Simon Brown.

In the Beginning always was, and nothing but, Yahweh The One True GOD, and because of Him, there is now Every Wonder, and Splendid Thing. Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF. Yahweh's, Intelligence, Brilliance, Understanding, Patience, Love, Forgiveness, Mercy, and Grace, is not fully capable of being comprehended or understood, to the average mind, or non believer, unless we come to know the One True GOD, revealed to us by His One True Christ, then we have discovered the hidden Treasure, that last's forever. Simon Brown.

It is not my purpose to force you to agree or believe with what’s here on my blog but rather to share my research. As the record goes: I'm Just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood. I do not write to share my research because I desire to be rich, famous, or powerful, but because investigating, studying, enquiring exploring, analysing and scrutinising, helps me learn what I don’t know. I simply love seeking, searching and researching, to discover the truth that is so rare, and become full of joy, uncovering the truth of our great GOD, and His Son’s hidden secrets.

I Simon Brown am no longer a Trinitarian, but an independent researcher in no denomination.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
SON of God?
1 John 5:5.
NOT GOD OR A TRINITY, but as St john has said: but he that believeth that Jesus is the SON of God? 1 John 5:5.
And as Jesus has said: ETERNAL LIFE is believing His Father GOD is the only ONE TRUE GOD alone. John 17:3. Which is the FIRST commandment one MUST believe. Mark 12:29.
The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6:4 says: Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is ONE: (PERSON).

Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh, and said, "Yahweh, the God of Israel, who sit [above] the cherubim, YOU ARE THE GOD, EVEN YOU ALONE, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth. 2 Kings 19:15. World English Bible.
Job 23:13: BUT HE ALONE IS GOD, and who can oppose him? God does as he pleases. The HEBREW text actually says GOD IS :בְ֭אֶחָד ḇə-’e-ḥāḏ [UNIQUELY] ONE.

From 2019 I now no longer believe the DEAD are alive in heaven or hell, or that Jesus Pre-Existed His flesh, but was a MAN and the only Begotten SON of his one true GOD, just as He only ever said.
You can see why I now believe Jesus did not Pre-Exist His flesh in my new videos and revised articles on this blog. Seek and you will find said Jesus.
"No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus, or preached by the earliest Christians, or consciously held by any writer in the NT" (A.T. Hanson, The Image of the Invisible God).


Dear friends, just to remind you, as I am a human being, I am capable of making mistakes. If you believe I am wrong, don't let it go, but please be kind and let me know. Thank you. Please note if your video or comment have been deleted, this was because hundreds of videos and thousands of comments were sadly removed from this blog by Goggle because of the new complicated You Tube polices.




Thursday, 30 April 2020

QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

By Simon Brown.
Scriptures are mostly by Berean Literal Bible unless otherwise stated.
All images on this blog made by Simon Brown maybe freely used.

In this article I provide the most used scriptures used by most of Christianity to prove GOD is the SON, or the SON is GOD.

I will also provide the Biblical FACTS showing how countless scriptures used to prove GOD is the SON, or that GOD is THREE called the TRINITY, are FALSE Bible translations which MOST Christians are not aware of, revealing also how countless Scriptures are simply misunderstood.

Let's start at the (beginning), at John 1:1.

I believe John 1:1 is the most misunderstood Scripture within Christianity.

This is because MOST of Christianity believe the word in John 1:1 is a second person, even millions who do not believe Jesus is GOD.

Let's have a look at John 1:1.

John 1:1 The Correct Meaning.
Click on image to enlarge!

John 1:1 The Correct Meaning.

In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

If Jesus is the (Word), who is WITH GOD, and if Jesus were GOD as MOST believe, we would now have TWO GODS SIDE by SIDE, contradicting the whole Bible.

John 1:1 is simply telling us: In the beginning was the word: meaning GOD's (word), statement, speech, divine utterance, plan, power, authority of GOD expressing Yahweh’s thoughts, action, message, purpose and will, spoken by the breath of Yahweh’s mouth, which is why John tells us: and the word was with God, and the word was God, as we are told in Psalm 33:6:
By Yahweh’s (word,) the heavens were made; all their army by the breath of his mouth. 
World English Bible.

Notice how Jesus tells us how the (word) comes from the mouth of GOD: But answering He said, "It has been written: 'The man shall live not by bread alone, but by every word coming out of the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4.

And we know from what Jesus tells us in John 14:24 saying the (word) of GOD, and His commandments come through Jesus from His Father: 
The one not loving Me does not keep My words. And the (word) that you hear is not Mine, but that of the Father having sent Me.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 1:2 The Correct Meaning.

John 1:2 The Correct Meaning.

(He) was in the beginning with God.

The word (HE) is a FALSE modern translation, DECEIVING MOST into believing (HE) is a second person, however the Greek word is instead (Οὗτος) and says (THIS).

John 1:2 is simply telling us: (THIS) was in the beginning with God, meaning (THIS) plan, message, purpose and will, of Yahweh was in the beginning with GOD.

Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-word-jesus-in-john-11.html
-----------------------------------------------

John 1:3 The Correct Meaning.

John 1:3 The Correct Meaning.

All things came into being through (Him), and without (Him) not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

The word (Him) is a FALSE modern translation, DECEIVING MOST into believing (Him) is a second person, however the Greek word is (autos) and also translates as (IT).

John 1:3 is simply telling us: All things came into being through (IT), meaning ALL of Creation came into existence by Yahweh’s (word), statement, speech, divine utterance, plan, and power: and without (IT) Yahweh’s (word), statement, speech, divine utterance, plan, and power: not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

Zechariah 12:1

An oracle. The word of Yahweh concerning Israel. Yahweh, who stretches out the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him says:

Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/08/is-word-jesus-in-john-11.html
----------------------------------------------
John 1-4 The Correct Meaning.

John 1:4 The Correct Meaning.

In (Him) was life, and the life was the light of men.

The word (Him) is a FALSE modern translation, DECEIVING MOST into believing (Him) is a second person, however the Greek word is (autos), which also translates as (IT).

John 1:4 is simply saying (autō αὐτῷ IT), meaning Yahweh’s (word), divine plan, purpose and power: was life, and the life was the light of men. 

The correct translations are confirmed by many like William Tyndale, martyred for his efforts to get the Bible to the public.
“In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God, and the worde was god. The same was in the beginnynge with god. All thinges were made by it, and without it, was made nothinge that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, and the lyght shyneth in the darcknes but the darcknes comprehended it not” (William Tyndale, The New Testament, 1534).
Please read John 1 in 50+ English Translations By Sir Anthony Buzzard. https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/07/john-1-in-50-english-translations.html
-----------------------------------------------

John 1:10 The Correct Meaning.

He was in the world, and the world came (ἐγένετο) into being through Him, and the world did not know Him.

The Greek word is ἐγένετο (egeneto) and occurs 202 times and is often translated countless times as it came to pass,

My own conclusion is that John 1:10 is saying: In the world He was and the world through Him (ἐγένετο, it came to pass) yet the world did not know him. John 1:10.

In other words John is telling us ALL the world has and will be accomplished, to be fulfilled, (all come to pass ἐγένετο), the NEW CREATION THROUGH Christ, to carry out, as a prophecy or promise, fulfilling all Bible prophecies, that the Saviour has come.

Please notice what we read in Matthew 1:22 when Jesus was born?
And all this has come to pass, so that it may be fulfilled that having been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-false-trinitarian-translations-of.html
--------------------------------------------

John 1:14 The Correct Meaning.

John 1:14 The Correct Meaning.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. 

Notice how John 1:14 DID NOT SAY: And (GOD) became flesh and dwelt among us, as would be the case if John was teaching Jesus is GOD who became flesh, as MOST wrongly believe Jesus is GOD who became flesh.

John 1:14 continues saying: And we beheld His glory, a glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Notice Jesus is: an only begotten from the Father, meaning Jesus was BORN and Fathered from His GOD and Father, proving Jesus is NOT the SAME GOD He was Begotten from. To be Begotten means to come into existence, and NOT always existing as most wrongly believe.

John 1:14 is simply saying the (word) of Yahweh became a living, walking, physical MAN, called The Word (OF) God in Revelation 19:13 and Yahweh's Begotten Son.

But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, HAVING BEEN BORN OF A WOMEN, having been born under the Law, Galatians 4:4.

Notice how Jesus first came into existence by HAVING BEEN BORN OF A WOMEN?

Please notice how we read in Acts 2:22 saying Jesus was a MAN, and nothing about Jesus being GOD, or an Angel, or some kind of Spirit being BEFORE He was BORN:
 Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, (A MAN) having been set forth by God to you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in your the midst, as you yourselves know.  

Notice in John 8:40 how Jesus Himself confirms He is (A MAN) and says nothing about Himself being GOD, or an Angel, or some kind of Spirit being BEFORE He was BORN:
 But now you seek to kill Me, (A MAN) who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

Romans 1:
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we received grace and apostleship, for obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name's sake; 6 among whom you are also called to belong to Jesus Christ;

Notice how Paul tells us that Jesus: was BORN of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God, in line with what Jesus tells us in John 10:36 saying I am the Son of GOD. NOT GOD.

Notice how we do NOT read Paul saying Jesus PRE-EXISTED his flesh before David?
But instead we read Paul saying Jesus comes into existence by the seed of David according to the flesh, in line with John 1:14 saying the word of GOD became FLESH, as the SON of MAN Jesus.

NOWHERE is it written that Jesus was already alive with GOD in heaven and was transformed into the BABY Jesus, unless you are reading the many false modern Bible 
translations.

If Jesus was WITH GOD before He was BORN as a MAN, then WHAT WAS HE?

Jesus did speak figuratively by saying He came down from Heaven and simply meant He came from GOD as GOD is in heaven, just as Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:9 saying: Therefore pray you like this: 'Our Father (IN THE HEAVENS), hallowed be Your name!

Just as James 1:17 tells us:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow.

Jesus is truly a gift from GOD, when we take up our cross and deny ourselves by believing and following the true Jesus, we will be saved: For God so loved the world that (HE GAVE) the only begotten Son, so that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but should have eternal life. John 3:16. BLB.


Also read: John 8:40 The FALSE Trinitarian Translations, And MORE Biblical Facts Jesus Did NOT PRE-EXIST His Flesh https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/06/john-840-false-trinitarian-translations.html
------------------------------------------------
The FALSE Translations of John 1:15 & John 1:30.

John 1:15 & John 1:30.

As we see in just some of many Bible translations above, they all have the word saying: (EXISTED).

The false word saying (existed), is deceiving millions into believing exactly what it says and means, that Jesus PRE EXISTED His flesh.
However, the BETTER Bible translations do NOT have the word saying: (EXISTED).

John 1:15


John 1:30.


As we see in the Interlinear Bible of the Greek text.
There is NO word in John 1:15 or John 1:30 saying: He (EXISTED).
But instead the better translations say: He was (BEFORE) me.

Lets now look at the Greek word and meaning of: He was (BEFORE πρῶτος) me.

In the Englishman's Concordance there are 32 Occurrences with the Greek word πρῶτος (prōtos).
The Greek word in John 1:15, and John 1:30, means: FIRST, before, principal, most important, (precedence) meaning FIRST, higher rank, Chief, John 1:15.

Conclusion.

In John 1:15 and John 1:30, is NOT teaching that Christ Jesus PRE EXISTED His flesh.

But instead that Christ Jesus was a MAN born of flesh, as the word of GOD, the Chosen Messiah, the Anointed One of GOD, who was fulfilling all the Bible Prophecies, who was foreknown, NOT PRE-EXISTING, and chosen before the foundations of the world 1 Peter 1:20, who is Chief,  (FIRST πρῶτος) in order, importance, and rank, and who GOD is creating all New things through Christ Jesus Colossians 1:16.

As Paul says in Colossians 1:17 And He is before all things, (FIRST in order, importance, and rank), and in Him all things hold together.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

John 10:30 The Correct Meaning.
John 10:30 The Correct Meaning.

I And The Father Are ONE - in UNITY, AGREEMENT, and PURPOSE.
Jesus DID NOT SAY or MEAN, I and the Father are ONE - GOD.

Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/05/what-did-jesus-mean-i-and-father-are.html
---------------------------------------------------
John 8:28 The FALSE Trinitarian Translations.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua spoke again to them: “When you have lifted up The Son of Man, then you shall know that I AM THE LIVING GOD, and I do nothing for my own pleasure, but just as my Father has taught me, so I am speaking.

Good News Translation
So he said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, you will know that 'I Am Who I Am'; then you will know that I do nothing on my own authority, but I say only what the Father has instructed me to say.


As we see both of the false translations say: then you shall know that I AM THE LIVING GOD, or  'I Am Who I Am' DECEIVING many into wrongly believing Jesus is THE LIVING GOD, or is Yahweh the One True GOD at Mount Sinai.

Now for the correct translation:

Berean Literal Bible
Therefore Jesus said to them, "When you shall have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing from Myself; but as the Father taught Me, I speak these things.

The Correct Meaning:

Jesus is simply IDENTIFYING Himself by saying: I am (He), The one, The Chosen Messiah, The Anointed One of GOD, The Promised Deliverer, The Begotten Son of The One True GOD), who is fulfilling all the Bible Prophecies, who was foreknown, NOT PRE-EXISTING, and chosen before the foundations of the world 1 Peter 1:20.

There is no Greek word saying (He), but instead the (He) is added in for the correct context, just as there is no (He) in John 8:24, and in John 8:58.

However we know the (He) added in is the correct context simply because Jesus said the same identical Greek word Ἐγώ εἰμι in John 4:26 IDENTIFYING Himself as The One, The Chosen Messiah, because: The woman says to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when He comes, He will tell us all things." John 4:25, and Jesus CONFIRMS: Jesus says to her, "I who am speaking to you am He."  

Also the Blind MAN in John 9:9 said the same identical Greek word (Ἐγώ εἰμι I am He) when He was simply IDENTIFYING Himself: I am (He), meaning I am the one.

Please watch my video: 

JOHN 8:58 THE QUICK FACTS! Before Abraham was, I am? https://youtu.be/PqBeUn4L2-k
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 8:58  The Correct Meaning.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

Jesus was simply saying: Before Abraham existed, I am (He), I am the one, I am (He) the promised Messiah and deliverer, ORDAINED and chosen as the Begotten Son of GOD and Lamb of GOD before the foundations of the world.

Notice how Jesus DID NOT SAY: before Abraham was, I am - GOD?

GOD THE SON IS A FALSE CHRIST.  
Watch video here JOHN 8:58 THE QUICK FACTS! Before Abraham was, I am?  https://youtu.be/PqBeUn4L2-k



John 9:9.

Notice how the Greek word for Ἐγώ εἰμι I am (He) in John 9:9 said by the Blind Man is identical to what Jesus said in John 8:58 which also says ἐγὼ εἰμί, and yet the translators have not added in the word (He) in John 8:58 which is the correct context, proving Jesus is simply saying I am (He), meaning I am the one.  

John 8:58

Notice here in John 8:58 which says ἐγὼ εἰμί, (I am) is IDENTICAL to what the Blind Man said in John 9:9 and yet the (He) has not been added in the translations of John 8:58, proving Jesus is simply saying: I am (He), I am the one, IDENTIFYING Himself as the promised Messiah and deliverer, saying: Before Abraham was, I am the promised Messiah and deliverer.


Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2018/01/scripture-no-3-john-858-was-gods-son.html
--------------------------------------------
1 John 5:7 The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

1 John 5:7


The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This translation of 1 John 5:7 is used by countless Trinitarians to prove GOD is THREE called the TRINITY.

However did you know the words saying: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, ARE FALSE as the words are NOT in the oldest Greek Bibles and were added in some modern translations to support the TRINITY doctrine.

The Correct translation instead says: 
7 For there are three bearing testimony: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood—and these are three in one. 1 John 5:7-8.


The FALSE Trinitarian Translations of 1 John 5:7 on its own should be a WAKE UP CALL proving the TRINITY is FALSE.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/06/1-john-57-greatest-trinitarian-forgery.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Matthew 28:19 The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Matthew 28:19
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. BLB.

DID YOU KNOW?
The correct translation of Matt 28:19-20  says:
"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

Matthew 28:19 The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

The correct translation of Matt 28:19-20  says:  "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."

Notice, there is NO Trinitarian formula saying: the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

With that in mind, when we search the scriptures, we discover how the disciples DID NOT use the Trinitarian phrase, but only ever baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus ONLY.

On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
 Acts 19:5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Timothy 3:16  The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

1 Timothy 3:16
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,

There are many FALSE modern Trinitarian Translations saying: God was manifest in the flesh, which is DECEIVING many into believing Jesus was GOD who became FLESH.

However, the correct Translations is the Greek word (Ὃς Who) meaning, He Jesus was manifest in the flesh.

The SIMPLE facts are, Jesus was a MAN and the SON of MAN.

Contrary to the fact that: GOD IS NOT MAN, THAT HE SHOULD LIE, OR A SON OF MAN Numbers 23:19.


----------------------------------------------------------------
 Hebrews 1:2
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the (worlds).

New International Version
 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.  

New Living Translation 
And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe.

The word saying (UNIVERSE) or (WORLDS), is a FALSE translation deceiving most into believing exactly what it seems to suggest, that by (JESUS), GOD made the (UNIVERSE) or (WORLD), therefore DECEIVING most into believing Jesus PR-EXISTED His flesh.

