Sixteen verses discovered missing from the word of GOD!

Published by

on

The first Bible I studied after becoming a Christian was Lois’s copy of the ‘Living Bible’.  I didn’t know much about Bibles other than the big white one my parents had stuffed into their bookcase.  It was full of ‘thee’s and thous’ which made reading it like reading an old Shakespearean play.  The Living Bible on the other hand was much easier for me to follow because it took out all the old archaic terms and replaced them with modern terms that I was familiar with.  A year or so later our pastor handed me a copy of the NIV Bible which I have been reading now for over thirty years.

I didn’t realize it then but there are two kinds of Bible, one is called a translation while the other is called a paraphrase.  The Living Bible is referred to as a paraphrase which means it takes a completed translation, typically in English, and substitutes other words so that it is easier to culturally understand.  The NIV is not a paraphrase edition but an actual translation, meaning they studied the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek and changed it to English.

There are quite a few Paraphrase Bibles available like the Amplified Bible, Living Bible, Good News Bible, and The Message Bible.  In fact, there are between 40-60 English language versions of the Bible available today.  I like to refer to them every now and then when I want to get a different perspective on a particular verse I’m studying.  Of course, we should be cautious using them because the authors of these versions of the Bible use ‘poetic license’ in their interpretation of biblical terms and passages.  Most of the Paraphrase Bibles we use are relatively new, compiled from the 1950’s onward.  Whereas the KJV was first translated in 1611 and underwent a major revision in 1769.  Even the New King James Version has only been available since 1982, which in Earth years hasn’t been that long.  Scholars agree that the KJV and NKJV are word-for-word translations and have been found to be 98% accurate with the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts that the KJV was based on.

A little over a year ago, as the words in my Bible began to shrink in size, I came to the conclusion that a ‘large print’ Bible would be helpful.  I began to search for a Bible exactly like the one I was currently using, except with a larger print.  It didn’t take long before I discovered that the newer editions of my Bible as well as ‘other Bible’s’ had gone through a revision where they had been made to be more gender friendly.  For example, some changed (father to parent), (son to child), (man to mortal).  Some have added words and phrases not found in the original text like, (brother to brother or sister), (brotherly love had been changed to love as brothers and sisters), (Men of Israel become fellow Israelites) and Jesus’s incarnation from (likeness of men becomes likeness of humanity).  I was shocked to learn that some Bibles had made gender-neutral changes to their translations in over 100 places.  Once I was aware of these changes I began to search through my earlier edition of the NIV to see if it also had these gender-neutral changes.  However, I soon discovered something that I found even more alarming.

I was looking at Luke 4:4 and noticed something was missing.  Originally it had been written to say, Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word of God.”  Now the phrase but by every word of God” was omitted.  I was sure I had read it there before so I did a search for the phrase and found the same phrase, in its entirety in Deut. 8:3 and Matt 4:4, but if it is alright to have it in those two places why remove it from Luke 4:4.  I also discovered that in Mark 1:17 where it says in the NIV, “and I will make you fishers of men has been changed in the 2011 edition of the NIV to ‘I will send you out to fish for people.” 

I then became aware that whole verses had been omitted from the NIV Bible.  If you have an NIV look up these verses; John 5:4, Mathew 23:14, Mathew 17:21, Mathew 18:11, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24.  I began to wonder what else I had missed in my years of studying the Bible and what prompted the translators to remove these scriptures.

I found out that manuscripts predating those used in the original KJV had been located and after a close examination by biblical scholars, they determined that words and phrases used in the original KJV had been either intentionally or accidentally added.  The consensus of these theologians was to remove these scriptures from the newer translation since they felt they were of minor consequence and would not change the crucial themes found in the word of God.  It is important to note that many of these verses that had been removed were referenced in the footnotes at the bottom of their respective pages.

Political Correctness versus Biblical Interpretation

So, is it really that important that these scriptures were removed since many are mentioned in other places or footnoted within the Bible?  Or, is there a dangerous precedent being set since most of these versions of the Bible are relatively new to humanity?

Let’s look at one change that has been made.  In the book of Genesis, after both Adam and Eve sinned, God says this to Eve in the NIV Gen 3:16, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”  This phrase has been recently changed in the ESV, English Standard Versions to say; Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”  In this version, it suggests that women naturally oppose their husbands’ desires, and thus are responsible for marital conflict.  If we are not careful, translations like this may shape and become the accepted thought about a woman’s role in marriage.

The question becomes this, with so many Bible translations and paraphrases doesn’t it give us more reason to be careful of which ones we use?  We know the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have distorted the scriptures to validate their personal beliefs.  It is then not too farfetched to see how Biblical scholars who are progressive in their religious interpretation of the scriptures may attempt to be politically correct and change the way God views certain sins.  Even the slightest distortion can over time become the accepted norm and once that foothold is established it can lead us to accept an even bigger deception later.  Especially, when we see just how frequently scholars can and do change the meaning and intent of the scriptures.

Lord help us remember Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.’ may we remember that man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD’!

For a more complete understanding of this article please go to https://wordpress.com/posts/drafts/klifemin.org for additional information.

(If you enjoyed this article or any of our past articles and know others who may find some benefit from them please pass them along.  We also appreciate your letting us know if you enjoyed it as well so either bless us with a comment or hit the ‘like’ button.)

9 responses to “Sixteen verses discovered missing from the word of GOD!”

  1. Joe Piroli Avatar
    Joe Piroli

    Which version of the Bible would you recommend and why?

