NIV, NAB, or NWT since they have already done the kindness of removing the verse.
Does it matter that the newer translations have just deleted fourteen more words from the "bibles" of modern-day Protestants? It doesn't matter at all if evangelicals want to create organizational unity with all denominations, including Rome! There could not be a better way to produce such a oneness
than by manufacturing Catholic and Protestant translations that are in essential agreement since they are based on the same Greek text, both deleting the same words, phrases, and verses from their versions. Commonality in translations leads to commonality in practices and doctrines.
This lengthy portion is found in all of the translations, but its authenticity has been repeatedly questioned and even denied by liberal scholars. Should we be surprised to find this conclusion of the Gospel of Mark disputed by the modern translations?
Let us consider the respective remarks of each of the new translations concerning Mark 16:9-20. The NAS states in a sidenote: "Some of the oldest mss. do not contain vv.9-20". As is the usual custom of the NAS when it questions the reliability of a disputed passage, this context is set off by brackets. Interestingly, the NAS also adds a little paragraph after Mark 16:20 to complete the Gospel of Mark: "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation". Their defense for this inclusion is found in a sidenote: "A few later mss. and versions contain this paragraph, usually after v.8; a few have it at the end of ch". What is the reader of the NAS to decide? Should they reject both passages, accept both passages, or believe one and refuse the other? Apparently, that is left up to the reader to determine.
Considering the NIV, the reader will notice that there is a solid line after Mark 16:8, followed by this heading above vv.9-20: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". If the most reliable manuscripts do not contain these verses, then why did the NIV translators choose to retain them? Perhaps they realized that Mark 16:8 does not give a fitting conclusion to the Gospel: "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Like the women who were bewildered in this verse, so the Bible reader would experience bewilderment at the abrupt conclusion of Mark's Gospel at such a point.
As one would expect, the NAB of Rome questions the authenticity of this passage by placing it in brackets, just as the NAS does. However, in a sidenote we find this statement: "This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent..." We wonder why the passage was set off in brackets if the pronouncements of the Council of Trent are to be considered as authoritative? The NAB also adds the short paragraph after Mark 16:20.
The NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses contain both the Longer and Shorter conclusions. Their "scholars" admit that "certain ancient manuscripts and versions add the following long conclusion" (Mark 16:9-20), but state that certain manuscripts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the verses.
For those who are interested in pursuing the evidence for this disputed passage to determine its authenticity, the reader should study The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark by John W. Burgon. This great champion of the Received Text gives irrefutable evidence that proves the reliability of this portion of God's Word, amassing a great body of witnesses from available manuscripts, lectionaries, and citations of church fathers. Noone from the liberal camp has ever tried to refute this book, for its evidence cannot be negated.
Instead of a deletion in the newer translations, in this verse we discover a change. The KJV speaks of "Joseph," while the other versions speak of Jesus' "father." In one sense, Joseph could be referred to as the "father" of Jesus since he served as his guardian, just as many stepfathers are called "father" by their stepchildren. However, properly speaking, Joseph was not the father of Jesus since Mary conceived the Child supernaturally.
These things being true, does it really matter that the modern translations have "father" while the KJV has "Joseph"? Is this not simply splitting hairs semantically? James White feels that KJV advocates need to remain quiet on the differences in this verse since in Luke 2:48 Mary speaks to Jesus with the following words in the KJV: "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Differing with White, we would point out that in Luke 2:48 we have the statement of Mary (faithfully recorded by Luke) calling Joseph the "father" of Jesus, while Luke 2:33 is a factual statement made by Luke, a penman inspired by the Holy Spirit. In the latter verse, Luke was careful to write "Joseph," not "father."
We notice the dilemma that James White and others of his persuasion face when comparing the various translations with the KJV: They find themselves in the uncomfortable situation of having to repeatedly come up with "defenses" for the new Greek text that has hundreds of deletions in its pages. The obvious truth is that the new Greek text (with its corresponding translations) exonerates the liberal beliefs of textual critics and theologians who disagree with the doctrinal tenets of conservatives. Luke 2:33 in the newer translations, standing on its own, would clearly cause liberals to nod in agreement with its statement that Joseph was the father of Jesus, while conservatives would feel uneasy over this apparent surrender of the uniqueness of Jesus' conception. Standing by itself, the newer translations would lead one to think that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, a thought that many agnostics and liberal theologians would have no problem swallowing. Again, White and his cohorts always have to resort to the argument that the deletion is found elsewhere in the New Testament, or as in this verse, they must utilize other verses to defend the change in the Greek text. So Mary called Joseph the "father" of Jesus in Luke 2:48?! That was the statement of Mary, who was not speaking theologically or narratively, but from her heart of concern over the loss of their child. However, Luke was writing narrative in 2:33, and was theologically correct when he stated that Joseph and his mother marveled. We would ask White this question: Who decided to change the Greek text from "Joseph" to "father"? What was their motivation? Did they not know that such a change could be interpreted to mean that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus? Did they not realize that this "little" change could possibly be understood to denude the virgin birth of any reality? Just as the little foxes destroy the vineyard (S.S.2:15), so the little changes in the Greek text destroy the foundations of Christology and other doctrines. The changes may seem subtle and inconsequential, but over time the foundations are destroyed.
In the light of the hundreds of deletions found in the Nestle/Aland Greek text, it is not surprising to discover the vanishing act of these six words in the newer translations. The new Greek text that was initiated in the 1870's was created by unbelieving textual critics who viewed the Bible as they would any other book, except for a few good men who served on the committee. We would have been surprised if we did not find some phrase or verse related to verbal inspiration quietly expunged from the text. In Luke 4:4, we find just such an attack on verbal inspiration. Naturalistic critics put their axes to the root of the tree of God's revelation.