The Greek word is (aiōnas αἰῶνας, ages), and means a space of time, an age, and the Hebrews writer is referring to when Jesus started His ministry, when Yahweh GOD was talking through His Son Jesus who was given all authority and is now RE-CREATING His NEW and perfect KINGDOM to come through Christ now and in the coming (AGES), hence, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ephesians 3:9  The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Ephesians 3:9
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

The whole sentence saying: who created all things by Jesus Christ, is ALL FALSE, and has been added in some modern translations DECEIVING MOST into believing GOD created ALL THINGS by Jesus Christ.

The correct translation says:
and to enlighten all what is the administration of the mystery having been hidden from the ages in God, the One having created all things.

The correct translation is in agreement with what Yahweh GOD only ever said that He ALONE CREATED ALL THINGS BY HIMSELF.
Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself. Isaiah 44:24.
------------------------------------------------------------
John 13:3  The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

John 13:3
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

New Living Translation
Jesus knew that the Father had given him authority over everything and that he had come from God and would (return) to God.

English Standard Version
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going (back) to God,

The words saying: (return or going back) are FALSE, as they are NOT in the oldest Greek Bibles, and are DECEIVING MOST into believing Jesus was alive WITH GOD before He was BORN as a MAN in the womb of Mary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
John 16:28 The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

John 16:28 
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

New International Version
I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going (back) to the Father."

New Living Translation
Yes, I came from the Father into the world, and now I will leave the world and (return) to the Father.”

The words saying: (back or return) are FALSE, as they are NOT in the oldest Greek Bibles, and are DECEIVING MOST into believing Jesus was going (back or returning) to where He was before, when He was NOT WITH GOD before He was BORN as a MAN in the womb of Mary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 1:11  The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Revelation 1:11
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

I am the Alpha and the Omega is clearly Not genuine, as the words are MISSING from ALL the best and oldest Manuscripts, and was added in some translations DECEIVING MANY into believing Jesus is GOD almighty.

Jesus always IDENTIFIED Himself, and never ever said He was: The Alpha and Omega, just as Jesus never ever said: I am GOD.

Full article here Revelation 1:11: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/05/watch-my-new-video-alpha-and-omega-in.html

Also read who is the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, 21:6; and 22:13 here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/01/who-is-alpha-and-omega.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 7:59 The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Acts 7:59
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

 King James Bible 
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

The word (God) is not in the oldest Bibles and has been added in some of the modern translations, DECEIVING MANY into believing Jesus is GOD.

Acts 7:59 Correct Translation.
Berean Literal Bible 
And as they were stoning Stephen, he was calling out and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/06/acts-759-yet-again-another-one-of-many.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 20:28  The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

Acts 20:28
The FALSE Trinitarian Translation.

King James Bible
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

The deception here in Acts 20:28 is that MOST translations are saying GOD purchased with His own blood. 

Implying that GOD became flesh.
When it should read (GOD purchased the church with His (SONS) blood, or with His (own) Sons blood.

There are two reliable translations below:

Contemporary English Version
Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.

Good News Translation
So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he made his own through the blood of his Son.

Also Yahweh the One True God does not have flesh and blood but is Spirit said Jesus in John 4:24:  
God is Spirit, and it behooves those worshiping Him to worship in spirit and truth." 

As Acts 20:28 is referring to Yahweh the One True God then this should be obvious Acts 20:28 is referring to Yahweh's (own) Sons blood.

Notice how we read in Revelation 5:9 how it was Jesus who purchased (to GOD) by Jesus own blood: 
And they are singing a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slain, and You purchased (to God by Your blood), out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/06/acts-2028-yet-again-another-trinitarian.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippians 2:6  The FALSE Trinitarian Translations.

Philippians 2:6
The FALSE Trinitarian Translations.

New Living Translation
Though he (was God), he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.

Contemporary English Version
Christ was (truly God). But he did not try to remain equal with God.

The correct translation is:
Who, existing in the (form) of God, did not consider to be equal with God something to be grasped. BLB.

The Correct Meaning.
Paul was NOT saying Jesus is GOD, but that Jesus is in the visible human (form) of His GOD. 
Jesus is the exact REPRESENTATION of His Father GOD, which is why Jesus said, Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/philippians-26-yet-again-used-as.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippians 2:7 The Correct Meaning.

Philippians 2:7
The Correct Meaning.

Berean Literal Bible
but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. 

Most of Christianity WRONGLY believe Jesus is GOD Almighty who came down from heaven and entering into Mary’s womb to be transformed into the BABY Jesus and become flesh.

The Correct Meaning.

Paul meant Jesus literally (poured out) and (emptied) his soul, NOT from being GOD, or a pre-existing being, but from being a King, to become a servant and die to save our souls.  

GOD said in Isaiah 53:12 about the coming Messiah Jesus: (poured out his soul).
Paul said about himself in Philippians 2:17. But even if I am being (poured out) as a drink,   

Now we understand why Paul said Jesus: (emptied Himself) Philippians 2:7.  

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/12/philippians-27-trinitarian-deception.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippians 2:8  The Correct Meaning.

Philippians 2:8
The Correct Meaning.

And having been found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


Paul is NOT telling us Jesus was GOD, who was then CHANGED and transformed into a BABY.

But instead Paul is telling us in Philippians 2:6,7 and 8:

Jesus is born as the KING of Jews, Matthew 2:1, Jesus does countless miracles and heals the blind, the sick, the crippled, and raises the dead, forgives sins, feeds 5000 people, walks on water, and teaches with great wisdom and authority like no other, acting as God, hence, in the (FORM of GOD) Philippians 2:6.
Philippians 2:7 Jesus: emptied Himself, DENIED, GAVE UP Himself to become a servant.
Philippians 2:8 found in appearance as a man He (humbling Himself) washing the disciples feet and doing the WILL of His Father, even to the death of the cross, to become the Lamb of GOD.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/12/philippians-27-trinitarian-deception.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 1:23 The Correct Meaning.

Matthew 1:23 The Correct Meaning.

Berean Literal Bible
"Behold, the virgin will hold in womb, and will bring forth a son, and they will call His name Immanuel" which is, being translated, "God with us."


MOST of Christianity have become confused and deceived into believing the SON of GOD is  ''Yahweh'' The One True ALMIGHTY GOD of Israel, simply because Matthew 1:23 says: "God with us."

Let me show you how Matthew 1:23 is MISUNDERSTOOD by MILLIONS.

Quick Facts: 

Matthew 1:23 is a quote from Isaiah 7:14 for Jesus as Immanuel who if followed will lead to salvation.

God with us in the end of Matthew 1:23 simply means ''Yahweh'' The One True ALMIGHTY GOD of Israel was with His people by and THROUGH, DWELLING with His SON Jesus.

 Just as Isaiah 8:8: the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” Just as Isaiah 8:9: for God is with us, which is the same as Matthew 1:23 "God with us."

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2016/10/does-matthew-123-prove-jesus-is-god-as.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 20:28 The Correct Meaning.

John 20:28 The Correct Meaning.

Berean Literal Bible
Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"

The SIMPLE fact, is that the whole sentence by Thomas: “My Lord (and) my God!” is grammatically plural.

In this case the sentence by Thomas is NOT a (singular) sentence referring to one person alone.

If Thomas was only addressing Jesus as GOD, he would have simply said: (My Lord God) WITHOUT adding in the Greek word (καὶ), for AND.
The additional Greek word (καὶ, AND), makes Thomas's whole sentence a grammatically plural sentence.

In other word's Thomas's plural sentence, was addressing TWO persons.

How do we know Thomas's was addressing TWO persons, and not Jesus alone?


The answer is in John 14:8 – 12. “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Thomas finally BELIEVED and understood Jesus when Philip said to Jesus: The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. John 14:8 – 12.
Notice above how Jesus taught God was in Him, and that's where Thomas must have understood that GOD was WITH Jesus and IN Jesus.

Notice by Jesus own words: the Father who dwells in me does his works.
SIMPLY NOTICE Jesus is NOT ALONE, but has the father GOD with Him.

As GOD is WITH and IN His Son, this makes TWO PERSONS together and NOT ONE.

And this could be precisely WHY Thomas uses the grammatically plural sentence by saying: “My Lord (AND) my God!”

Why would Thomas forget GOD when Jesus never forgot His Father and always gave His Father the glory, and told the disciples countless times GOD was with Him and in Him? 

Thomas finally believed what Jesus taught that GOD the Father was in Jesus.

That’s why Thomas said BOTH, My Lord (Jesus), and My GOD, (Father).

I believe Thomas could well be addressing BOTH.

Peter and St Paul often used the SAME grammatical PHRASE, by referring to BOTH Jesus and GOD the Father. 


There are MANY identical examples in the Bible. Please read the full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/12/did-thomas-believe-jesus-is-god-when.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 14:9

John 14:9 The Correct Meaning.

Jesus says to him, "Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one having seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Berean Literal Bible.

Many in the TRINITY faith wrongly believe and understand Jesus was saying He is GOD for saying:  
The one having seen Me has seen the Father. 

And yet this verse CONTRADICTS the TRINITY faith, who do not say and believe (Jesus the Son of GOD) is the Father, as seen in the Catholic image below:

The Correct Meaning.
If we were to see Jesus, we would be seeing the physical form of His Father, not because Jesus is GOD, but because Jesus comes from His GOD, making Jesus the Begotten Son of His GOD, who has and which is why Jesus has all of GODS nature.

This is why Paul said: who, though he was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6.

This is why Paul said: He is the image of the invisible God. Colossians 1:15.

This is why Paul said: He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. Hebrews 1:3.

As GOD was in Jesus, and if Jesus were also GOD,
 that would make TWO GODS, contradicting the whole Bible.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/john-149-yet-again-another-massive.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John 10:33

John 10:33 The Correct Understanding.

The Jews answered Him, "We do not stone You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a man, make yourself God."

Very sadly millions of Christians are very confused by believing Jesus is GOD, because the rebellious Jews said: because You, being a man, make yourself God."


By believing what the rebellious Jews believed that Jesus was making Himself GOD, Christians today are believing the rebellious Jews understood and believed what Jesus taught.

And yet, Jesus said that the rebellious Jews DID NOT BELIEVE His teachings, or understand, or believe who Jesus claimed to be.

John 10: 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
John 10:1 – 6, This is why: Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 

Simply notice how Jesus did NOT say to the Jews: Yes you are correct I am GOD, but instead Jesus RECTIFIED the Jews by saying: do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, 'I am Son of God'? John 10:36

When we believe and teach that Jesus is GOD – when He only ever taught that He was the SON of THE ONE TRUE GOD – we are no better then the Jews, who accused Jesus for something He never claimed, which they RIGHTLY CALLED BLASPHEMY, but wrongly accused Him for BLASPHEMY.


 ‘You are accusing Jesus of slander, because Jesus NEVER SAID HE WAS GOD, but INSTEAD ONLY EVER said He IS the SON of GOD. John 10:36.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2016/11/you-are-blaspheming-because-i-said-i-am.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 1:8 The Correct Meaning.

Hebrews 1:8 The Correct Meaning.  

But unto the Son: "Your throne, O God, is to the age of the age, and the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. BLB.  

Countless Christians believe the Son being called O (God) proves Jesus is the ONE TRUE GOD.  

However we only have to move on to the very next verse in Hebrews 1:9, and we read: You have loved righteousness and have hated wickedness; because of this, God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultation above Your companions."   

Notice how Jesus being called God has a God, so how is Jesus the same ONE TRUE GOD, as the ONE TRUE GOD does NOT have a ONE TRUE GOD above Him, which is why the ONE TRUE GOD is called the ONE TRUE GOD, because there is no other ONE TRUE GOD.  

On the other hand, If Jesus were referred to as a separate TRUE GOD from the Father, we would then have TWO TRUE GODS, which would be contradicting the whole Bible.  

As GOD is GOD ALONE, that's what makes GOD the ONE TRUE GOD, which is why there is NO OTHER GOD LIKE THE ONE TRUE GOD.  

Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,
 Isaiah 46:9. 

 Hebrews 1:8 The Correct Meaning. 

The writer of Hebrews was referring to Jesus as the Messianic prophecy of king Solomon as a God, Psalm 45:6, (Your throne, O God), in the same example as Magistrates and Prophets and judges, appointed by THE GOD. (Psalm 82:6) John 10:34. 1 Corinthians 8:5. 

 Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2018/01/hebrews-18-yet-again-another.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH 9:6

ISAIAH 9:6 Trinitarian Contradiction.  

Berean Study Bible 
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  


Trinitarians say their faith is a mystery, yet what's more of a mystery is trying to understand why Trinitarians believe Isaiah 9:6, proves the Trinity.  

This is because the doctrine of the Trinity faith do not believe Jesus is the Everlasting Father, as we read Isaiah 9:6, goes on to say Jesus is the Father, and yet many Trinitarians point to this scripture to prove the Trinity, instead of understanding Isaiah 9:6 contradicts and disproves the Trinity.  

The Catholic TRINITY faith.
Notice the Trinity doctrine diagram shows: 
the Father is NOT the SON.  

Discover the correct meaning of ISAIAH 9:6 in the full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2016/11/why-do-trinitarians-use-isaiah-96-to.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 1:26

Genesis 1:26 Trinitarian Deception, (Let Us)?

World English Bible
 God said, (Let us) make man in (our) image, after (our) likeness.


Trinitarians believe because GOD said (Let Us) make man in (our) image, after our likeness, GOD was talking to the two members of the TRINITY who they believe are Jesus and a Separate person called the Holy Spirit.

However, very sadly, Trinitarians have become experts at contradicting the word of GOD, because GOD always says He was ALONE doing the creating BY MYSELF in many verses like Isaiah 44:24: Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF.

Isaiah 44:24

Notice in the next verse of Genesis 1:27:  So (God) created man in (His) own image; in the image of (God He) created him; male and female (He) created them. BSB.  

Notice how we do NOT read: And (WE) created man in (OUR) Image, as we would expect if GOD was talking to His SON Jesus, but instead we read the singular words for GOD with the singular word (HE) and (HIM) for ONE PERSON who is doing the creating just as we are told by GOD Himself in Isaiah 44:24.

God of Israel, with singular verb. 
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'", Elohim is singular. Wilhelm Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").[11] 
11. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar: 124g, without article 125f, with article 126e, with the singular 145h, with plural 132h,145i"

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/genesis-126-trinitarian-deception.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1 The Correct Understanding.  

Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those having obtained a faith equally precious with ours, through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.  


Many confused Christians use this verse to prove Jesus is (our God).

However, if we simply move forward to the very next verse, we clearly and easily see how Simon Peter is referring to BOTH our God the Father, AND our Savior Jesus Christ  our Lord: 

Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 2 Peter 1:2.  

Notice how Simon Peter defines the difference between who is (GOD), and who is the SON by saying: the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord 2 Peter 1:2.  

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/2-peter-11-yet-again-another.html 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Titus 2:13 T

Titus 2:13 The Correct Understanding.  

awaiting the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. BLB.  


Again, very sadly many Christians are confused with believing Paul was calling Jesus: our great God.  

When all we need to do is look at the Greek text where we see (the definite article) in front of GOD.  

Titus 2:13

Notice how the Greek text clearly IDENTIFIES both GOD and Jesus by saying: the appearing of the Glory (of the) great God (and) Savior of us Christ Jesus.  


And we also see just two of many scriptures below, how there are scriptures teaching BOTH The One True God and Jesus will return together, as a Father and SON acting as ONE.  

Revelation 1:8.
 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Matthew 16:27. 
For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.  

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2018/01/titus-213-yet-again-another-trinitarian.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 9:5

Romans 9:5 FALSE Trinitarian Translations.  

New International Version 
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.  

Holman Christian Standard Bible
 The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Messiah, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.  

New King James Version
 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. 


There are many modern translations that are very different and deceptive by making Paul sound like he is saying Jesus is: God over all.  

The oldest Bible of the Codex Vaticanus reads: the Christ the according to flesh the being over all God blessed to the ages Amen.  


Romans 9:5


There is a good translation by Good News Translation: 
they are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors; and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. 
May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen.  


The simple truth is, there are NO contradictions by Paul who only ever taught the Father is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE, and did NOT teach in his other hand Jesus is also GOD in a TRINITY.  

Paul is simply referring to GOD the Father in Romans 9:5 saying: being over all God blessed to the ages Amen, as in Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 

If Paul believed Jesus was GOD, there would be many teachings by Paul elsewhere in his many writings saying he believed Jesus is GOD.    

And yet what we find is that there are NO teachings anywhere in Paul’s many writings teaching Jesus is GOD. 

But instead we find quite the OPPOSITE and an amazing clear confession by Paul referring to exactly what he believed in 1 Corinthians 8:6,  

Yet for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.  

Notice Paul tells us: there is one God, and then continues to tell us who that one GOD is, by then saying, (the Father).

Notice a simple Biblical tact. 
There is NOTHING by Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus is also GOD, or is the same One True GOD, or that the Holy Spirit is a SEPARATE person or that the One True GOD is THREE persons as taught in the TRINITY.  

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/romans-95-yet-again-another-trinitarian.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John 17:5

John 17:5 Correct Understanding.

