Missing Verses in the ESV??? Why Aren't These Verses in My Bible? 

mathew 12:47 is an interesting case actually, it's in most versions except the ESV and RSV, I can see it here in my NIV. I think it's down to the manuscripts the ESV use, they do explain it in the footnote.

A lot of them don't know. I have seen a lot of people just jump to the conclusion this version or that version is corrupt.

@@Imsaved777 thank you. I love pastor Matt's Posts as they help me balance out how I study the bible...even though I fellowship in a different tradition.

Try ESV reader’s Bible

This is not true. There were both faithful and heretical elements in BOTH Byzantine and Alexandrian "sects". This is a red herring spread by King James Onlyists. We must be Bereans, willing to prayerfully examine ALL the evidence.

you said most... which ones are left out ??? i was thinking about getting a NASB95 but I want all the TR verses tbh (I like the way the NASB renders words over the NKJV)

Thank you for sharing this about the NASV having kept the texts in question in brackets. I appreciate that way of dealing with questionable material. Put it out there for ALL of us to see.❤

Same old is true for the NASB 2020

The KJV has them with no brackets.

This is accurate the words are lacking so I did not use it ...ESV

Strange. My ESV has it, not as a footnote either. 2001 Crossway printing if that helps.

@Andrew Cole -- Would you please explain Acts 20:27 to me from the NASB95? I don't get it at all. HOW close is "purpose of God" to the "whole counsel of God"? What IS the "whole purpose of God" anyway? People need to reading the King James Bible. The Versions are deceptive, and so many are blind to it. Steevie Wonder shouldn't see better than one in Christ who is seeking TRUTH.

Agreed.

I use the 1966 Jerusalem Doubleday ... I hear it is compatible with the LSB .... I have a ESV and that is why I am thanking you sir

The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!

Agree with you Little light 🕯️ Please Interpreters don't simply remove including the texts with brackets of explanation is beneficial for me. So I am therefore leaning towards nas and or LSB. I need a Bible so I will be looking more into THIS because accuracy is more important to me than ease of reading. 🤔

God Almighty is not limited by our translations or even our extant manuscripts. Hallelujah!

@@RoastBeefSandwich I agree, and over the centuries (or millennia) people have come to the Lord by word of mouth. I understand huge amounts of people have come to the Lord from reading 'Critical Text' Bibles and people have grown by reading them, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that under-girding the great revivals was the Textus Receptus. Luther and Calvin used it I believe and look what came out of that. We owe the Textus Receptus much greater respect than it has been given I believe. I personally believe the Textus Receptus is by far the best.

Nkjv is awesome

@@andypink5167the textus receptuses (yes multiple) are also critical eclectic texts.

That's a nice note. Most ESV will have the verse in a footnote rather than in the body of the text.

Nkjv does the same thing it has texts missing and words changed

@@KeithEasley-vc1mb really? Tell me which texts are "missing" from the nkjv. And of course it has ords changed! English has changed since 1611!

Thanks for the sub! Glad to have you sir!

🙄🙄🙄🙄 The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!

Thank you for your explanation of missing verses in ESV. I prefer them being included in the Bible with brackets and explanations than removal.

@@ProverbspsalmsProverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.” So the Holy Spirit who inspired Solomon to write that is actually the devil?

@@Matthew-307 you’re foolishness that you typed as has absolutely nothing to do with what I typed 11 months ago. Goodbye.

@@Proverbspsalms That’s very kind and gentle of you.

I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but ESV says "one and only son" instead of "only begotten son" because the green word "monogenes" was used more to describe something unique than it was to describe something single-born or only-begotten. We learned this by analyzing more Koine Greek texts from that era, and also the spelling between "kind" and "begotten" in greek are similar but not exact, so we discovered the etymology was different than what the KJV translators thought. Not meaning to make any one angry, just wanting to give some insight. The more accurate linguistic reading based on "monogenes" is "one unique Son," but "only begotten" may be a less obvious but intended secondary meaning.