    Like

    1. Rex and Lois Avatar

      Hi Joe,
      I use an early edition of the NIV but I like BibleGateway.com because I can easily look at all the different translations within minutes. But BibleGateway.com doesn’t have the early translations just the current one’s so you have to be aware of that. I have a lot of commentaries that I rely on but no matter which one I look at nothing is as important as reading the Bible for yourself. I have found that very smart theologians have very compelling arguments that support their beliefs so it is easy to find or there is a danger in your finding a reputable theologian who will support any idea you might want to put forward. That is why we must read the Bible while asking the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. John 16:13. I hope this helps.
      Be blessed, be safe,
      Rex

      Like

      1. Joe Avatar
        Joe

        Thank you for your answer. God bless you all and your ministry.

        Like

    2. Rick Sullivan Avatar
      Rick Sullivan

      KJV 1611
      Is the true Biblical Scriptural Text.
      Look at Romans 11:13 “I am the apostle to the Gentiles “, all others say “an”.

      Like

  2. Roger bourque Avatar
    Roger bourque

    About different translations and books. You are absolutely right. I found the same problem as I studied different books. I am still searching for a phrase I once read. It had to do with 3days of oil and 3days of wild olive oil. I believe some of the words have been sabotaged to take the mind of the reader off the track of the cleanse which is the base for mankind’s physical health. If the cleanse gets put together then man has a defence for any disease known. Or the rewriters of the bible just did not understand what was being conveyed by original text. I am trying to put together the cleanse because without it mankind is at the mercy of disease ( the beast )

    Like

    1. Rex and Lois Avatar

      Even with the NIV, I had to look on eBay to find the same publication that I had used in the past. Finding one that wasn’t marked up and was clean wasn’t easy but I finally found one. Then I transferred my notes over from my old one to my new one. When you have a Bible you use for years it becomes like an old friend, you know where on the page to find the scripture you are looking for. I have spoken in over twenty countries around the world and when you use interpreters you find it best to sit down with them and see if they are using the same translation you use and go over the scriptures with them to make sure they are conveying the same message. That they are on the same page as you are. Thanks for writing.

      Like

  3. alcatrazal Avatar

    I’m confused with your stance on the Genesis 3:16 verse change. Is it your opinion the paraphrase version of the NIV is the one to go with over the more literal ESV? Looking at another well respected literal translation NET it says the woman will want to control her husband. We should be looking for the most accurate interpretation vs being careful about how people may misread a passage. The danger in going with the NIV is greater as people will miss the real meaning.

    Like

    1. Rex and Lois Avatar

      Understanding the true meaning of a verse can be challenging. We often need to study different translations and consult theologians with different interpretations. For example, some passages support the idea of “once saved, always saved,” while others contradict it. To figure it out, we must consider the bigger picture of Scripture and look at related verses. As we both realize, the role of women in ministry is one that theologians have struggled with for years.
      But it gets more complicated. Some people think only the King James Version is valid, while others interpret Scripture based on their biases. It’s essential to be careful and critically evaluate these interpretations, ensuring they match the broader teachings of Scripture.

      To navigate these challenges, we must study diligently, compare different translations, and consider the context of the verses. This helps us get a better understanding and avoids narrow or twisted perspectives. It also keeps us humble, with a sincere desire to uncover and follow the timeless wisdom and truth of Scripture. I am not endorsing any one translation over another, though I have my favorites but I try to never use a scripture just because it supports my preconceived ideas.
      Blessings

      Like

  4. brokeninside Avatar

    The title of this article is misleading. When the KJV was translated, they used the best manuscripts available at that time. However, biblical scholarship has progressed a great deal since then, especially in terms of discovering scripture manuscripts that significantly predate those used by the KJV translators. Verse numbers aren’t original to the biblical text, and our verse numbering conforms with the older English translations (KJV especially). So, when you give scripture references that are “omitted”, these verse numbers only exist because we added them to the text. However, if the earlier manuscripts that have now been discovered had been found sooner, our verse numbers may have been different, so it wouldn’t look like things were “missed out”, so to speak.

    Your statement that the KJV and NKJV are “98% accurate with the Dead Sea Scrolls” makes no sense whatsoever, as these weren’t discovered until the 1940s and ’50s. Their discovery significantly changed the landscape of biblical scholarship. If you look, for example, at 1st Samuel 10:27, and compare the KJV to modern translations (especially NRSV and NLT), you’ll discover a recently discovered whole paragraph which significantly improves the intelligibility of the narrative which was omitted from the KJV (and NKJV) as no-one knew it existed until recently.

    Personally, the gender neutral language appeals to me, and I believe it reflects the way that our language has recently developed. However, the use of a singular “they” can sometimes alter how texts are interpreted, as it can be hard to confirm whether the text relates to a single individual, or not!

    I appreciate gender neutral language isn’t for everyone (including my wife!) She usually reads the ESV, and I typically read the NRSVUE these days. I grew up KJV only, and never really warmed to the NIV, although it’s generally the accepted standard among the churches I belong to and preach in. No translation is perfect, and we depend heavily on the Holy Spirit to illuminate our understanding.

    If you want something in modern language that’s probably most faithful to the original (or as original as we have), the NASB is generally reliable, although it doesn’t strike me as particularly readable because it tries to cling as closely to the word order in the Hebrew and Greek, which can make the English unwieldy! Personally, I prefer to go back to Hebrew and Greek (although my proficiency with the former is admittedly less than with the latter). Where this isn’t an option, I’d encourage you to keep doing what you’re doing by referring to various translations.

    Like

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.