And now glorify Me, You Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You before the world existed. BLB.


As normal, most of Christianity are deceived and confused with understanding the truth of what Jesus actually meant here in John 17:15 by believing Jesus was teaching He EXISTED WITH GOD before the world existed. 

Notice how Jesus did NOT say: And now glorify Me, You Father, with Yourself, with the glory that I had with You (WHEN I WAS ALREADY WITH YOU) before the world existed.

The obvious facts are:

1. If Jesus is GOD who is WITH GOD as most believe, that equals TWO GODS side by side contradicting the word of GOD who says:
I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Besides me, there is no God. WEB.

2. if Jesus is the SAME One True GOD, as most believe, then Jesus could NOT be with His GOD if they are the SAME One True GOD.

3. Jesus said in John 20:17 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"

if Jesus is the SAME One True GOD, as most believe, then how is it possible that Jesus Father is His GOD, when the One True GOD does NOT have a One True GOD above Him?

The Correct Meaning:

The simple truth is that Jesus is NOT GOD, and Jesus was NOT WITH His GOD before He was born as a MAN in John 1:14.

John 17:5: And now glorify Me, You Father, with Yourself, 
 Jesus was praying to His Father that many of the old Testament Bible prophecies would now be fulfilled, as He was near the end of His ministry and was about to be crucified and raised from the dead to be with His Father (in glory) as our High Priest, Advocate and Mediator, where GODS plan would continue since before the world begun, and the Son would receive (glory), which He worked in Christ, having raised Him out from the dead, and having set Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, Ephesians 1:20

 with the glory that I had with You before the world existed.
Jesus is simply referring to Himself as the (glory) He had with His Father before He physically existed, and that (glory) was in GODS mind and purpose as the highest in precedence to be the promised Messiah in: the determinate plan and foreknowledge of God, Acts 2:23, He was known before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:20.

Notice Jesus is for-known in GODS plan, and NOT physically existing.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come forth for Me One to be ruler over Israel, whose origins are of old, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:2 

Conclusion:

Jesus prayed to receive the (Glory) GOD promised before the world existed, before Jesus physically existed, that He would now be WITH His Father and GOD: But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” Luke 22:69, fulfilling Bible prophecies, and to continue with fulfilling the Greatest Bible Prophecy yet to come when Jesus will return as the Prince of Peace with His Father as ONE, as a Father and SON.

So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become a high priest, but the One having said to Him: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." 
Hebrews 5:5

But this One, having offered one sacrifice for sins in perpetuity, sat down at the right hand of God, Hebrews 10:12
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 
Mark 16:19

Therefore indeed the Lord Jesus, after speaking to them, was taken up into the heaven and sat at the right hand of God. 
Mark 16:19

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/06/john-175-yet-again-another-trinitarian.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20 The False Trinitarian translation.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we know the real God. We are in the one who is real, his Son Jesus Christ. (This Jesus Christ is the real God) and eternal life.


1 John 5:20

As normal most of Christianity are confused with 1 John 5:20 thinking and believing John was saying Jesus is the true GOD.

Here is the correct translation that does NOT say Jesus is the true God.

Berean Literal Bible
Now we know that the Son of God is come and has given us understanding, so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

1 John 5:20


John’s teaching in 1 John 5:20: (He is the true God), is one of five BROTHER scriptures that go side by side with four other scriptures which all teach us the same Biblical facts.

Let's have a look!

2 Chronicles 15:3:
For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest and without law.

Jeremiah 10:10:
But Yahweh is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth trembles, and the nations are not able to withstand his indignation. World English Bible. 

1 Thessalonians 1:9:
For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.

And from Jesus own lips confirming His Father GOD is the Only One person who is The ONE TRUE GOD ALONE:
John 17:3: And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

ALL these FIVE brother scriptures always refer to the Father ONE TRUE GOD ALONE, and not the Son of GOD.

Here is a good translation in Contemporary English Version:
We know that Jesus Christ the Son of God has come and has shown us the true God. And because of Jesus, we now belong to the true God who gives eternal life.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2017/12/1-john-520-yet-again-another.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micah 5:2

Micah 5:2 
The Correct understanding.

 King James Bible
 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Many in the TRINITY faith have come to the conclusion,  Micah 5:2 proves Jesus is GOD, and Jesus has always existed, simply because in the end of the King James Bible translation, we read the words: from everlasting.  

Micah 5:2, is also used by Millions of Christians who DO NOT believe Jesus is GOD, and have come to the conclusion that Micah 5:2 is another verse that proves Jesus PRE EXISTED His flesh, simply because we read in the verse: and Whose goings forth [are] from of old. HEBREW TEXT.

No one needs to be a Bible scholar to see how the TRUTH of Micah 5:2 has been so badly twisted, misunderstood, and taken out of context, by people who teach Jesus is GOD, and pre existed His flesh.  


The SIMPLE Biblical facts are: Micah 5:2 clearly tells us: out of thee shall he come forth (unto me).  
The words Unto me is very easily understood to be  'Yahweh' the ONE TRUE GOD of Israel.  


Yahweh the ONE TRUE GOD of Israel, through His prophet clearly tells us about the human birth of the Messiah, who would be born in Bethlehem, the birthplace of David, and would become a great ruler and Saviour, who would fulfil all prophecies by GOD and shepherd God’s people, who would arise from the lineage of David, who's descents are traced back to antiquity, hence, as we read: and Whose goings forth [are] from of old. 


For filled prophecy as written: 
Has not the Scripture said that Christ comes out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?"
John 7:42.

Full article here:
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-truth-confusion-and-deception-of.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John 8:40

John 8:40  The FALSE Trinitarian Translations, And MORE Biblical Facts Jesus Did NOT PRE-EXIST His Flesh.

Contemporary English Version
Instead, you want to kill me for telling you the truth that God gave me. Abraham never did anything like that.

Good News Translation
All I have ever done is to tell you the truth I heard from God, yet you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like this!

New Living Translation
Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

The Correct translation can be seen here in the Berean Literal Bible
But now you seek to kill Me, (a man) who has spoken to you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.


John 8:40


Did you notice the words saying (a man) in the correct translation is MISSING from the FALSE translations?

WHY would the translators leave out the  words saying (a man)?

Find out on the full article here: 
https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/06/john-840-false-trinitarian-translations.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The TRINITY faith say believe and teach their faith is a MYSTERY.

However when we believe in the word of GOD, we clearly see there is NO TRINITY MYSTERY, but instead we discover the TRINITY is a MYSTERY to Trinitarian's because they simply believe in what is NOT taught anywhere in the whole Bible believing in what is NOT true, causing their TRINITY faith to be a  MYSTERY.

And for those who know the SIMPLE truth, there truly is a MYSTERY.

That SIMPLE MYSTERY is WHY cant the TRINITY faith understand what is so simple to understand?

WHY cant the TRINITY faith understand if there are THREE SEPARATE beings who are all GOD, then HOW does that make ONE GOD and not THREE SEPARATE GODS side by side?

When the truth is admitted,

HOW DOES ONE GOD THE FATHER,
 AND ONE GOD JESUS, 
AND ONE GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT,
 EQUAL ONE GOD?
 AND NOT THREE GODS, 
WHEN ALL THREE ARE SAID TO BE THREE SEPARATE BEINGS?


The Biblical fact's prove without a doubt the TRINITY is a DEADLY fairytale deceiving millions into DENYING THREE of the most important teachings in the whole Bible.  

1. The TRINITY faith BREAKS the first and GREATEST COMMANDMENT and LAW ever given by GOD and His Son, that  GOD is ONE PERSON and GOD ALONE.  

2. The TRINITY faith believe and teach the One true GOD became flesh, which DENIES that GOD sent, gave and sacrificed His own Begotten Son Jesus.  

3. As the TRINITY faith believe and teach Jesus is the SAME ONE TRUE GOD He was begotten from, that then DENIES the Father and the Son and Jesus as the Son of His One True GOD.

Full Article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2020/06/yahweh-one-true-god-and-his-greatest.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 8:22.

The MANY FALSE Translations of Proverbs 8:22:
Jehovah Witnesses own translation reads: 
Jehovah (produced) me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.

There are MANY more FALSE Translations of Proverbs 8:22 which read: 
The LORD brought me forth, or  formed me, or created me, or  created me first, or made me. (Please see the full list of FALSE translations in my full article.

The CORRECT translation is seen in the World English Bible:
"Yahweh (possessed) me in the beginning of his work, before his deeds of old. 
Proverbs 8:22.

Proverbs 8:22.


The Quick Facts:

Proverbs 8:22 is NOT referring to a second person who was created as many believe is Jesus, but is SUPER poetry by King Solomon and is INSTEAD referring to a personification of  the (wisdom of God), personified as a woman.

Proverbs 8:22: Yahweh (possessed) meaning The One True GOD always acquired, always had, always possesses, always owned all divine WISDOM.

Note in Proverbs 3:19 how Yahweh's own divine WISDOM founded the earth, and NOT by or THROUGH a second person: By wisdom Yahweh founded the earth. By understanding, he established the heavens Proverbs 3:19

Note in Isaiah 44:24 how GOD tells us He ALONE, BY HIMSELF created all things:

Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: “ I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who ALONE stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth BY MYSELF. Isaiah 44:24

Full article here: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jude 1:5

The FALSE Translations of Jude 1:5? 
WHO saved the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, The Lord GOD, or The lord Jesus? 

Now these, who were more noble than those in Thessalonica, received the word with all readiness, on every day examining the Scriptures, whether these things were so. Acts 17:11

There are Trinitarians who believe Jude 1:5 says:
Now I want to remind you, you having known all this, that Jesus, having saved at one time a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward He destroyed those not having believed. 

However, the correct translations is seen in one of the oldest Bibles of the Codex Sinaiticus where we read the word for LORD, and NOT Jesus.
Jude 1:5?

-----------------------------------------------------------
John 8:24 The FALSE Trinitarian Translations.

John 8:24 The FALSE Trinitarian Translations.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English

“I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for unless you shall believe that I AM THE LIVING GOD, you shall die in your sins.”

Good News Translation

That is why I told you that you will die in your sins. And you will die in your sins if you do not believe that 'I Am Who I Am'."

These SHOCKING FALSE Bible translations are DECEIVING people into believing we MUST believe Jesus is THE LIVING GOD, or that we MUST believe Jesus is the great 'I Am Who I Am' who was Yahweh the One True GOD at Mount Sinai, and NOT the SON.


The CORRECT translation can be seen in the Berean Literal Bible:

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."


Notice how there is NOTHING in the correct translations saying (THE LIVING GOD), or I Am (Who I Am).

The SHOCKING truth is that there is absolutely NO verse or teaching in the WHOLE Bible saying we MUST believe Jesus is: THE LIVING GOD, or GOD ALMIGHTY, or that Jesus is Yahweh the ONE TRUE GOD, which is evidence MOST have been DECEIVED into wrongly believing  what is NOT taught ANYWHERE in the whole Bible, that Jesus is THE LIVING GOD, which simply DENIES the Father and the SON.

The CORRECT meaning of what Jesus said here in John 8:24 is the OPPOSITE to what most believe, and is seen in  John 4:25-26.

The woman says to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when He comes, He will tell us all things."  John 4:25,
Jesus says to her, "I who am speaking to you am He."  John 4:26.

Notice how Jesus confirms to the Samaritan woman how He is the coming promised Messiah, who is called Christ, by the fact: Jesus says to her, "I who am speaking to you am egō eimi He."  John 4:26.
Just as Jesus said to the Jews in John 8:24 saying: for unless you believe that (I am ἐγώ εἰμι He), you will die in your sins."

Jesus was simply saying to the Jews, for unless you believe that I am He, (Meaning I am the one, The Messiah, who is called Christ, The Anointed One of GOD, The Promised Deliverer, The Son of The One True GOD), you will die in your sins."

The names of Jesus being called (The Messiah, The Christ, The Anointed One of GOD, the promised deliverer, NEVER EVER mean I AM GOD.

The SHOCKING truth for MOST of Christianity who believe Jesus is GOD ALMIGHTY, and the many who say GOD HAS NO SON, and ALL UNBELIEVERS, is that according to what Jesus said in John 8:24 saying: for unless you believe that (I am ἐγώ εἰμι He), (Meaning The Messiah, who is called Christ, The Anointed One of GOD, The Promised Deliverer, The Son of The One True GOD), you will die in your sins."

Notice how Jesus DID NOT SAY:
 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am (GOD) you will die in your sins.” John 8:28?

What Jesus said in John 8:24 saying: for unless you believe that (I am ἐγώ εἰμι He), (Meaning I am the one, The Messiah, who is called Christ, The Anointed One of GOD, The Promised Deliverer, The Son of The One True GOD), you will die in your sins, is PERFECTLY in line with countless scriptures like John 20:31 Matthew 16:16, and I John 5:5 that DO NOT SAY WE MUST BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD to be saved, but INSTEAD countless teachings say we MUST believe Jesus is the SON of GOD.

Let's be sure and have a look to see if the Bible tells us if we MUST believe Jesus is GOD to be saved, or instead if we MUST believe Jesus is the SON of GOD to be saved?

But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name. John 20:31 

And Simon Peter answering said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matthew 16:16.
Notice how Matthew 16:16 does NOT say about Jesus: "You are the living God?

I have written these things to you, the ones believing in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13

And this is His commandment, that we should believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and we should love one another, just as He gave the commandment to us. 1 John 3:23

Notice how we read NOTHING about GOD BECOMING FLESH and sending Himself, but instead 1 John 4:9 tells us:
In this the love of God has been revealed among us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.  1 John 4:9

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son as a propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10.

The SHOCKING truth is that there is NOT a SINGLE word or teaching saying we MUST believe GOD is THREE PERSONS to be SAVED, or that we MUST believe Jesus is (GOD the SON) to be SAVED, or that we MUST believe GOD BECAME FLESH to be SAVED, which is UNDENIABLE PROOF MOST HAVE BEEN DECEIVED and believe in what is not taught ANYWHERE in the whole Bible.

Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand! Matthew 11:15.

Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is 
the SON of God?
1 John 5:5.

Full article here: https://wwwrealdiscoveriesorg-simon.blogspot.com/2019/05/john-824-shocking-truth-and-trinitarian.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you one of MOST who follows GOD The Son A FALSE CHRIST?


Are you one of MOST believing in a FALSE CHRIST?

Believing GOD is the SON, or the SON is GOD is a DECEPTION DECEIVING MOST into DENYING the Father and the Son and Jesus as the Christ.

The Greek word for Christ is Christos Χριστὸς and means: The Anointed One, The Messiah, The Chosen One, The Son of The One True GOD.

John 20:31.

Notice what 1 John 2:22 tells us:
Who is the liar, except the one denying that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. 

The SHOCKING truth is that MOST believe and teach Jesus is GOD, which simply DENIES Jesus as the Christ, and Christ never means GOD, but means The Anointed One, The Messiah, The Chosen One, The Son of The One True GOD, and according to 1 John 2:22: This is the antichrist, the one denying the Father and the Son. 

Testing the Spirits
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not (ἐκ from) God, and this is that of the antichrist, which you heard that is coming, and now is already in the world. 
1 John 4:1-3.

Notice the SHOCKING truth and fact that MOST of Christianity believe and confess that GOD has come in the flesh as Jesus, and that Jesus is the SAME ONE TRUE GOD, which then SHOCKINGLY means MOST of Christianity confess Jesus is NOT (ἐκ from) GOD, because most instead confess Jesus is GOD and this is that of the antichrist, says John.


QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

Can you see how the God of this world has DECEIVED MOST into simply DENYING the Father and the SON, which simply DENIES Jesus is from GOD because MOST of Christianity believe Jesus is the same One True GOD, which the SON was begotten from, therefore simply DENIES Jesus as the Christ, and DENIES Jesus as The Anointed One, and DENIES Jesus as The Messiah, and DENIES Jesus as The Chosen One, and DENIES Jesus as The Son of The One True GOD, which also DENIES GOD sacrificed His own Son, and makes Jesus into a liar for only ever saying and teaching He is the Son of His One True GOD John 10:36, John 17:3, that is when we are like most who wrongly believe GOD is the Son, which would mean GOD instead sacrificed Himself, if GOD was the SON, which is why MOST are so confused and madly believe the One True GOD became the SON and the MAN Jesus.

The SHOCKING truth of believing GOD is the SON.  

If we believe and teach (Jesus is GOD the Son), as most, we DENY EVERYTHING of who GOD's Son truly is and was, and are STRIPING away the true MAN and the true Christ, and that Jesus was the second perfect Adam, who could not be the second perfect Adam if He were GOD, because GOD cannot be a MAN and DIE as a MAN just as Jesus did.  

If we believe and teach (GOD is the SON), we are STRIPING away what GOD truly did, that He truly did send and sacrifice His own Son, all because GOD so loved us, and so desires to save us, just as He loved and saved His SON.  

By believing GOD and His SON are the SAME GOD, we are DENYING that Jesus freely gave His life by His own free will to do His Fathers will, because if they were the same GOD, they could not have different will's.  

By believing Jesus is GOD we are not understanding the shocking truth, that in return we are condemning our own souls by DENYING what we MUST believe that it was the SON who DIED for our sins, and NOT GOD, which also  DENIES GODS divine love, that GOD truly did give and sacrifice His own Begotten SON to save us instead of Himself.


QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

QUICK FACTS To The Trinitarian FALSE TEACHINGS and FALSE Bible TRANSLATIONS!

THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT BROKEN BY THE TRINITY.


1 But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be false teachers among you also, who will stealthily introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master having bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow after their sensuality, through whom the way of the truth will be maligned. 3 And through covetousness they will exploit you with fabricated words, (Just as we see and find in COUNTLESS FALSE Trinitarian Bible translations),
for whom the judgment of long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not slumber. 2 Peter 2:

I believe 2 Peter 2: is about the first FALSE teachers who started teaching that Jesus was GOD, or is GOD the Father that eventually got worse over the next three centuries and became the Catholic TRINITY. 

Notice how Peter tells us the FALSE teachers will stealthily introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master?


The obvious facts are that by believing and teaching Jesus is GOD, we are then obviously denying the Master Jesus as being the Son of GOD.


The obvious facts are that by believing and teaching Jesus is GOD, we are then obviously denying the Master Jesus as being the Son of GOD.


The shocking truth of John 8:28

Matthew 16:16 tells us Jesus is the SON of GOD and NOT GOD. Jesus also tells us Jesus is ONE PERSON in Mark 12:29 that ALL must believe as the greatest  commandment.

13 And Jesus having come into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was questioning His disciples saying, “Whom do men pronounce the Son of Man to be?”  14 And they said, “Some indeed, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”  15 He says to them, “But whom do you pronounce Me to be?”  


16 And Simon Peter answering said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  

17 And Jesus answering, said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in the heavens. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades not will prevail against it. 19 I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you might bind on the earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you might loose on the earth shall have been loosed in the heavens.”  20 Then He instructed the disciples that they should tell no one that He is the Christ. Matthew 16:17-20.

Matthew 16:16

THERE IS NO CATHOLIC TRINITY MYSTERY.

Sir Isaac Newton believed the TRINITY was a successful deception.

Deuteronomy 6:4.

1 John 5:5.

Isaiah 45-5
The TRINITY says there are THREE SEPARATE BEINGS WHO ARE ALL GOD which when the truth is admitted equals three separate Gods who ARE SIDE BY SIDE, when Yahweh The One True GOD says there is NO other GOD with Him SIDE by SIDE.
The TRINITY is three Gods side by side.

John 10:36.

John 10:36. Jesus is the Son of GOD and not GOD the SON.

Job 23:13,

John 17:3.

1 Corinthians 8:6

Psalm 95:3.

John 3:18

Luke 9:35.

Hebrews 1:1 and 1:2.

Jeremiah 10:10, 1 John 2:22.

John 8:24.

List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

The New Testament verses not included in modern English translations are verses of the New Testament that exist in older English translations (primarily the King James Version), but do not appear or have been relegated to footnotes in later versions, such as the New International Version (NIV). Scholars have generally regarded these verses as later additions to the original text.

Although many lists of missing verses specifically name the NIV as the version that had omitted them, these same verses are missing from the main text (and mostly relegated to footnotes) by the Revised Version of 1881 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901,[1] the Revised Standard Version of 1947 (RSV),[2] the Today's English Version (the Good News Bible) of 1966,[3] and several others. Lists of "missing" verses and phrases go back to the Revised Version[4] and to the Revised Standard Version,[5] without waiting for the appearance of the NIV (1973). Some of these lists of "missing verses" specifically mention "sixteen verses" – although the lists are not all the same.[6]

The citations of manuscript authority use the designations popularized in the catalog of Caspar Rene Gregory, and used in such resources (which are also used in this remainder of this article) as Souter,[7] Nestle-Aland,[8] and the UBS Greek New Testament[9] (which gives particular attention to 'problem' verses such as these).[10] Some Greek editions published well before the 1881 Revised Version made similar omissions.[11]

The criterion for the editorial decision about excluding these passages was never religious doctrine or sentiment, but always whether the tangible evidence indicated the passage was probably in the original New Testament text or was a later addition. The removal or relegation of these verses was done in keeping with the principle of critical editing, as articulated (but not originated) by what Rev. Samuel T. Bloomfield wrote in 1832, "Surely, nothing dubious ought to be admitted into 'the sure word' of 'The Book of Life'."[12] A movement called King James Version Only (KJVO), which believes that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible (1611) in English is the true word of God, has sharply criticized these translations for the omitted verses.[13][14]

In most instances another verse, elsewhere in the New Testament and remaining in modern versions, is very similar to the verse that was omitted because of its doubtful provenance. These are mentioned to show that the omission of the doubtful verse did not cause the loss of the teaching it expressed.

The sixteen omitted verses[edit]

(1) Matthew 17:21[edit]

KJV: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Reason: The verse closely resembles Mark 9:29, but it is lacking in Matthew in א (original handwriting), B, θ, some Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Ethiopic manuscripts. It is, however, found in this place in some Greek mss not quite so ancient – CD, K, L – as well as some other mss of the ancient versions. It is believed to have been assimilated from Mark.[15]

(2) Matthew 18:11[edit]

KJV: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Reason: This verse is lacking in א,B,L (original handwriting), θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, some old Italic & Syriac & Coptic & Georgian mss, and such ancient sources as the Apostolic Canons, Eusebius, Jerome, and others. It is found in some other sources, not quite so ancient, such as D,K,W,X, and the Latin Vulgate. It is not found in any manuscript before the 5th century.[16] According to Bruce Metzger, "There can be little doubt that the words ... are spurious here, being omitted by the earliest witnesses representing several textual types... [This verse was] manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10."[17]

(3) Matthew 23:14[edit]

KJV: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. This verse is lacking altogether in א,B,D,L,Z,θ, ƒ1, Ethiopic, Armenian, several Italic and Syrian and Coptic mss, and the writings of several early Church Fathers. It appears before verse 13 in K,W, and several minuscules. It appears after verse 13 in ƒ13, some Italic and Syriac and Coptic mss. The fact that it is absent from the most ancient sources of multiple text types and that the sources that do contain the verse disagree about its placement, as well as the fact that it is a repetition of verses found elsewhere, show "that verse 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47 is clear."[17]

(4) Mark 7:16[edit]

KJV: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Reason: This verse is nearly identical with verses 4:9 and 4:23. This verse here is lacking in א,B,L,Δ (original handwriting), some Coptic mss. It is included in mss only slightly less ancient, A,D,K,W,ƒ113, Italic mss, the Vulgate, some other ancient versions. As it is missing in the very oldest resources and yet is identical to verses that remain, many editors seem confident in omitting its appearance here.

(5 & 6) Mark 9:44 & 9:46[edit]

KJV: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. .. (Both verses identical to each other, and to 9:48, which is still in the main text)

Reason: Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,W,ƒ1, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources such as A,D,K,θ, some Italic mss and the Vulgate. It is possible that verse 48 was repeated by a copyist as an epistrophe, for an oratorical flourish.[18] The UBS text assigns this omission a confidence rating of A.

(7) Mark 11:26[edit]

KJV: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Reason: This verse is very similar to Matthew 6:15. This verse appeared in the Complutensian Polyglot and most Textus Receptus editions but Erasmus omitted it and noted that it was missing from 'most' Greek manuscripts.[19] The verse is not in א,B,L,W,Δ,Ψ, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. The UBS edition gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A.

(8) Mark 15:28[edit]

KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And he was numbered with the transgressors."

Reasons: This verse is similar to Luke 22:37. It does not appear here in any New Testament ms prior to the end of the 6th century.[20]

(9) Luke 17:36[edit]

KJV: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Reason: It is possible that this verse is a repetition of Matthew 24:40. Even the King James Version had doubts about this verse, as it provided (in the original 1611 edition and still in many high quality editions) a sidenote that said, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." This verse is missing from Tyndale's version (1534) and the Geneva Bible (1557). Among major Textus Receptus editions, this verse does not appear in the editions of Erasmus (1516–1535), Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), Stephanus 1st – 3rd eds (1546–1550), but it did appear in the Complutensian (1514), and in the margins of Stephanus 4th ed (1551), and all of Elzivir's and Beza's eds (1565–1604).[21] In modern conservative Greek editions it is also omitted from the main text of Scrivener's Greek NT according to the Textus Receptus, and the two Majority Text editions. Verse 36 is included by very few Greek manuscripts of the Western text-type and by Old-Latin and Vulgate manuscripts.[22][23]

(10) John 5:3–4[edit]

KJV: 3 . . . waiting for the moving of the water.
4 For an Angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

(Note: not only is verse 4 omitted, but also the tail end of verse 3.)

Reason: It is considered unlikely that these words were in the original text of the Gospel. They are lacking in the "earliest and best witnesses", and several ancient Greek mss that do contain them enclose them with markings indicating doubts about their authenticity, the passage contains words or expressions that appear nowhere else in John (such as the Greek words for "at a certain season [= occasionally]" and "stirring" and "diseases"), and the mss that contain this verse differ among themselves as to the wording.[24] The UBS text gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of A. This verse was omitted from Edward Harwood's Greek NT (1776), marked as doubtful in Griesbach's editions (1777), and thereafter generally relegated to a footnote, enclosed in brackets, or omitted completely.

Henry Alford wrote, "The spuriousness of this controverted passage can hardly be questioned."[25] Without the words at issue the context simply states that a swimming or bathing pool in or near Jerusalem was a gathering place for sick and crippled people, some of whom sought to get into the pool (either for physical comfort or for ritual cleansing) and it was there that Jesus performed a miraculous healing. But the words quoted above complicate this story by asserting that miraculous cures were already taking place at this pool in the absence of Jesus, owing to the unpredictable intervention of an (apparently invisible) angel. This passage in John 5 is the only mention of this pool – no such miraculous pool is mentioned in Josephus or other histories[26] The words in question do not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and in those manuscripts that contain them they are sometimes marked as doubtful, and differ from manuscript to manuscript "with that extreme variation in the reading which so often indicates grounds for suspicion".[27]

The italicized words do not appear at all in p66, 75, א, A(original hand), B, C(original hand), L, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and in quotations of the story by several early Greek Fathers. Verse 4 ("For an angel ...") appears but without the concluding words of verse 3 ('waiting for the stirring of the water ...") in A (where it says the angel "bathed in the water" rather than "descended into the water"), L, 18 (fourteenth century), and an Egyptian manuscript. The concluding words of verse 3 but not any of verse 4 appear in D, 33 (ninth century), and some Latin manuscripts. The entire italicized passage appears in C(third hand), K (also with the angel "bathed in the water"), Δ,Θ,Ψ, and numerous other manuscripts, and some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and several Latin Fathers, Some manuscripts – S,Λ,Π, and a few others – contain the words enclosed by marks of doubt. Among the manuscripts that contain this sentence-and-a-half, there are many variations and permutations.[28]

The Revised Version (1881) omitted the italicized words from its main text, making the passage read: "... a multitude of them that were sick, blind, halt, withered. [5] And a certain man was there ...", and as a side-note, "Many ancient authorities insert, wholly or in part," and here present the italicized words exactly as they appeared in the KJV. Several modern versions similarly relegate those words to a footnote, and some others (such as Moffatt) include the words in the main text but enclosed in brackets with an explanation in a footnote.

(11) Acts 8:37[edit]

KJV: And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And he [the Eunuch] answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Modern versions: Either sidelined to a footnote (e.g., RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, Hodges & Farstad Majority Text), or omitted altogether (e.g., Moffatt, Goodspeed, Schonfield, Robinson & Pierpont Majority Text).

Reason: The earliest Greek manuscript (Ea/E2) of the New Testament to include this verse dates from the late sixth or early seventh century[29][30] and it is only found in Western witnesses to the text with many minor variations.[31] The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 AD and the majority of translations made after 600 AD do not include the verse.[32][33][34][35] The tradition of the confession was current in the time of Irenaeus[36] as it is cited by him (c. 180)[37] and Cyprian (c. 250)[38]

This verse appears in E (specifically, a portion from a codex consisting of Acts, dated to the 6th century, once owned by Archbishop William Laud and therefore called the Codex Laudianus, sometimes designated E2 or Ea) and several cursives dating after the 9th century (showing many variants), "manuscripts of good character, but quite inadequate to prove the authenticity of the verse," according to F.H.A. Scrivener.[39] This verse was not found in the Syriac Peshetta, with the result that a printed edition of the Peshetta inserted the verse translated into Syriac by the editors,[39] It is similarly missing from p45, 74, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and a multitude of other codices and cursives. Its omission has a UBS confidence rating of A.[40] But, as Kurt Aland noted, "The external evidence [for the inclusion of this verse] is so weak that the Nestle apparatus cited only the support for insertion and not for the original omission... The voice which speaks in Acts 8:37 is from a later age, with an interest in the detailed justification of the [Ethiopian] treasurerer's desire for baptism."[41] It was omitted in the Complutensian edition, and included in Erasmus's editions only because he found it as a late note in the margin of a secondary manuscript and, from Erasmus, it found its way into other Textus Receptus editions and then the KJV.[42] As Scrivener said, "We cannot safely question the spuriousness of this verse, which all the critical editors condemn. ..."[39]

"For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because "he believed with his whole heart," this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah," (Cyprian)[38] and is found in the Old Latin (2nd/3rd century) and the Vulgate (380–400). In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of manuscript 4ap (15th century) and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.[43] J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested that this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, "as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century."[44]

(12) Acts 15:34[edit]

KJV: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.

Reason: Although this verse, or something similar to it, is quite old, it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, and the manuscripts that do contain it are inconsistent about its text. It does not appear at all in א, A,B,E,L,P,Ψ, and other mss, some Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Slavonic, the best mss of the Latin Vulgate, and other versions, and quotations of this paragraph in Chrysostom.

The verse as it appears in the KJV is found in less ancient Greek mss (cursives, after the 9th century) and some other Italic, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and other versions. However some other, equally old resources, such as the C codex, and several cursives, change one word to make the verse read, "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still."

Several other sources, such as Codex D (Codex Bezae) and some Italic mss, extend the verse with the ending, "and Judas traveled alone"; and a couple of Italic and Latin mss add to that, "to Jerusalem."[45] Erasmus annotated this verse with the comment that the reference to Judas did not appear in any Greek ms known to him.[46]

As F.H.A. Scrivener put it, "No doubt this verse is an unauthorised addition, self-condemned indeed by its numerous variations. ... [It must have begun as] a marginal gloss, designed to explain how ... Silas was at hand in verse 40, conveniently for Saint Paul to choose him as a companion in travel.[47]

This verse was omitted from the Revised Version and most modern versions, but many versions include it in a footnote.

(13) Acts 24:6–8[edit]

KJV: 6 Who also hath gone about to profane the Temple, whom we took,   and would have judged according to our law.
7 But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,
8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee,   by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

      (Note above that not only is verse 7 omitted, but also the end of verse 6 and beginning of verse 8.)

To clarify, only the emphasized words are omitted, removing all of verse 7, but leaving the beginning of verse 6 and most of verse 8. The resulting text looks like this (from the Revised Version):

RV: 6 Who moreover assayed to profane the temple; on whom we also laid hold;
8 from whom thou wilt be able, by examining him thyself, to take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

Reason: These words are not found in the oldest sources – p74,א, A, B, P, several minuscules, some mss of the Italic, Vulgate, Coptic, and Georgian versions. The words are found in sources not quite as old – E,Ψ, some minuscules (with many variants), some Italic mss, and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions. The absence of these words from the earliest resources, and the several variations in the resources in which they appear, made their exclusion probable but not a certainty (the UBS assigned the omission a confidence rating of only D).[48] While verse 7 is omitted in its entirety, parts of verse 6 and verse 8 are also omitted.

(14) Acts 28:29[edit]

KJV: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning [arguing] among themselves.

RV: (verse omitted from main text, in footnote with comment, "Some ancient authorities insert verse 29")

Reason: This verse is lacking in the oldest sources – p74, א, A,B,E,ψ, several minuscules, some Italic, Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Coptic mss, and the Armenian and Georgian versions. They appear only in later sources such as P (9th century) and several minuscules, and a smattering of Italic mss.. The UBS gave the omission of this verse a confidence rating of B. Erasmus of Rotterdam, in working up the very first printed Greek New Testament from a multitude of manuscripts, included this note for this verse: "I did not find the words in several old manuscripts."[49]

(15) Romans 16:24[edit]

KJV: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

RV: (omitted from main text, in footnote)

Reason: This verse occurs twice in the KJV in this chapter; once as the conclusion to verse 20 and again as verse 24, which is the occurrence omitted from modern versions. The first occurrence (as part of verse 20) is very well supported by ancient resources, including p46, א, A,B,C,P,Ψ, and several ancient versions (although some omit 'Christ' and some omit 'Amen'); its inclusion in verse 20 got a UBS confidence rating of B. However, its recurrence as verse 24 is not so well supported. It does not occur after verse 23 in p46 & 61, א, A,B,C, several minuscules and some other sources; it does appear in D,G,Ψ, minuscule 629 (although G,Ψ, and 629—and both leading compilations of the so-called Majority Text—end the Epistle with this verse and do not follow it with verses 25–27) and several later minuscules; P and some minuscules do not have it as verse 24 but move it to the very end of the Epistle, after verse 27. Westcott and Hort said of the recurrence as verse 24, "This last combination, which rests on hardly any authority, and is due to late conflation, was adopted by Erasmus from the Latin and is preserved in the 'Received Text'."[50] The verses immediately before verse 24, the verse 24 itself, and the verses following verse 24 show many variations in the surviving manuscripts. An abbreviated history of the passage is that the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans was known in several different versions: About the year 144, Marcion made radical changes in the ending of the Epistle to the Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14. At about the same time someone else made in other manuscripts the addition of verses 16:24 and 16:25–27. despite the existence of a concluding benediction at 16:20 (whose purpose was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21–23). This resulted in a proliferation of readings (at least 15 different permutations among the surviving resources).[51] Because of its absence from the oldest sources and the confusion about its appearance in several of the sources containing it, its omission after verse 23 got a UBS confidence rating of B.[52]

(16) 1 John 5:7–8[edit]

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, ...