@@cmiddleton9872 GENESIS 3:16 ESV " Your desire shall be CONTRARY to your husband"

@@patriot8554 maybe this helps I don't really read esv but in kjv genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

@@patriot8554 and one more reason that I don't read modern traslation in you can look at acts chapter 3 verse 13 and 16 in esv, nkjv, bbe, ceb, ceba, asv, gnt, msg, ncv, niv, nlt, nrs, nrsv, nas... Say glorified his servant jesus In kjv Hat glorified his son Jesus You can see bibles the in acts chapter 3 say son and not servent are (Just saying that I looked online and never read this bible that I'm about to say that they have son and not servent) Amplified bible, aramaic bible in plain English, douay-rheims bible american king james standard, a faithful version, webster's transaltion, Geneva bible of 1587, Bishops bible of 1568, tyndale bible of 1526, Douay-Rheims bible, chatolich public domain, lamsa bible, anderson new testament, haweis new testament, mace new testament, worsley new testament. Some use word child Coverdale bible of 1535, literal standard versions, Young's literal translation, Smith's literal translation and Godbey/Worrell new testament

@@Jerry12533 Thanks for the research. I own many Bible translations, but the ESV in this particular verse, to me, seems like an error or oversight. No other translation uses the word " Contrary " . Very strange.

Done! See newest

Matthew Everhard already did thanks man. Another great video.

lol, you never met my dad,,K.J.V. ONLY SON!! get it right. which prompted my studies into translation methods and history. and actually there are "most accurate translations" documented charts spanning the entire literal to dynamic translations. and you got some of the most accurate ones already.

Why cross check anything. Clearly the NIV has many missing verses in it!! Why use a incomplete Bible with at least 10 to 15 missing verses in it. Why I use KJV only.

Incorrect. You either have all of Gods preserved word, or God is a liar, who couldn't preserve and protect his word. There HAS to be a surviving text. Otherwise, how can you trust God AT ALL if he couldn't even keep this promise. I reference Psalms.12:6-7

@@TheirsHopewithJesusChrist_277 You clearly didn't watch the video

@@patrickoxley581this logic defeats the kjv from being the fulfillment of psalm 12, because it is also an eclectic text that came into its form at 1611 and does not match perfectly any Greek text or bible in any language before it. This is a self defeating position.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations I think this lists a good share of the missing texts and they tell why the texts were chosen not to be included in the text of the more modern versions, including not being quoted by early church pastors. I'd really like to see where you find what verses are quoted by the early fathers if you could provide your source, please.

1st century Christians didn't quote ANY of those alleged "missing verses". Nice try

@Space Organism "His father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him"? Nice try, troll

@Days of Noah No, I just happened to have studied the bible far more than pretenders have. Tell me, why does psalm 145 have only 21 verses?

@Days of Noah Oh c'mon. It's just a name. Doesn't mean I am one

😂 no kidding

Yes

@@wkang84why?

Yep :)

If those verses were added later (which all the evidence points to), then the KJV is actually less trustworthy. What we want is what the apostles actually wrote. We don’t want extra added verses because those added verses aren’t inspired.

The comma johanneum shouldn’t be there.

Love the nkjv

@@MCTriptych I personally don't care if the first part of 1John 5: 7-8 actually rightfully belongs in the text or not. The doctrine of the Trinity does not hang on that verse alone. Although I believe some would say it does. I have grown used to it being there, and. my preference is for TR readings.

KING JAMES ALL DAY LONG. All other bibles have the Vatican all over them. People are ill informed. Cardinal Carlos Martini worked with Kurt Aland in 1952 on the Revised standard bible. I will not read a bible that is approved by the wicked vatican

@@DanielHoerle-ww9so what a bout a bible that’s named after a homosexual king. Im not trying to be hateful. But just something to think about. Please do think about. God is able to use what someone has intended for evil for good

@@DanielHoerle-ww9so try the MEV, it's based off the same source texts as the KJV

@@DanielHoerle-ww9so The King James version Bible will lose its popularity in the near future. It is still commonly used at sermons today....Most younger generations will not accept the KJV translation. Elizabethan English is not the #1 choice to many today. .