Interestingly, not one of the modern translations so much as mentioned in a sidenote that these words were found in "some" or "many" manuscripts. "Mum" was the word when this phrase was deleted from the newer versions. Again, the average reader of these translations would never even be aware that six words were missing from their text that were read by all of our Protestant and Baptist forefathers! We grow weary of considering the plastic and indefensible arguments of those who seek to defend these repeated erasures. If this deletion is not an attack on the doctrine of verbal inspiration, then pray tell what is?! James White and D.A. Carson both chose to ignore this deletion in their respective books defending the newer versions. One has to pity such spokesmen who seek to defend a corrupted text, much as one pities a political spokesman who is repeatedly having to defend a superior for his illegal actions. Such activities make for "hard rowing"!
This statement by Jesus, a quote from Deuteronomy 8:3, reveals his belief in the importance of every word of Scripture. You may recall his statement in Matthew 5:18: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The beliefs of the Son of God are rejected by unbelieving scholars who feel at liberty to correct the text by omitting important words whenever it suits their fancy. An awful judgment awaits those who have tampered with the Holy Bible, wresting the words of inspiration to align with their pernicious beliefs. How can those who use modern translations remain indifferent to the verifiable omissions found in their "bibles"? If these six words were the only deletions found in their entire Bible, would that not be enough to make one abandon such an abbreviated text? Do they not realize that when allowances are made for dissecting God's Word via the scalpels of liberals, that the Pandora's box of agnosticism will be opened, never to be shut again? Once apathy has allowed liberals to get their feet inside the doors of the church, it is almost next to impossible to eradicate their injurious workings.
As in the preceding verse that was discussed, so in Luke 4:8 the modern translations make no reference whatsoever concerning the deletion that takes place in this verse. And again, James White and D.A. Carson both fail to discuss this deletion in their books defending the newer translations. Striking the same string over and over, we would have thought that White would have said that evangelicals should not be troubled by this deletion since it is found elsewhere, in one of the other gospels. Perhaps he did not want to draw attention to too many deletions, since some might become suspicious by the seemingly unending number of words that have disappeared from the modern translations. So, once again, the text is abbreviated to line up with a few corrupted Greek manuscripts. In this instance, it was necessary to eradicate five words.
The obvious difference between the KJV rendering and the translation of the other versions may seem insignificant to most observers. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that there is a definite discrepancy between the two Greek texts being utilized for translation work. Only one can be right! The fact of the matter is that only three codices and a handful of questionable cursives support the rendering given by the new translations (see Revision Revised by John Burgon, p.74). Burgon refers to the mutilation of the text by a few corrupt manuscripts, which just happen to be the texts utilized by all of the modern translations.
Why did the words in this verse, "on the second sabbath after the first," which found universal acceptance in all of the other manuscripts of the past, find itself deleted in our generation? The answer is because of textual critics who rely almost solely on a few depraved Greek texts to serve as their authorities. Consider the following words from the pen of Dean John Burgon: "But indeed, mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex Vaticanus (collated with the traditional text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex Sinaiticus, --3455 words: by codex Bezae, --3704 words." Only by deception and indifference can evangelicals continue to use modern versions that repeatedly abbreviate the text.
Mathematicians of a young age can easily deduce that some twelve words found in the KJV are missing in the modern translations. It is obvious that the KJV rendering provides continuity and makes good sense to complete the answer of Peter and the others. Without any doubt, Jesus realized that the crowds were pressing in upon him, without Peter making mention of that fact. But the last six words of Peter are what give the verse sense or meaning: ...and sayest thou, Who touched me?? Why did the naturalistic critics choose to delete these words, realizing that the depravation would cause the statement of Peter to be left "hanging in the air"? The reader can only be perplexed when he espies that these repeated deletions lead to confusion and disharmony.
Twenty-nine words that are found in the KJV are placed in brackets by the NAS, thereby questioning their reliability, while the NIV places the words in a footnote, informing the reader that "some" manuscripts contain the words that were removed from the text. My friend, we are not at liberty to delete any word that was given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, let alone some 29 words that clearly delineate Christ's doctrine of the atonement. His purpose in coming was to "save" men from destruction. Like the Pharisees of old, modern men do not care for the notion that they need to be saved from sin, at least not by the shedding of blood. Thus, they brashly take out their textual erasers and remove any words that are offensive to "intellectuals." Those who endearingly hold to the NIV as the best bible available in our day are once again confronted with this notorious fact: The NIV lines up with the Catholic and Jehovah's Witnesses bibles almost word-for-word, time and time again! Now if that doesn't bother modern evangelicals, then let us simply take our paintbrushes and write "Ichabod" over the doors of our protesting churches!
Was it 70 or 72 men that Jesus sent forth to preach? In this verse the modern translations are not in agreement, some siding with the KJV and some against it. The NIV and the Catholic bible shake hands together on this difference, although the NAB places the two in brackets. Some may feel that this difference is irrelevant, but on a math test the student will receive an incorrect marking on his paper (usually in red) if he is two numbers off. Seventy or seventy-two is right, but both cannot be correct. One of these translations contains error! The vast majority of Bible readers have no way of determining which number is correct, thus leading them to dependence upon textual critics to lead them in the right direction via side- or footnotes. The reader can only hope that the critics are godly men who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth, and have a high esteem for the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Go to "What About Bible Translations, V?"