Modern versions: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)

Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by 'Criticus' [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, "a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot" ); and The Three Witnesses – the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.[53] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, "The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view."[54] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, "The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. ..."[55]

Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.[56] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two "Textus Receptus" printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),[57] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.[58] Stephanus (Robert Estienne), in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),[59] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.[60] Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived – it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.[61] The first appearance of the Comma in a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.[62]

Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it – and provided a comment that "this is all I find in the Greek manuscripts".[63] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach's edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.[64] The American Bible Union,[65] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translations of the New Testament it published in the 1860s. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic "to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of" the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.[66] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious[67] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, "It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community."[68] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the 'Textus Receptus' version of this verse in a footnote).

Some other omitted verses[edit]

Matthew 20:16 (b)[edit]

KJV: 16 ... for many be called, but few chosen.

RV: (omitted without a footnote).

These familiar words are not in א, B,L,Z, several cursives, Sahidic, and some Boharic and Ethiopic mss, but appear in slightly more recent mss such as C,D,W,θ, and Latin mss. Apparently Tischendorff's 1841 Greek NT was the first printed edition to omit this clause. The same words appear in Matthew 22:14.

Mark 6:11 (b)[edit]

KJV: 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the
dust under your feet, for a testimony against them:   Verily I say unto you, it shall be more
tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgement, than for that city.   6:12 And they
went out, and preached ...

RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).

Reason: Many (perhaps most) modern versions emulate the Revised Version and simply omit the sentence in question, without any explanatory comment. This is a complete sentence and yet it did not receive, in the Textus Receptus editions, a verse number of its own. It does not appear here in the majority of important codices, such as א,B,C,D,L,W,Δ,Θ, and Latin, Sahidic, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts. It does, however, appear in some significant manuscripts, including ƒ1,13, A, two very old Latin manuscripts, and some Syriac and Boharic manuscripts, and with slight differences in minuscule 33 (9th century). It was already doubted even before the KJV; this sentence does not appear in Wycliff (1380), the Bishops' Bible (1568), and the Rheims (1582). Westcott and Hort omitted it and did not even mention it in their Appendix volume, nor is it mentioned in Scrivener's Plain Introduction to Criticism of the New Testament, nor is it mentioned in Metzger's Commentary, nor does it get even a footnote in the Souter or UBS Greek New Testament. Henry Alford's edition of the New Testament includes this sentence in the main text, but bracketed and italicized, with the brief footnote: "omitted in most ancient authorities: probably inserted here from Matthew 10:15."[69] The same two sentences do appear, without any quibbling about their authenticity, in Matthew 10:14–15, and it is plausible that some very early copyist assimilated the sentence into Mark, perhaps as a sidenote subsequently copied into the main text. In any case, its omission from Mark 6:11 does not effect its unchallenged presence in Matthew 10:15.

Luke 4:8 (b)[edit]

KJV: "And Jesus answered and said unto to him [the Devil],   ' Get thee behind me, Satan, for   it is written, ...'

RV: (omits the emphasized words, without a footnote).

Reason: The emphasized words, although by now a very familiar quotation, are omitted from the RV and most other modern versions; it was also omitted by the Wycliffe (1380) and Rheims (1582) versions. This clause is not found in א,B,D,L,W,Ξ, ƒ1, several cursives, and Latin, Sahidic, and many Syriac and Boharic mss. It is present in A,Θ,Ψ,ƒ13, and some Italic mss. It is believed probable that the clause was inserted here by assimilation because the corresponding version of this narrative, in Matthew, contains a somewhat similar rebuke to the Devil (in the KJV, "Get thee hence, Satan,"; Matthew 4:10, which is the way this rebuke reads in Luke 4:8 in the Tyndale [1534], Great Bible (also called the Cranmer Bible) [1539], and Geneva [1557] versions), whose authenticity is not disputed, and because the very same words are used in a different situation in Matthew 16:23 and Mark 8:33. The omission of this clause from Luke 4:8 in critical texts is so well-established that no comment about the omission appears in the Appendix to Westcott & Hort, in Scrivener's Plain Introduction to Textual Criticism, or in the UBS New Testament.

Luke 9:55–56[edit]

KJV: 55"But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

RV: 55But he turned and rebuked them. 56And they went to another village.

[the Revised Version has a marginal note:

"Some ancient authorities add ' and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.' Some, but fewer, add also: ' For the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' "

Many modern versions omit these words without a note.]

Reasons: The shorter version is found in very early manuscripts, although the longer version is used by most Latin manuscripts, which is why it is also present in early English translations. The shorter version, omitting the doubted phrases in both verses, appears in א,A,B,C,L,W,X,Δ,Ξ,Ψ,p45,75, but the words do appear (with minor variants) in some slightly later authorities, such as D and K (D contains the phrase in verse 55, but not the phrase in verse 56). The UBS gives the omission of the doubted phrases a confidence rating of only C, and Westcott and Hort "thought it safer" to have the words in the main text but enclosed in single brackets.[70] The two passages were omitted from printed Greek New Testaments as early as Griesbach's first edition in 1774. Both passages occur in the Majority Text editions but the Robinson & Pierpont edition encloses them with brackets, and the Hodges and Farsted edition has a footnote to the effect that the words are from the Textus Receptus but not found in some of the Majority text sources.

Luke 23:17[edit]

KJV: For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.
(The Good News Bible, as a footnote, gave this as: At every Passover Festival Pilate had to set free one prisoner for them.)

Reasons: The same verse or a very similar verse appears (and is preserved) as Matthew 27:15 and as Mark 15:6. This verse is suspected of having been assimilated into Luke at a very early date. But it is missing from Luke in such early manuscripts as p75 (early Third century),A,B,K,L, the Sahidic version, a Bohairic ms, and an Italic ms. On the other hand, it does appear in א,W,ƒ1, 13, and some Syriac and Bohairic mss, which indicates that its assimilation into Luke had begun at a fairly early time. However, D, the Ethiopic version, and some Italic and Syriac mss put this verse after what is called verse 18, which may further indicate that it was an insertion rather than part of the authorial text.[71] Moffatt characterized this verse as "an explanatory and harmonistic gloss."[72] The verse in Luke does differ from the contexts of the similar verses at Matthew 27:15 and Mark 15:6, where releasing a prisoner on Passover is a "habit" or "custom" of Pilate, and at John 18:39 is a custom of the Jews – but in its appearance in Luke it becomes a necessity for Pilate regardless of his habits or preferences, "to comply with a law which never existed."[73] Aland lays stress on the differences among the Gospel accounts and says, "Even though א reads the insertion, the evidence for ... omission is stronger by far."[74][75]

Acts 9:5–6[edit]

KJV: 5 And he [Paul] said, 'Who art thou Lord?' and the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom
thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he, trembling and astonished, said, 'Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?' And the Lord said
unto him, 'Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.'

(All in bold type omitted in modern versions)

RV: 5 ... 'I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; 6 but rise, and enter into the city, and
it shall be told thee what thou must do.' ...

Reason: The passage in question is omitted from virtually all modern versions (including both Majority Text editions), frequently without even a footnote. The reason for its omission is quite persuasive. As Bruce M. Metzger puts it, "So far as is known, no Greek witness reads these words at this place; they have been taken from [Acts] 26:14 and 22:10, and are found here in codices of the Vulgate. ... The spurious passage came into the Textus Receptus when Erasmus translated it from the Latin Vulgate and inserted it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel, 1516). [76] The 18th century Bible scholar, Johann David Michaelis, wrote (c. 1749), "[This] long passage ... has been found in not a single Greek manuscript, not even in those which have been lately [ca. 1785] collated by Matthai. It is likewise wanting in the Complutensian edition; but it was inserted by Erasmus [translating it from the Latin Vulgate], and upon his authority it has been adopted by the other editors of the Greek Testament...This passage then, which later editors have copied from Erasmus, and which is contained in our common editions, is not only spurious, but was not even taken from a Greek manuscript."[77] The passage does not appear in the Complutensian Polyglot (1516) and noted as doubtful in Wettstein's 1763 London edition, and since then it scarcely appeared in the main text and sometimes not even as a footnote in editions of the Greek New Testament and modern translations.

Acts 13:42[edit]

KJV: And when the Jews were gone out of the Synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

(all in bold type omitted in modern versions)

RV: And as they went out, they besought that these words might be spoken to them the next sabbath.

Reasons: The KJV passage, with its explicit mention of Gentiles interested in the events of the next Sabbath, is a sort of proof text for those denominations that adhere to Seventh Day worship. For example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, in his 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, says "The Authorized Version pictures to us the congregation, composed of Jews and Gentiles. By this distinction it reveals that a number of the Gentiles were present... All this is lost in the Revised Version by failing to mention the Jews and the Gentiles. ... Does not this affect fundamental doctrine?"[78] However, the RV's text is that of the earliest and most esteemed mss - p74, א,A,B,C,D, and many others, including the Vulgate and other ancient versions; the appearance of the words for Jews and for Gentiles (ethna) occurs in Codices Ψ and P (both ninth cent.) and a number of later mss. A possible reason for the rewriting of this verse is that the original is awkward and ambiguous—the Greek text says "they went out ... they requested", without any further identification; it is not clear who the two "they" are, whether they are the same or different groups. Bishops Westcott and Hort describe the original (RV) reading as "the obscure and improbable language of the text as it stands."[79] Even before the KJV, the Wycliffe version (1380) and the Douay-Rheims version (1582) had renderings that resembled the original (Revised Version) text. The ambiguity of the original reading has motivated some modern interpretations to attempt to identify "they"—e.g., the Good News Bible, the New American Standard, the NIV, and the New RSV, have Paul and Barnabas going out and 'the people' inviting them to repeat or expand on their preaching.

Acts 23:9 (b)[edit]

KJV: Let us not fight against God.

RV: (omitted without a note)

Reasons: This phrase, which also appears in Acts 5:39, does not appear in the earliest and best resources - p74, א,A,B,C (original hand),E,Ψ. Latin, Syriac, and others - and does not appear until H,L, and P (all 9th century). As the original verse ended with a question, it is suspected that this phrase was taken from 5:39 to serve as an answer. Even before the KJV, it was omitted in the Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims versions. It was omitted from editions of the Greek New Testament at least as far back as 1729, in Daniel Mace's edition.[80]

Not omitted but boxed[edit]

There are two passages (both 12 verses long) that continue to appear in the main text of most of the modern versions, but distinguished in some way from the rest of the text, such as being enclosed in brackets or printed in different typeface or relegated to a footnote. These are passages which are well supported by a wide variety of sources of great antiquity and yet there is strong reason to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels. In the words of Philip Schaff, "According to the judgment of the best critics, these two important sections are additions to the original text from apostolic tradition."[81]

Mark 16:9–20[edit]

KJV: 9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart,
because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents;[82] and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.[83]

Reasons: Entire volumes have been written about these twelve verses,[84] and considerable attention is paid to these verses in many (or most) texts on textual criticism of the New Testament, and many articles in learned journals. According to Reuss, the 1849 Greek New Testament of Tischendorf was the first to remove these verses from the main text.[85]

The twelve verses shown in the KJV, called the "longer ending" of Mark, usually are retained[86] in modern versions, although sometimes separated from verse 8 by an extra space, or enclosed in brackets, or relegated to a footnote, and accompanied by a note to the effect that this ending is not found in the very oldest Greek mss but it is found in sources almost as old.

The RV of 1881 put an extra space between verse 8 and this verse 9 and included a marginal note to that effect, a practice followed by many subsequent English versions. The RSV edition of 1947 ends its main text at verse 8 and then in a footnote provides this ending with the note that "other texts and versions" include it; but the revised RSV of 1971 and the NRSV reverted to the practice of the RV.

Although the longer ending appears in 99 percent of the surviving Greek mss and most ancient versions,[87] there is strong evidence, both external and internal, for concluding that it was not part of the original text of the Gospel.

The preceding portion of chapter 16 tells how Mary Magdalene and two other women came to the tomb, found it opened and Jesus's body missing, and were told by a young man in a white robe to convey a message to Peter and the other disciples, but the women fled and said nothing to anyone because they were frightened. The last words of verse 8 are, in Greek, έφοβούντο γάρ, usually translated "for they were afraid". It is nowadays widely accepted that these are the last remaining verses written by St. Mark.[88] The Gospel of St. Mark ends (somewhat abruptly) at end of verse 8 ("for they were afraid.") in א and B (both 4th century) and some much later Greek mss, a few mss of the ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian), and is specifically mentioned in the writings of such Church Fathers as Eusebius and Jerome explicitly doubted the authenticity of the verses after verse 8 ("Almost all the Greek copies do not contain this concluding portion."), most other Church Fathers don't quote from this ending. No papyrus contains any portion of the 12 verses.[89]

On the other hand, these 12 verses occur in slightly less ancient Greek mss, A,C,D,K,θ,ƒ13, and a "vast number" of others,[90] and a great many mss of the ancient versions, and is quoted by some other Church Fathers, the earliest being Irenaeus, in the late second century (although his quotations are imprecise).[91] So it would appear, initially, that the evidence was nearly in equipoise.

Yet other ancient sources include this longer ending – but mark it with asterisks or other signs or notations indicating the copyists had doubts about its authenticity, most notably ƒ1 and several minuscules (all twelfth century or later), according to the UBS notes and Bruce Metzger.[90]

Although this Longer Ending is of great antiquity, some early Church Fathers were familiar with mss that lacked it. Eusebius, in the first half of the fourth century, wrote, in response to a query from a man named Marinus, about how Matthew 28:1 conflicts with the Longer Ending on which day Jesus rose from the dead, with the comment, "He who is for getting rid of the entire passage [at the end of Mark] will say that it is not met with in all the copies of Mark's Gospel; the accurate copies, at all events, making the end of Mark's narrative come after the words ... '... for they were afraid.' [verse 8] For at those words, in almost all copies of the Gospel According to Mark, comes the end. What follows, which is met with seldom, [and only] in some copies, certainly not in all, might be dispensed with; especially if it should prove to contradict the record of the other Evangelists. This, then, is what a person will say who is for evading and entirely getting rid of a gratuitous problem." Eusebius goes on to try to reconcile the Longer Ending with the other Gospel accounts, if the Longer Ending were to be regarded as authentic.[92] St. Jerome, in the first half of the fifth century, received a very similar query from a lady named Hedibia and responded, "Either we should reject the testimony of Mark, which is met with in scarcely any copies of the Gospel, – almost all the Greek codices being without this passage, – especially since it seems to narrate what contradicts the other Gospels; – or else, we shall reply that both Evangelists state what is true."[93] This might be thought an authoritative statement but Jerome compromised it by including the Longer Ending, without any apparent notation about doubting it, in his Latin Vulgate, and Burgon (among others) thinks this inclusion is an endorsement of its authenticity.[94] It has been suggested or suspected that Jerome's expression of doubt was actually a rehash of the similar comment by Eusebius,[95] but, to the contrary, it is possible that Jerome was unaware of this particular opinion of Eusebius, considering that it was utterly unknown to modern scholars until its fortuitous discovery in 1825. Burgon also found a patristic comment previously attributed to Gregory of Nyssa (of the late fourth century), but which he suspected was more likely written by Hesychius of Jerusalem (middle of the fifth century) or Severus of Antioch (middle sixth century), again answering the same sort of query, and saying, "In the more accurate copies, the Gospel according to Mark has its end at 'for they were afraid.' In some copies, however, this also is added – 'Now when He was risen early [on] the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ...'." In this instance Gregory of Nyssa (or Hesychius or Severus) goes on to eliminate the problem by suggesting the imposition of punctuation different from that used in any of the Greek manuscripts (the earliest had no punctuation at all, the later mss had little more than commas and periods) or in the KJV, to make the first verse of the Longer Ending appear to be "Now when He was risen: Early on the first day of the week He appeared first to Mary Magdalene ..." In other words, that Jesus had risen presumably at the end of the Sabbath, as suggested in the other Gospels, but He did not appear to Mary Magdalene until the next day.[96]

Actually, Greek codex W (also known as the Freer Gospels or the Codex Washingtonianus), dating from the fourth or fifth century, is the oldest known Greek ms that sets forth the Longer Ending[97] and it contains a lengthy addition (which appears nowhere else), known as the Freer Logion, between the familiar verses 14 and 15.[98] The addition in Codex W is included in James Moffatt's 1935 translation, with a note indicating Moffatt's belief[99] that it was part of the original text of the longer ending "but was excised for some reason at an early date." It was not included in the RSV, but is set forth in a footnote to verse 14 in the NRSV with the comment that "other ancient authorities [sic plural] add, in whole or part". The addition, as translated by Moffatt:

But they excused themselves saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief lies under the sway of Satan,
who will not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God;
therefore," they said to Christ, "reveal your righteousness now."
Christ answered them, "The term of years for Satan's power has now expired, but other terrors are at hand.
I was delivered to death on behalf of sinners, that they might return to the truth and sin no more,
that they might inherit that glory of righteousness which is spiritual and imperishable in heaven."