@@curtisstewart9426 true! I would love to understand the kjv but it's hard to understand since the the English is so old.

Where is this verse your questioning?

Words change meaning overtime. They also lose copyright if they don't keep it different. Both are likely the cause.

And thus it has zero doctrinal impact. A pretty lame conspiracy as such things go. :D

I actually like ESV and NASB as well.

An interesting note. Personally when I am doing a study rather than just reading I will pull out multiple translations including an interlinear to get a fuller picture. I was raised never to rely solely on a single translation because as you said there is some interpretation involved. ESV is my everyday translation though and I have never seen "Lord" not capitalized. Especially in the OT "Lord" and "LORD" are plentiful. Do you mean "Lord" should be in all caps? "LORD" is used where YHWH is written vs "Lord" is Adoni.

That's not how text decisions worked for the ESV translators. For example, they clearly have trinitarian beliefs, but could not use that to justify the inclusion of more trinitarian readings where the evidence does not support such a choice. It doesn't change the doctrine, it just means the doctrine is based upon sound evidence in other places.

Yes, in my research on the Alexandrian text, they were the first manuscripts removing key verses in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts. They aren’t reliable. The Alexandrian texts were corrupted by Emperor Constantine due to his interpreting Scripture allegorically and not literally. Constantine revised key verses to fit his interpretation & ideas. This is verified in writings from Eusebius & John W. Burgon. Even the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 manuscript from the early 2nd century, contains a few verses from John, have remained unchanged, not omitting those verses. P52 predates the Alexandrian texts. Removing verses not only changes the meaning about what Jesus did, but also makes a huge difference in last days prophecies in regards to Gods plan for Israel. Replacement Theology took off with St. Augustine in 426 AD with his book “The City of God.” Since Israel as a nation no longer existed during their time (Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD) they believed there was NO WAY God planned to bring the Jewish people back into the land. Despite what Ezekiel 38 teaches and Romans 9, 10 and especially 11- God is not finished with Israel. Of course now, 1,500 years after Augustine & Constantine’s pour interpretations & ideologies, we see God DID plan to put Israel back on the map in 1948. After all, that is an everlasting covenant for that land God made to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21 & Genesis 17. If God broke that promise to Israel and replaced his promises for them with the Church, then how can WE be secure in His promises for us?? God doesn’t break promises and Israel is back where He wanted her today- in the last days. Those verses removed in the NIV, ESV, etc. by Constantine for the Alexandrian texts are in error. So with each new translation, we get a weaker message. Satan is preparing man to be deceived by the coming Antichrist. And if we don’t know the times we’re living in, we won’t be watching for Jesus coming in the clouds (1 Thess 4:16-17, Titus 2:12-13, 1 Thess 1:10). This is why the King James Version is the best including all those verses. Jesus said most often for us not to be deceived (Matthew 24:4, 1 Corinthians 6:9) God Bless📖

The original languages don't have those capitalizations either, nor does the KJV. Personally I find them distracting.

@@Nick-wn1xw Yes *we do see* capitalization in the original languages. An example is 1 John 2:18. In the original Greek, the verse is as follows: “My children, it is the last hour! And just as your heard that *the Antichrist* would come, even now many *antichrists* have appeared. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” That capital A for Antichrist shows us it’s *a title.* Although there has been many antichrists, (Hitler, Nero, Stalin) in the last days there will be One man who will rule the world during the 7-year Tribulation. That’s The Antichrist according to the original language in Greek.