In 1891, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, while collating several ancient Armenian manuscripts in the library of the monastery at Ećmiadzin, at the foot of Mount Ararat, in what is now Turkey, found a uncial codex written in the year 986, bound with ivory front and back covers. As Conybeare described it:[100] "Now in this codex the Gospel of Mark is copied out as far as έφοβούντο γάρ [i.e., the end of 16:8]. Then a space of two lines is left, after which, in the same uncial hand, only in red, is written "Ariston Eritzou." which means "Of the Presbyter Ariston." This title occupies one whole line (the book is written in double columns) and then follow the last twelve verses [i.e., the Longer Ending] still in the same hand. They begin near the bottom of the second column of a verse, and are continued on the recto of the next folio." The text in this Armenian codex is a literal translation of the Longer Ending from the Greek mss.[101] In other words, the Longer Ending was attributed, in this tenth century Armenian codex, to a "Presbyter Ariston". Conybeare theorized that Ariston was the Armenian version of the Greek name Aristion. Of a number of Aristions known to history, Conybeare favored the Aristion who had traveled with the original Disciples and was known to Papias, a famous Bishop of the early 2nd century; a quotation from Papias, mentioning Aristion as a Disciple, is found in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, 3:39:4.[102] Other candidates includes an Aristo of Pella, who flourished around the year 140, also mentioned by Eusebius in the Historia Ecclesiastica, 4:6:3, favored by Alfred Resch,[103] but Conybeare considered him too late to have written the Longer Ending in time for it to have achieved its widespread acceptance.[104] An examination of 220 Armenian mss of Mark showed that 88 contained the Longer Ending as a regular part of the text, 99 stop at verse 8, and 33 contained the Longer Ending as a subsequent insertion into the mss.[105] It may be significant that where the Armenian mss do reproduce the Longer Ending, some have conspicuous variants from the Greek version,[106] and a few Armenian mss put the Longer Ending elsewhere than at the end of Mark – of the 220 Armenian mss studied, two put the Longer Ending at the end of the Gospel of John, and one puts it at the end of Luke, and one ms has the Longer Ending at the end of Mark and the Shorter Ending at the end of the Gospel of Luke.[107] Even into the 17th century, some Armenian copyists were omitting the Longer Ending or including it with a note doubting its genuineness.[108]

But this situation is a bit more complicated. Some other ancient sources have an entirely different ending to Mark, after verse 8, known as the "Shorter Ending". The RV of 1881 contained a footnote attesting to the existence of this Shorter Ending but its text did not appear in a popular edition of the Bible until somewhat later.[109] It appeared in the footnote at this place in the RSV and then in brackets in the main text of the NRSV:

RSV & NRSV: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told.
After this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them,
from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

This Shorter Ending appears, by itself without the Longer Ending, after verse 8, in only one manuscript, an Italic ms (Codex Bobbiensis, "k"), of the 4th or 5th century.[110] But there are a handful of other sources that contain the Shorter Ending then add the Longer Ending after it.[90] The Shorter Ending is found in Greek in Fragment Sinaiticum ("0112") (7th century), Fragment Parisiense ("099") (8th cent.), Codex Regius ("L") (8th cent.) and Codex Athous Laurae ("Ψ") (8th or 9th century); in the first three it is preceded with a copyist's note about being found in only some manuscripts, in Ψ it follows verse 8 without such a note, and in all four the Shorter Ending is followed by the Longer Ending.[111] It is also reported to appear similarly (first Shorter, then Longer Ending) in some ancient versions. Wherever the Shorter Ending appears, even when combined with the Longer Ending, there is some separation in the text (decoration or a copyist's notation) immediately after verse 8; the only exception being Codex Ψ, which treats the Shorter Ending as the proper continuation after verse 8 – but then inserts a copyist's note before providing the Longer Ending.[112]

The very existence of the Shorter Ending, whose composition is estimated as the middle of the 2nd century, is taken as evidence that the Longer Ending is not appreciably older, because the Shorter Ending would not have been worked up if the Longer Ending were then readily available.[113]

As a result, there are five possible endings to the Gospel of Mark: (1) An abrupt ending at end of verse 8; (2) the Longer Ending following verse 8; (3) the Longer Ending including the "Freer Logion"; (4) the Shorter Ending following verse 8; and (5) the Shorter and Longer endings combined (and we could add as a sixth possible ending, anything after verse 8 enclosed in brackets or otherwise distinguished with indicia of doubt).[114]

It would appear that the Longer Ending does not fit precisely with the preceding portion of chapter 16. For example, verse 9 says Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene on "the first day of the week", yet verse 2 said that same day Mary Magdalene did not see Jesus. Perhaps more significantly, verse 9 finds it necessary to identify Mary Magdalene as the woman who had been freed of seven demons, as if she had not been named before, yet she was mentioned without that detail being mentioned in 15:47 and 16:1.[115] Verse 9 in Greek does not mention Jesus by name or title, but only says "Having arisen ... he appeared ..." (the KJV's inclusion of the name Jesus was an editorial emendation as indicated by the use of italic typeface) – and, in fact, Jesus is not expressly named until verses 19 and 20 ("the Lord" in both verses); a lengthy use of a pronoun without identification.[116] Additionally, the style and vocabulary of the longer ending appear not to be in the same style as the rest of the Gospel. The Greek text used by the KJV translators is 166 words long, using a vocabulary of (very approximately) 140 words.[117] Yet, out of that small number, 16 words do not appear elsewhere in the Gospel of Mark, 5 words are used here in a different way than used elsewhere in Mark, and 4 phrases do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[118] The shorter ending, in Greek, is approximately (depending on the variants) 32 words long,[119] of which 7 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[120] The Freer Logion consists of 89 words,[121] of which 8 words do not appear elsewhere in Mark.[120] The stylistic differences suggest that none of these was written by the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. Metzger speaks of the "inconcinnities" [sic] between the first 8 verses of chapter 16 and the longer ending, and suggests, "all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion."[122] Alfred Plummer puts it very strongly, "The twelve verses not only do not belong to Mark, they quite clearly belong to some other document. While Mark has no proper ending, these verses have no proper beginning. ... Not only does verse 9 not fit onto verse 8, but the texture of what follows is quite different from the texture of what precedes. A piece torn from a bit of satin is appended to the torn end of roll of homespun."[116]

The preceding verse, verse 16:8. ends abruptly. Although the KJV and most English translations render this as the end of a complete sentence ("for they were afraid."), the Greek words έφοβούντο γάρ suggest that the sentence is incomplete. The word γάρ is a sort of conjunction and rarely occurs at the end of a sentence.[123] The word έφοβούντο does not mean merely "afraid" but suggests a mention to the cause of the fear, as if to say "they were afraid of – - -", but this cause of fear is not stated in the verse.[124] The attachment of neither the Longer nor Shorter Ending (nor both of them) smooth this "ragged edge to an imperfect document".[125] There is also a problem with the narrative; verses 6 and 7, whose genuineness is undoubted, says that Jesus is "not here" (in Jerusalem) but will appear to them and the disciples in Galilee. The Shorter Ending does not contradict this, but the Longer Ending, in verse 9, immediately contradicts this by having Jesus appear to Mary Magdalene while in Jerusalem, and in verse 12 to two disciples apparently not yet in Galilee. This inconsistency has been considered significant by some.[126]

Although the Longer Ending was included, without any indication of doubt, as part of chapter 16 of the Gospel of St. Mark in the various Textus Receptus editions, the editor of the first published Textus Receptus edition, namely Erasmus of Rotterdam, discovered (evidently after his fifth and final edition of 1535) that the Codex Vaticanus ended the Gospel at verse 8, whereupon he mentioned doubts about the Longer Ending in a manuscript which lay unpublished until modern times.[127] The omission of the Longer Ending in the Codex Vaticanus apparently was not realized again until rediscovered in 1801 by the Danish scholar Andreas Birch (whose discovery got very little publicity owing to a fire that destroyed his newly published book before it could be much distributed).[127] After that, the omission was again rediscovered by Johann Jakob Griesbach, and was reflected in his third edition (1803) of the Greek New Testament, where he ended the Gospel at verse 8 and separated the Longer Ending and enclosed it in brackets,[127] very much as most modern editions of the Greek text and many modern English versions continue to do.

A commonly accepted theory for the condition of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark is that the words actually written by St. Mark end, somewhat abruptly, with verse 8. This abrupt ending may have been a deliberate choice of St. Mark or because the last part of his writing (after verse 8) was somehow separated from the rest of his manuscript and was lost (an alternative theory is that St. Mark died before finishing his Gospel). From the incomplete manuscript the copies that end abruptly at verse 8 were directly or remotely copied. At some point, two other people, dissatisfied with the abrupt ending at verse 8, and writing independently of each other, supplied the Longer and the Shorter endings.[128] The longer ending was written perhaps as early as the last decade of the First Century and acquired some popularity, and the shorter ending could have been written even as late as a few centuries later. The "lost page" theory has gotten wide acceptance,[129] other theories have suggested that the last page was not lost by accident but was deliberately suppressed, perhaps because something in St. Mark's original conclusion was troublesome to certain Christians.[130] No matter how or why the original and genuine conclusion to the Gospel disappeared, the fact remains that neither the Longer nor Shorter endings provide an authentic continuation to verse 8.[122] Explanations aside, it is now widely (although not unanimously) accepted that St. Mark's own words end with verse 8 and anything after that was written by someone else at a later date.[131]

John 7:53–8:11[edit]

KJV: 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives;
2 And early in the morning he came again unto the Temple, and all the people came unto him, and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the Scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery, and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?"
6 This they said, tempting [testing] him, that they might have to [be able to] accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground[132] as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lift up himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
8 And again, he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.[133]
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience,[134] went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and [with] the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lift up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, "Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"
11 She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go, and sin no more."

Reason: This familiar story of the adulteress saved by Jesus is a special case. These dozen verses have been the subject of a number of books, including Chris Keith, The Pericope Adulterae, the Gospel of John, and the Literacy of Jesus (2009, Leiden & Boston, E.J. Brill); David Alan Black & Jacob N. Cerone, eds., The Pericope of the Adulteress in Contemporary Research (2016, London & NY, Bloomsbury T&T Clark); John David Punch, The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission (2012, Saarbruken, Lap Lambert Academic Publ'g.), and Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (2019, NJ, Princeton Univ. Press). The principal problem affecting this paragraph is that, although it appears in many ancient manuscripts, it does not consistently appear in this place in chapter 8 nor even in the Gospel of John. Moreover, in the various manuscripts in which the passage appears, it presents a much greater number of variations[135] than an equal portion of the New Testament – so much so, that it would seem that there are three distinct versions of the pericope.[136]

By its own context, this paragraph appears misplaced; in the verse preceding this pericope (namely verse 7:52) Jesus is conversing or arguing with a group of men, and in the verse following this pericope (verse 8:12) he is speaking "again unto them", even though verses 8:9–10 would indicate he was alone in the Temple courtyard and also that a day has passed. It would seem possible that, originally, 7:52 was immediately followed by 8:12, and somehow this pericope was inserted between them, interrupting the narrative.[137]

The pericope does not appear in the oldest Codexes – א, A,B,C,L,N,T,W,X,Δ,θ,Ψ – nor in papyri p66 or p75, nor in minuscules 33, 157, 565, 892, 1241, or ƒ1424 nor in the Peshitta.[138] Scrivener lists more than 50 minuscules that lack the pericope, and several more in which the original scribe omitted it but a later hand inserted it. It is also missing from the Syriac and Sahidic versions and some Egyptian versions. The earliest Greek Codex showing this pericope at all is D (Codex Bezae), of the 5th or 6th century - but the text in D has conspicuous variants from the Textus Receptus/KJV version,[139] and some Old Latin manuscripts no older than the 5th century, and many subsequent Greek and Latin mss all at the familiar location following John 7:52. The first Greek Church Father to mention the pericope in its familiar place was Euthymius, of the 12th century.

Westcott and Hort summarized the evidence as follows:

"Not only is [the section on the Woman taken in Adultery] passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theophylact inclusive (11th–12th centuries); but with the exception of a reference in the Apostolic Constitutions (? 4th century), and a statement by an obscure Nicon (10th century or later) that it was expunged by the Armenians, not the slightest allusion to it has yet been discovered in the whole of Greek theology before the 12th century. The earliest Greek mss containing it, except the Western Codex Bezae [5th century], are of the 8th century. ... It has no right to a place in the Fourth Gospel, yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament."[140]

However, one minuscule (ms. 225) placed the pericope after John 7:36. Several – ƒ1 – placed it at the very end of the Gospel of John, and Scrivener adds several more that have so placed a shorter pericope beginning at verse 8:3. Another handful of minuscules – ƒ13 – put it after Luke 21:38. Some manuscripts – S,E,Λ – had it in the familiar place but enclosed the pericope with marks of doubt (asterisks or some other glyph), and Scrivener lists more than 40 minuscules that also apply marks of doubt to the pericope.[141]

Some scholars have suggested that the pericope is not written in the same style as the rest of the Fourth Gospel, and have suggested it is written more in the style of the Gospel of Luke, a suggestion supported by the fact that the ƒ13 manuscripts actually put the pericope into the Gospel of Luke.[142] For example, nowhere else does the Fourth Gospel mention by name the Mount of Olives, and where a new place is mentioned in the Fourth Gospel some explanatory remarks are attached, nor does the Fourth Gospel mention 'the Scribes' elsewhere.[143] A theory shared by several scholars is that this pericope represents some very early tradition or folktale about Jesus, not originally found in any of the canonical Gospels, which was so popular or compelling that it was deliberately inserted into a Gospel;[144] a variant on this theory is that this anecdote was written down as a note for a sermon, perhaps in the margin of a codex or on a scrap inserted between the pages of a codex, and a subsequent copyist mistakenly incorporated it in the main text when working up a new copy. Its source might be indicated by Eusebius (early 4th century), in his Historia Ecclesia, book 3, sec. 39, where he says, "Papias [2nd century] ... reproduces a story about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins. This is to be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews."[145]

This pericope was framed with marks of doubt in Johann Jakob Wettstein's 1751 Greek New Testament and some earlier Greek editions contained notes doubting its authenticity.[146] The evidence that the pericope, although a much-beloved story, does not belong in the place assigned it by many late manuscripts, and, further, that it might not be part of the original text of any of the Gospels, caused the Revised Version (1881) to enclose it within brackets, in its familiar place after John 7:52, with the sidenote, "Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53–8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other." This practice has been imitated in most of the English versions since then. The Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament omitted the pericope from the main text and places it as an appendix after the end of the Fourth Gospel, with this explanation:[147] "It has no right to a place in the text of the Four Gospels; yet it is evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now without serious loss be entirely banished from the New Testament. ... As it forms an independent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end of the Gospels with double brackets to show its inferior authority ..." Some English translations based on Westcott & Hort imitate this practice of appending the pericope at the end of the Gospel (e.g., The Twentieth Century New Testament), while others simply omit it altogether (e.g., Goodspeed, Ferrar Fenton, the 2013 revision of The New World Version). The Nestle-Aland and UBS Greek editions enclose it in double brackets. The two 'Majority Text' Greek editions set forth the pericope in the main text (varying slightly from each other) but provide extensive notes elsewhere[148] attesting to the lack of uniformity in the text of the pericope and doubts about its origin.

Caspar René Gregory, who compiled a catalog of New Testament manuscripts, summarizes the situation: "Now I have no doubt that the story [of the adulteress] itself is as old as the Gospel of John or even older, and that it is a true story. But it is no part of that gospel. That is perfectly sure."[149]

Other English translations[edit]

O = omitted in main text.

B = bracketed in the main text – The translation team and most biblical scholars today believe were not part of the original text. However, these texts have been retained in brackets in the NASB and the Holman CSB.[150]

F = omission noted in the footnote.

Bible translation
PassageNIVNASBNKJVNRSVESVHCSBNETNLTWEBREBAMPCEBCJBCEVERVGWEXBGNTKnoxLEBMSGMounceNETNIrVNLVOJB
Matthew 9:34F
Matthew 12:47FFFFFOFFF
Matthew 17:21FBFOFBOFFFOOOFOOOOO
Matthew 18:11FBFOFBOOFFOOOOFOOOOO
Matthew 21:44FFBFFFOFFFFO
Matthew 23:14FBFOFBOOFFOOOOFOOOOO
Mark 7:16FBFOFBOOFFOOOFFOOOOO
Mark 9:44FBFOFBOOFOOOOOFOOOOO
Mark 9:46FBFOFBOOFOOOOOFOOOOO
Mark 11:26FBFOFBOOFOOOOFOOOOOB
Mark 15:28FBFOFBOOFFOOOOFOOOOOB
Mark 16:9–20BBFFBBBFBFFBFBBBB
Luke 17:36FBFOFBOOFFFOOOOFOOOOO
Luke 22:20FFFFO
Luke 22:43BFFBBFFFFB+FB
Luke 22:44BFFBBFFFFFB+FB
Luke 23:17FBFOFBOOFFOOFOOFOOOOOB
Luke 24:12FFOF
Luke 24:40FFF
John 5:4FBFOFBOOFOOOOFOOOOOBB
John 7:53–8:11BFFBBBFBB+FB
Acts 8:37FBFFFBOOFFFOOOOFOOOOOBB
Acts 15:34FBFOFOOOFFFOOOOFOOOOOB
Acts 24:7FBFOFBOOFFOOOOOOOOB
Acts 28:29FBFOFBOOFFOOOOFOOOOOB
Romans 16:24FBFOFBOOFFOOOOFOOOOB

Versification differences[edit]

Some English translations have minor versification differences compared with the KJV.

Romans 14 and 16[edit]

The KJV ends the Epistle to the Romans with these verses as 16:25–27:

KJV: 25 Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began:
26 But now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,
27 To God, only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ, for ever. Amen.

[Note: Different editions of the KJV show various treatments of the punctuation, especially at the end of the verses, and of capitalization, especially at the beginning of the verses. The quotation above uses the punctuation and capitalization of the original 1611 edition of the KJV.]

The KJV has 23 verses in chapter 14 and 33 verses in chapter 15 of Romans.

Most translations follow KJV (based on Textus Receptus) versification and have Romans 16:25–27 and Romans 14:24–26 do not exist.

The WEB bible, however, moves Romans 16:25–27 (end of chapter verses) to Romans 14:24–26 (also end of chapter verses).

WEB explains with a footnote in Romans 16:

Textus Receptus places Romans 14:24–26 at the end of Romans instead of at the end of chapter 14, and numbers these verses 16:25–27

2 Corinthians 13:14[edit]

The KJV has:

12 Greet one another with an holy kiss.
13 All the saints salute you.
14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost, [be] with you all. Amen.

In some translations, verse 13 is combined with verse 12, leaving verse 14 renumbered as verse 13.[151]

3 John 15[edit]

3 John 14–15 ESV are merged as a single verse in the KJV. Thus verse 15 does not exist in the KJV.

The KJV is quoted as having 31,102 verses. This is an exact figure.

The ESV, however, is quoted as having 31,103. This is solely because of this difference. The figure 31,103 is achieved by adding up the last verse for each and every chapter which is why it is impacted by end of chapter differences. The figure 31,103 does not account for the "missing verses" referred to above which are missing mid-chapter. Thus the actual number of verses in the ESV is less than 31,103.

Note that in relation to 2 Corinthians 13:14, another end of chapter anomaly (as opposed to mid-chapter), the ESV and KJV agree.

Revelation 12:18[edit]

In the KJV, this is treated as the first half of 13:1:
KJV: And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up ...
Some versions, including pre-KJV versions such as the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops Bible, treat the italicized words as a complete verse and numbered as 12:18, with similar words.

In several modern versions, this is treated as a continuation of 12:17 or as a complete verse numbered 12:18:
RV: And he stood upon the sand of the sea.
(Some say "it stood" – the he or it being the Dragon mentioned in the preceding verses) Among pre-KJV versions, the Great Bible and the Rheims version also have "he stood".