Here is what Mathew Henry wrote about that: I. Saul was very weak and impolitic, and did not order his affairs with discretion. Saul was the son of one year (so the first words are in the original), a phrase which we make to signify the date of his reign, but ordinarily it signifies the date of one's birth, and therefore some understand it figuratively-he was as innocent and good as a child of a year old; so the Chaldee paraphrase: he was without fault, like the son of a year. But, if we admit a figurative sense, it may as well intimate that he was ignorant and imprudent, and as unfit for business as a child of a year old: and the subsequent particulars make this more accordant with his character than the former. But we take it rather, as our own translation has it, Saul reigned one year, and nothing happened that was considerable. The KJV also uses the "one year old" translation.

the real text is always in a majority text. there was no regression, you're right. out of 600+ manuscripts there are only 2 (vaticanus+sinaiticus) that don't have mark 16:9-20. I stick with the majority(byzantine text).

This should not be a heated debate. Modern bibles are based on gnostic manuscripts. They contain shepherd of harmas and epistle of barnabas but not revelation. Its unfortunate but true.

@@joshportie what are you even talking about? Modern bibles have revelation and are not based on gnostic manuscripts. What is it with people and these conspiracy theories.

Very true. I think it's whatever is the comfort for the reader. KJV was hard for me to read cause of the old words. I like a more modern language in the Bible

@@kaitlyncleary3424 Ye same but you get used to the old English eventually

@@joshportie you've never seen one have you? What an ignorant statement.

I agree with you on this Dwayne, I've decided the NKJV is my "go-to". Still, the best translation is the one you read!

High Five-ya, bro' Dwayne!

RoastBeefSandwich, just an observation and not a correction to what you said. It’s important to realize that the Byzantine text type is the majority by FAR! But we actually have more Alexandrian manuscripts, if we don’t count manuscripts that are later than the 8th century. The preponderance of Byzantine manuscripts are from the 9th century or later. Like I said, I don’t think this settles the issue, just an observation.

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews Thank you my friend. I think the take home from my observation is the fact that early Church fathers quoted the Byzantine, even though we may not have extant Byzantine manuscripts from that time - that tradition was in use, as evidenced by the quotations we have. There are few quotations from Church fathers from the Alexandrian tradition, even though our surviving Alexandrian manuscripts pre-date our surviving Byzantine ones.

RoastBeefSandwich, yes the tradition certainly goes back much further than the ninth century. I’ve gone back and forth in my mind on the subject. The latest research that I’ve read on the subject suggests that the situation with the church fathers prior to John Chrysostom actually favors the Alexandrian text-type. I actually recently did a review of Maurice Robinson’s “The New Testament in the Original Greek Byzantine Textform”. He makes a very strong case for Byzantine priority. I think Maurice Robinson makes the most responsible case for Byzantine priority as any I have ever read. Based on what I have read so far, I’m not quite persuaded. The situation is much more complex than most people realize. Thanks for your thoughtful response!

MEV?

@@aneforeffort I am not sure. Research it and find out. There must be a reason.

Agreed. The assumption the critical text adherents make is the older text must be the right one. I am not an expert but through my prayer and study I mostly stick to the textus receptus/byzantine text.

Yep :)

So tradition of men trumps God’s word? I don’t think so.

@@Nick-wn1xw Excuse me, Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus left us His Church, members of which penned the New Testament. They also collected the Old Testament writings for use in the churches! I believe that the Scriptures are authoritative, because of the Church.

are you sure? because the oldest manuscripts don't have them meaning it was added later so you think changed scripture is more better then the original scripture

God bless you. Totally agree. We need to get back to the Douay-Rheims...

The nkjv has a lot of errors in it so don’t be too quick to say esv is wrong because nkjv is not word for word esv is word for word

@@KeithEasley-vc1mb erm, nowhere did I say esv is wrong. I just State that I like nkjv footnotes better. And I myself am a esv user

Please consider the alternate - and to me more plausible version - that due to gospel harmonizations the part of the verse could have been added in later manuscripts, as I say, with the goal of harmonization.