Reasons: The earliest resources – including p47, א, A,C, several minuscules, several Italic mss, the Vulgate, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, and quotation in some early Church Fathers – support "he stood" (or "it stood"). The KJV and TR follow codex P (9th century) and a smattering of other (mostly late) resources in reading "I stood". Metzger suggests that the TR text is the result of copyists' assimilation to the verb form in 13:1 ("I saw a beast").[152]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Example, Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930).
  2. ^ Example, J.J. Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955); http://www.asureguidetoheaven.org/onebible.pdfArchived 2016-08-02 at the Wayback Machine.
  3. ^ Example, http://christianboydiary.blogspot.com/2010/01/verses-omitted-from-niv-and-good-news.html .
  4. ^ E.g., Alexander Gordon, Christian Doctrine in the Light of New Testament Revision (1882, London)[esp. pages 5–6]; Benjamin G. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930, Washington, DC)[and often reprinted].
  5. ^ E.g., Jaspar James Ray, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955, Junction City, Ore.) [1] Archived 2016-08-02 at the Wayback Machine; Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (1999, Oxford Univ. Press).
  6. ^ For example, [2][3][4][5][6]; and many more; to which can be added numerous internet videos, such as: [7][8][9][10]; etc.
  7. ^ Alexander SouterNovvm Testamentvm Graece (1910, Oxford, Clarendon Press)(using as its main text the Greek text underlying the RV, edited by Archdeacon Edwin Palmer, with an apparatus worked up by Souter)
  8. ^ Eberhard and Erwin Nestle (early editions) and Kurt and Barbara Aland, et al. (recent revisions), Novum Testamentum Graece, (26th ed. 1979, 27th ed. 1993, 28th ed. 2012, Stuttgart, Germany, Deutsche Bibelgeselischaft)
  9. ^ Kurt Aland, et al., edd., The Greek New Testament (2nd ed. 1968, 3rd ed. 1976, 4th ed. 1993, 5th ed. 2014, Stuttgart, Germany, United Bible Societies)(the mss citations are virtually unchanged from edition to edition but the confidence ratings for the choices made for the main text are sometimes revised; the confidence ratings also appear in Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament cited below).
  10. ^ See, generally, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans).
  11. ^ These references are primarily obtained from the catalog of Eduard ReussBibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick). One reason for including this information is to refute the accusations made by some KJVOs that Bishops Westcott and Hort were the originators and instigators of all the omissions occurring in modern versions.
  12. ^ Samuel T. Bloomfield, The Greek New Testament (first ed. 1832, Cambridge) vol.2, page 128.
  13. ^ E.g., Sixteen verses discovered missing from the word of GOD!http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/missing-verses.htmlhttp://www.missingverses.com/.
  14. ^ E.g., Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?The NIV leaves out 16 entire verses!.
  15. ^ .Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit (this book focuses on the 'problem' passages in terms of translation or editing, and is particularly helpful in explaining the likelihood or unlikelihood of scribal errors).
  16. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 80.
  17. Jump up to:a b Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
  18. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 86.
  19. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 87–88.
  20. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 88.
  21. ^ Herman C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Codex Evangelium 604 (1890, London) App. B, page 5; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 95; F.H.A. Scrivener, Novum Testamentum, textus Stephanici (1902, London) loc.cit.; Eduard Reuss, Biblioteca Novi Testamenti Geaeci ..., (1872, Brunswick) passim.
  22. ^ NA27, p. 218
  23. ^ Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. p. 142–143.
  24. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
  25. ^ Henry AlfordThe New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part ii, loc.cit.
  26. ^ E. W. G. Masterman, The Pool of Bethesda, The Biblical World, vol. 25, nr. 2 (Feb 1905) page 88.
  27. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 607.
  28. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 607–609; Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 77; Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; UBS, loc.cit.; Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament(2nd ed.1989, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 303.
  29. ^ Metzger 1964, p. 52.
  30. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 114.
  31. ^ Metzger, Bruce M. (1971). A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies. p. 359.
  32. ^ Becker, Siegbert W., Verbal Inspiration and the Variant Readings (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on September 30, 2015, The fact is that all truly ancient manuscripts omit it entirely, and that almost all very late manuscripts omit it in whole or in part.
  33. ^ "Acts 8:37 – Why Omitted in NIV?"WELS Topical Q&AWisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008.
  34. ^ "Acts 8:37 – Decision Theology?"WELS Topical Q&AWisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. The NIV places Acts 8:37 in a footnote because the preponderance of manuscript evidence indicates that these words are not part of the original text of Acts. None of the Greek manuscripts of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. None of the early translations of the NT include these words before 600 A.D. Only a couple Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and only a couple translations made after 600 A.D. include these words. The majority of Greek manuscripts copied after 600 A.D. and the majority of translations made after 600 A.D. do not include these words. It is most unlikely, therefore, that these words are really part of the Bible.
  35. ^ "Acts 8:37 – Faith Before Baptism Omitted in NIV"WELS Topical Q&AWisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Archived from the original on 2 January 2008. Acts 8:37 is omitted because the early witnesses to the New Testament text indicate that this was added to the text by someone for some reason between 500 and 700 A.D. The many witnesses we have to the NT text before that time do not include these words.
  36. ^ Metzger 1971, p. 360.
  37. ^ Wikisource-logo.svg Irenaeus. Against Heresies . Book III, Chapter XII. [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, that there was one God preached by the prophets, but that the Son of this [God] had already made [His] appearance in human nature (secundum hominem).
  38. Jump up to:a b Wikisource-logo.svg Cyprian, qtd. in Pontius the Deacon. The Life and Passion of Cyprian, Bishop and Martyr . Translated by Wallis, Robert Ernest. paragraph 3. For although in the Acts of the Apostles the eunuch is described as at once baptized by Philip, because he believed with his whole heart, this is not a fair parallel. For he was a Jew, and as he came from the temple of the Lord he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
  39. Jump up to:a b c [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 615.
  40. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; UBS version loc.cit.
  41. ^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) pages 303–304.
  42. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 93.
  43. ^ Edward F. Hills (1912–1981), "The King James Version Defended: A Christian View of the New Testament Manuscripts" (1956). Chapter 8, The Christian Research Press; 4th edition (August 1997) ISBN 0915923009 ISBN 978-0915923007
  44. ^ Alexander, J. A. (1967). The Acts of the Apostles. vol. 1. New York: Scribner. p. 349–350.
  45. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 96; [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 619–620; Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies), loc.cit.; UBS loc.cit..
  46. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 116.
  47. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 620.
  48. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 116–117.
  49. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) page 118.
  50. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 113. See also F.J.A. Hort, On the End of the Epistle to the Romans, Journal of Philology, vol. 3 (1871) pages 51-80.
  51. ^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) pages 295–296.
  52. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Lincoln H. Blumell, A Text-critical comparison of the King James New Testament with certain modern translations, Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol. 3 (2011) pages 118–119.
  53. ^ A list of 46 "Treatises on the genuineness of the disputed clause in I John V.7,8" appears in "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures" by Thomas Hartwell Horne (2nd ed. 1836, Philadelphia) vol. 2, Part II, Chap. III, page 80–83.
  54. ^ Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (transl. by William Edie from the 2nd ed. [1899, Gottingen, page 260]) (1901, London) page 327.
  55. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 648.
  56. ^ [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) page 651.
  57. ^ Andrew Dickson WhiteA History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304; Henk Jan de Jonge, Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Ephermerides Theologicae Lovanienses, vol. 56, nr. 4 (1980) page 381; Margalit FinkelbergThe Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) pages 192–194 (with quotations from Erasmus's notes); Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
  58. ^ Sir Isaac NewtonTwo Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc (1754 London) page 44.
  59. ^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament(rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 6.
  60. ^ Sir Isaac NewtonTwo Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. [Jean] Le Clerc (1754 London) page 46.
  61. ^ Criticus, Memoir ..., op.cit. page 42; Andrew Dickson WhiteA History of the Warfare of Science with Theology (1896, NY, Appleton) vol. 2, page 304.
  62. ^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the case of the Comma Johanneum, International Journal of Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
  63. ^ Margalit Finkelberg, The Original versus the Received Text with Special Emphasis on the Case of the Comma Johanneum, International Jl. of the Classical Tradition, vol. 21, nr. 3 (Oct. 2014) page 193 (citing Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum Omne, 1st ed., 1516, page 618). And when Erasmus added the verse because it appeared in a suspiciously recent Greek ms, he added the note, "we have transferred from a British manuscript what had been said to be missing in our manuscripts ... Yet I suspect that it is corrected against our manuscripts." op.cit., page 194 (quoting Erasmi Roterdami in Novum Testamentum ab eodem tertio recignitum Annotationes, 1511, Basel).
  64. ^ Eduardus Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci (1872, Brunswick) pages 130, 197 and following. See also, Frederick Cornwallis ConybeareHistory of New Testament Criticism(1910, NY, Knickerbocker Press) pages 91–98.
  65. ^ Bible editions of the American Bible Union, [11].
  66. ^ Pontificae Commissionis de re Biblica Edita, Enchiridon Biblicum (11961, Rome) page 63, sections 135–136; Caspar René GregoryCritical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131.
  67. ^ Caspar René GregoryCritical Note: I John 5:7,8, American Jl. of Theology, vol. 11, nr. 1 (Jan. 1907) page 131, "... the spurious character of which is beyond doubt ..."
  68. ^ Criticus, Memoir ..., op.cit., page iv.
  69. ^ Henry AlfordThe New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1, part i, loc.cit.
  70. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 60.
  71. ^ UBS loc.cit., Nestle-Aland loc.cit., Souter loc.cit.
  72. ^ Moffatt, loc.cit., footnote.
  73. ^ Paul Winter, A Letter from Pontius Pilate, Novum Testamentum, vol. 7, nr. 1 (March 1964) page 42.
  74. ^ Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament (rev. ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) page 303.
  75. ^ An additional complication is that no such "privilegium paschale" is mentioned in historical or Jewish literature, and some doubt that such a prisoner release was an actual tradition. Hyman E. Goldin, The Case of the Nazarene Reopened (1948, NYC, Exposition Press) pages 342–343; Horace Abram Rigg, Jr., Barabbas, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 64, nr.4 (Dec. 1945) pages 421–424; Robert L. Merritt, Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 104, nr.1 (March 1985) pages 57–68; Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961, Berlin, Walter de Guyter) pages 91–99.
  76. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.. Erasmus himself admitted adding the passage in his Annotations; cf. David M Whitford, Yielding to the Prejudices of His Time: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Church History and Religious Culture, vol. 95, nr. 1 (2015) page 23, so its origin was never a secret nor disputable.
  77. ^ John David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, transl. Herbert Marsh (4th ed., 1823, London) vol. 2, part 1, pages 496–498.
  78. ^ Benjamin A. Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated 1930 and often reprinted, chapter 11.
  79. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 95; Alford gives a similar explanation. Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1863, London) vol. 1 part 2.
  80. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit..
  81. ^ Philip SchaffA Companion to the Greek New Testament and the English Version (1883, NY, Harper & Bros.) page 431.
  82. ^ This verse – "They shall take up serpents" – (some Greek mss include the words "with their hands") has become controversial because it has become the proof-text of the sect of snake handling churches, begun around 1910 and found mostly in Appalachia, wherein poisonous snakes are taken from cages, carried aloft by hand for several minutes and then returned alive to the cages. But, oddly enough, although the Greek word here, αρούσίν (root: αίρω), usually means "to lift upward" or "to pick up", as it appears here in the KJV and virtually all subsequent translations, the pre-KJV English versions translated the same root as it is used in John 19:15 and Luke 23:18 and Acts 21:36 and elsewhere, in the sense of killing or removing (in the KJV translated as "Away with him"). The opening words (in modernized spelling) of Mark 16:18 were translated in the Wycliffe version (1382 & 1395) as "They shall do away [with] serpents", and in the Tyndale version (1525) as "shall kill serpents" (and similarly in Martin Luther's German version), and in the Coverdale version (1534), Great Bible (1539), and Bishops' Bible (1568) as "they shall drive away serpents", and in Geneva Bible (1560) and Rheims (1582) as "shall take away serpents". The difference from the KJV's rendering seems significant.
  83. ^ Textus Receptus editions differ among themselves for the inclusion of the Amen. According to F.H.A. Scrivener's New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version (1881, Cambridge Univ. Press) appendix page 649, the Amen appears in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), Colinaeus (1534), Stephanus's first three editions (1546, 1549, 1550), Beza's first edition (1560), and manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate; but it is missing from all of Erasmus's editions (1516-1535), Stephanus's fourth edition (1551), Beza's second thru fifth editions (1565-1598), the Clementine edition of the Vulgaate (1592), and all the English versions before the KJV.
  84. ^ E.g., John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London); Jean Pierre Paulin Martin, Introduction à la Critique Textuelle du Nouveau Testament, (1884, Paris) vol. 2 (of a set of 6); Clarence Russell Williams, The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark: A Study in Textual Transmission (1915, Yale Univ. Press)(originally published as part of volume 18, Feb. 1915, of the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences); Joseph Hug, La Finale de l'Évangile de Marc (1978, Paris, J. Garibalda); Stephen Lynn Cox, A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings (1993, Lewiston, NY, Edwin Mellen Press); William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1974, Cambridge Univ. Press); Beverly Roberts Gaventa & Patrick D. Miller, The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God (2005. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press); David Alan Beck, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark – 4 Views (2008, Nashville, Broadman & Holman); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark – A new case for the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 (2015, Cambridge, UK, James Clarke & Co.); J. Lee Magness, Sense and Absence: Structure and Suspension in the Ending of Mark's Gospel (1986, Atlanta, Ga., Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies) reprinted as Marking the End: Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark(2002, Eugene, Ore., Wipf & Stock); etc.
  85. ^ Eduard Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Geaeci ... (1872, Brunswick) page 260. Tischendorf put these verses in an extensive footnote.
  86. ^ One of the few exceptions is The Gospel according to St. Mark: Revised from the ancient Greek Mss. unknown to the translators of the Authorised Version (attributed to John Ivatt Briscoe)(1870, London, Longmans, Green & Co.) in which the Gospel ends with verse 8, followed by a footnote quoting Dean Alford, who edited a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, to the effect that the familiar ending "probably was an addition placed here in very early times."
  87. ^ Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament(rev. ed. 1987, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) page 292.
  88. ^ Suzanne Watts Henderson,Discipleship After the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 63ns, nr. 1 (April 2012) page 108.
  89. ^ David Alan Black, "Mark 16:8 as the conclusion to the Second Gospel" in David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views (2008, Nashville, Broadman & Holman ) page 15; Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament - its transmission, corruption, and restoration (2nd ed. 1968, Oxford Univ. Press) pages 226-227.
  90. Jump up to:a b c Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.
  91. ^ Lincoln H. Blumell, "A Text-Critical Comparison of the King James New Testament with Certain Modern Translations", Studies in the Bible and Antiquity, vol.3, page 91.
  92. ^ Quoting from a Greek mss found in 1825 by Cardinal Angelo Mai, as translated in John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London) pages 44–45 (Burgon's emphasis). Also in Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) pages 31–32, which reproduces the Greek text; also Claudio Zamagni, L'état canonique du texte face à ses variantes: Eusèbe et Mc 16:9–20, Adamantius, vol. 11 (2005) page 133.
  93. ^ As translated in John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London) page 53. Also in Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) pages 33–34, which reproduces the Latin text.
  94. ^ John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London) pages 54.
  95. ^ John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London) pages 54–56; .also Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 33.
  96. ^ John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (1871, Oxford & London) pages 57–58. Also in Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 34, also supporting the attribution to either Hesychius or Severus rather than Gregory.
  97. ^ Albert J. Edmunds, The Text of the Resurrection in Mark, and its Testimony to the Apparitional Theory, The Monist, vol. 27, nr. 2 (April 1917) page 171.
  98. ^ A photograph of this page of the Codex W appears in Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland, The Text of The New Testament(rev.ed. 1989, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans) page 114. See also, Caspar René GregoryDas Freer-Logion (1908 Leipzig, JC Hinrichs); and Clarence Russell Williams, The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark: A Study in Textual Transmission (1915, Yale Univ. Press)(originally published as part of volume 18, Feb. 1915, of the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences) pages 419–422. It appears that St. Jerome saw this addition, and possibly in several mss, because he wrote (ca. 415, in Contra Pelaginos. 2:15), "In some copies, and especially in Greek codices, according to Mark at the end of his Gospel it is written: Afterward, when the eleven had reclined, Jesus appeared to them, and rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him risen. And they apologized saying, 'This age of iniquity and unbelief is substance [substantia; one MS reads sub Satana,- under Satan], which does not permit the true worth [virtutem] of God to be apprehended through unclean spirits." translated (with the bracketed comments) by Edgar J. GoodspeedThe Detroit Manuscripts of the Septuagint and New Testament, The Biblical World, vol. 31, nr. 3 (March 1908) page 225. Goodspeed theorized that Jerome had seen these mss at the Nitrian monasteries at Alexandria, Egypt, which he visited in 386. Goodspeed, The Freer Gospels and Shenute of Atripe, The Biblical World, vol. 33, nr. 3 (March 1909) page 206, and Goodspeed, Notes on the Freer Gospels, American Journal of Theology, vol. 13, nr. 4 (Oct. 1909) pages 602–603. Curiously, although Goodspeed paid special attention to Codex W, – as shown in Edgar J. GoodspeedThe Freer Gospels, Historical and Linguistic Studies in Literature Related to the New Testament, first series, volume II, part 3 (1914, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press) 65 pages – he did not make any mention of the Freer Logion in his own translation of the New Testament.
  99. ^ A belief apparently not shared by anyone else: "No one maintains that this rather florid passage belongs to the original Mark not ever to the original form of the long ending of the Textus Receptus." Archibald T. Robertson, Studies in Mark's Gospel (1919, NY, Macmillan Co.) page 133.
  100. ^ F.C. Conybeare, Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, The Expositor, 4th series, vol. 8 (Oct. 1893) page 243. Also, Clarence Russell Williams, The Appendices to the Gospel according to Mark: A Study in Textual Transmission(1915, Yale Univ. Press)(originally published as part of volume 18, Feb. 1915, of the Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences) pages 379–383. A photo of this ms page appears in Henry Barclay SweteThe Gospel according to St. Mark (1913, London, Macmillan & Co.) opposite page cxi.
  101. ^ Benjamin W. Bacon, Ariston (Aristo), in James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (1906, Edinburgh, T & T Clark) vol. 2, page 118 col. 2.
  102. ^ F.C. Conybeare, Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, The Expositor, 4th series, vol. 8 (Oct. 1893) page 245.
  103. ^ Alfred Resch, Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, transl. F.C. Conybeare, The Authorship of the Last Verses of Mark, Expositor, series 4, vol. 10 (Sept 1894) page 228.
  104. ^ F.C. Conybeare, Aristion, the Author of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, The Expositor, 4th series, vol. 8 (Oct. 1893) page 243; Theodor Zahn, letter in Theologische Literaturblatt(Leipzig, Dec. 22, 1893, transl. F.C. Conybeare, The Authorship of the Last Verses of Mark, Expositor, series 4, vol. 10 (Sept 1894) page 222; James MoffattAn Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911, NY, Charles Scribner's Sons) page 241.
  105. ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell, Mark 16:9–20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 56, nr. 4 (Dec. 1937) page 369; also Allen Wikgren, Armenian Gospel Materials in the Kurdian Collection, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 59, nr. 1 (March 1940) page 53.
  106. ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell, Mark 16:9–20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 56, nr. 4 (Dec. 1937) pages 380–381.
  107. ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell, Mark 16:9–20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 56, nr. 4 (Dec. 1937) pages 378–379.
  108. ^ Ernest Cadman Colwell, Mark 16:9–20 in the Armenian Version, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 56, nr. 4 (Dec. 1937) page 378.
  109. ^ Apparently the first English version that set forth this shorter ending is The Twentieth Century New Testament (attributed to "a company of about twenty scholars")(1901 & rev. 1904, NY, Fleming H. Revell Co.), loc. cit. In the 1901 edition the Shorter Ending, captioned "A Late Appendix", appeared before the Longer Ending, captioned "Another Appendix", but in the 1904 revised edition this order was switched.
  110. ^ Codex k is "a book of the highest interest, being undoubtedly the oldest existing representative of the African version of the Gospels...." John Wordsworth, et al, Portions of the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew from the Bobbio ms. ...(1886, London, Oxford) page v (the ms page with the Shorter Ending is the frontispiece). There is a report of seven Ethiopic mss that also show the Shorter, but not the Longer, Ending. Paul E. Kahle, The End of St. Mark's Gospel, The Witness of the Coptic versions, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. New Series 2, nr. 1 (April 1951) page 55.
  111. ^ Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Mark (of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series, edited by R. St. John Parry)(1915, Cambridge, Univ. Press) page xxxix–xl. The RSV and NRSV do not translate an "Amen" that appears in the text of Bobbiensis and Codex Ψ and several other mss. To be precise, in MS 579, a Greek ms of the 13th century, the Longer Ending is followed by the Shorter Ending – but a marginal note by a copyist says the Shorter Ending should have appeared first. David Alan Black, "Mark 16:8 as the conclusion to the Second Gospel" in David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views (2008, Nashville, Broadman & Holman) page 25.
  112. ^ Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark(1913, London, Macmillan & Co.) page cvii.
  113. ^ C.H. Turner, The Gospel according to St. Mark: introduction and commentary (1900, London, SPCK) page 83; Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit, page 126; David Alan Black, "Mark 16:8 as the Conclusion of the Second Gospel" in David Alan Black, ed., Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 views(2008, Nashville, Broadman & Holman) page 25.
  114. ^ Paul L. Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A methodological study (1993, Leiden, E.J. Brill) page 120.
  115. ^ J.C. du Buisson, The Origin and Peculiar Characteristics of the Gospel of S. Mark and its Relation to the Synoptists, being the Ellerton Essay, 1896 (1896, Oxford, Clarendon Press) page 39; Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark(1913, London, Macmillan & Co.) pages cx and 399 ("She is introduced to the reader as if she not been mentioned before"); also Travis B. Williams, Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark, Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 20, nr. 3 (2010) page 410 ("the description of Mary Magdalene is an important indicator of inauthenticity in this verse").
  116. Jump up to:a b Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Mark (of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series, edited by R. St. John Parry)(1915, Cambridge, Univ. Press) page xliii.
  117. ^ Using the text in Frederick Henry Ambrose ScrivenerThe New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in The Authorised Version (1881, Cambridge, Univ. Press) loc.cit.; the 166th word, "Amen", according to the Appendix of this edition (page 649), did not appear in all Textus Receptus editions – it appeared in the Complutensian, Colineaeus, the first three editions of Stephanus, and the first edition of Beza, while the "Amen" was lacking in the editions of Erasmus, the fourth edition of Stephanus, Beza's editions after his first, the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate, and Tyndal's English.
  118. ^ Paul L. Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A methodological study (1993, Leiden, E.J. Brill) pages 122–124; also Travis B. Williams, Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark, Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 20, nr. 3 (2010) pages 405–409 (additionally there are peculiarities in Greek grammar and usage, which are difficult to explain in English); also Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark: The International Critical Commentary (1896, NY, Scribners) page 302.
  119. ^ Using the UBS edition.
  120. Jump up to:a b Paul L. Danove, The End of Mark's Story: A methodological study (1993, Leiden, E.J. Brill) page 124.
  121. ^ Using the UBS edition in the footnote to verse 14.
  122. Jump up to:a b Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit, page 125.
  123. ^ P.W. van der Horst, Can a Book End with ΓΑΡ? A Note on Mark XVI, 8, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 23 n.s., nr. 1 (Apr. 1972) page 121; James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (191, NY, Charles Scribner's Sons) page 238; Morton S. Enslin, έφοβούντο γάρ, Mark 16,8, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol 16, nr. 1/2 (1927) page 62 (ending a sentence with gar is uncommon but not impossible, as Enslin points to several examples); R.R. Ottley, έφοβούντο γάρ Mark xvi 8, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 27, nr. 108 (July 1926) page 107; Kelly R. Iverson, A Further Word on Final Γάρ (Mark 16:8), Catholic Bible Quarterly, vol. 68, nr. 1 (Jan. 2006) page 79; Robert H. Stein, The Ending of Mark, Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 18, nr. 1 (2008) page 91; Henry J. Cadbury, Mark 16.8, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 16, nr. 3/4 (1927) page 344.
  124. ^ Morton S. Enslin, έφοβούντο γάρ, Mark 16,8, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 16, nr. 1/2 (1927) page 64; Kirsopp LakeThe Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ(1907, London, Williams & Norgate) page 71; Robert Oliver Kevin, The Lost Ending of the Gospel according to Mark, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol 45, nr. 1/2 (1926) page 85. This is also reflected in the rendering of this verse as an unfinished sentence in The Bible in Basic English, namely "... because they were full of fear that – - -.", and in the Moffatt Bible, namely "... for they were afraid of – - -."
  125. ^ Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Mark" (of the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series, edited by R. St. John Parry)(1915, Cambridge, Univ. Press) pages xliii and 200; also, Morton S. Enslin, έφοβούντο γάρ, Mark 16,8, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol 16, nr. 1/2 (1927) page 66, "Finally, when attempts were made to complete the gospel there is no evidence that any effort was made to smooth out the barbarism of a γάρ concluding a paragraph."
  126. ^ Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark: The International Critical Commentary (1896, NY, Scribners) pages 304–306; also Benjamin Wisner Bacon, The Gospel of Mark, its composition and date (1925, Yale Univ. Press) pages 188–190.
  127. Jump up to:a b c James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (2000, Tubingen, Germany, Mohr Siebeck) page 7.
  128. ^ cf. Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark(1913, London, Macmillan & Co.) page cvi; also James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911, NY, Charles Scribner's Sons) page 238–239.
  129. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony HortThe New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, London, Macmillan) vol. 2, Appendix pages 49–50; Robert Oliver Kevin, The Lost Ending of the Gospel According to Mark: A criticism and a reconstruction, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 45, nr. 1/2 (1926) pages 85.
  130. ^ Robert Oliver Kevin, The Lost Ending of the Gospel According to Mark: A criticism and a reconstruction, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 45, nr. 1/2 (1926) pages 85–90.
  131. ^ Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit, page 126; James MoffattAn Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (1911, NY, Charles Scribner's Sons) page 240; Travis B. Williams, Bringing Method to the Madness: Examining the Style of the Longer Ending of Mark, Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 20, nr. 3 (2010) pages 417 ("There has been little doubt that verses 9–20 came from the hand of someone other than the evangelist.").
  132. ^ The phrase "wrote on the ground" does not require that Jesus wrote words or letters, but it could also mean drawing pictures or doodling. cf. Hugh J. Schonfield, The Authentic [or OriginalNew Testament (1955, London; rev. 1985, San Francisco, Harper & Row) loc.cit. ("drew" and "scrawled"); Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman, Earth Accuses Earth: Tracing What Jesus Wrote on the Ground, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 103, nr. 4 (Oct. 2010) page 411; Emil G. Kraeling, The Clarified New Testament (1962, NY, McGraw-Hill) vol. 1 page 297; Thomas Deans, The Rhetoric of Jesus Writing in the Story of the Woman Accused of Adultery, College Composition and Communication, vol. 65 nr. 3 (Feb. 2014) page 414.
  133. ^ Several late manuscripts – namely U, Π, 73, 331, 364, 700, 782, 1592 and some Armenian mss – end this sentence "the sins of each of them." This phrase is set out in a footnote in the NRSV (1989) – and was dramatized in Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 silent movie King of Kings, but not mentioned in virtually all other modern translations.
  134. ^ This phrase, convicted by their own conscience, is a late addition - not before the 8th century - and is not included in the modern versions that display this paragraph.
  135. ^ As an example of such a variation, in the KJV verse 9 occurs the phrase, "being convicted by their own conscience," – but this phrase did not appear in Erasmus's editions although it appeared in the Complutensian and most subsequent TR editions, nor in most manuscripts that contain this pericope. It appears in K (Codex Cyprius) of the 9th century, and codex 579, of the 13th century, and a very few other places. It was not included in the earliest English versions – it is missing from Wycliffe, Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Bishops Bible, and it apparently first appeared in the KJV.
  136. ^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1871, Boston & New York) vol. 1. page 535; Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 88; Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform (1991, Atlanta, The Original Word Publishers) pages 494–505.
  137. ^ Philip SchaffA Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (1883, NY, Harper & Bros.) page 188; Christ Keith, Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae, Currents in Biblical Research, vol. 6, nr. 3 (June 2008), page 381.
  138. ^ In the case of Codex A and C, the manuscripts are damaged so that the actual text of John 7:53–8:11 is missing but the surrounding text does not leave enough space for the pericope to have been present. In the case of the papyri, these are so very fragmentary that they show only that the pericope was not in its familiar place at the beginning of chapter 8.
  139. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel of St. John, the Authorised Version with introduction and notes (London 1896) page 141.
  140. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Introduction) pages 299–300.
  141. ^ UBS, loc. cit.; Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; Chris Keith, The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition, Novum Testamentum, vol. 51 fasc. 3 (2009), pages 209–231; [[Frederick Henry [Ambrose] Scrivener]], A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (3d ed. 1883, London) pages 610–614, (4th ed., ed by Miller, 1894) vol. 2 pages 364-378.
  142. ^ Henry J. Cadbury, A Possible Case of Lukan Authorship, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 10, nr. 3 (July 1917) pages 237–244; Kyle R. Hughes, The Lukan Special Material and the Tradition History of the Pericope Adulterae, Novum Testamentum, vol. 55 (2013) page 232–251.
  143. ^ Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (1871, Boston & New York) vol. 1. pages 535–536.
  144. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Appendix) page 87.
  145. ^ Eusebius, The History of the Church (transl. G.A. Williamson)(1965, Baltimore, Penguin Books) page 153. The Gospel of the Hebrews is lost and so is Papias's repetition of this story.
  146. ^ Eduard Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testimenti Graeci ... (1872, Brunswick) pages 86 and 184.
  147. ^ Brooke Foss Westcott & Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881, Cambridge & London, Macmillan & Co.) vol. 2 (Introduction) page 300.
  148. ^ (1) Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (2nd ed. 1985, Nashville, Thomas Nelson) pages xxiii–xxxii; (2) Maurice A. Robinson & William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform(1991, Atlanta, The Original Word Publishers) pages 494–505.
  149. ^ Caspar René Gregory, The Greek Text in 1611, The Biblical World, vol. 37, nr. 4 (April 1911) page 261.
  150. ^ See Introduction to the Holman Christian Standard Bible 2005 – Removed from 2009 edition – They were retained because of their 'undeniable antiquity and their value for tradition and the history of NT interpretation in the church.'
  151. ^ "2 Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with a holy kiss!"studybible.info. Retrieved 14 August 2018.
  152. ^ .Bruce M. MetzgerA Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament A Companion Volume to the UBS Greek New Testament (1971, United Bible Societies) loc.cit.; the UBS Greek New Testament, loc.cit.