In my modern Bible Matthew 17:21 is not even mentioned while Mark 9:29 only says "You can only cast away those only with prayer." while fasting is not even mentioned. But from my mother's old Bible both verses are relevant and said as they should be...
20lesus sayd vnto them: Because of your vnbelefe. For I saye verely vnto you: if ye hadde faith as a grayn of a mustard seede, ye should say vnto thys mountayne, remoue hence too yonder place, and it shoulde remoue, neyther shoulde any thyng be impossible for you too do. 21Howe be it this kynde goeth not out, but by prayer and fastynge.
@@coryburns9161 if you was from above like jesus said you wouldn’t of text me this nonsense attitude you are satan children who judge and teachers of human not heavenly things and understanding you become satan ways
Hold on. So sinaiticus omits completely vs 21 in Matthew 17 and omits the phase and fasting in mark 9:29. And the later scribe is trying to “correct” both verses. 1) by adding the whole verse in Matthew 21 and 2) by adding “and fasting” in mark 9. So the later scribe has a 3rd reading that does not appear at all in sinaiticus. Wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that the scribe has access to a/other manuscripts that has the entire reading and he is trying to correct what he feels was omitted in sinaiticus. If he was purely trying to “harmonize” Mark 9 with Matthew 21 then there would be no need to add “and fasting” to Mark 9. He would simply copy Mark 9:29 as it appears in sinaiticus and transpose it to Matthew 21.
So either a scribe had access to an earlier manuscript that we don't know of and was making a correction or a scribe decided to harmonize the gospels and added the text.
@@oswaldomontes1234 I have stage four lung cancer, and the immunotherapy is attacking my adrenal glands and my thyroid for 24 hours. All I do is drink water and then I get very weak till I can’t even walk . I don’t hope Jesus forgives me for all of my sins. Amen people will actually die not eating I’m hyperglycemic .. i’m using my speakerphone because I don’t know how to spell but I need to have sugar in order to live. I think that God will allow me to have some candy and how long are you supposed to fast for how many hours how many days because it would kill me
About 3 years ago I got sick and fasted for 40 days. Not because I wanted to, but just didn’t feel like eating. Fortunately someone took me to a hospital and I discovered I had covid, pneumonia and a blood clots, and a brain bleed. They kept me 6 days then physical therapy at home until I was stronger again.
You can't call any explanation a reasonable explanation when you changing the words of God and this is unacceptable, can you sing any human beings can be smarter than God and can change the words
Actually, you're totally backwards wrong. See the following excerpt: "Most of the Greek manuscripts that have come down to us are of what scholars call the Byzantine (or Antiochan) family of texts. These manuscripts, though not the oldest, are the ones preserved by the Greek church. Because they represent the vast majority of Greek manuscripts they are sometimes referred to as the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus. This is the text from which the King James translation of the New Testament was made. However, beginning in 1881, other Greek texts have been published that have been the basis for nearly all subsequent translations, including the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New English Bible. These published texts have relied heavily upon two ancient Greek manuscripts, called Codex Vaticanus (also known as 'B') and Codex Sinaiticus (also known as Aleph). Where did these manuscripts originate? Vaticanus was "discovered" in the Vatican in 1481 and was released as the Jesuit-Rheims Bible in 1582. It differs from the Textus Receptus in nearly 8,000 places. The use of recent technology such as the vidicon camera, which creates a digital form of faint writing, reveals that Vaticanus has been altered by at least two hands, one as late as the twelfth century. Noted scholar Dr. Bruce Metzger states: "A few passages therefore remain to show the original appearance of the first hand." The corrector "omitted [things] he believed to be incorrect" (Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Oxford University Press, p. 74). The Sinaiticus manuscripts were discovered by Constantine von Tischendorf in a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1850s. They differ in about 9,000 places from the traditional Byzantine Text (Textus Receptus). Dr. Bruce Metzger describes the carelessness of transmission that marks the Sinaiticus manuscripts. He declared that at least nine "correctors" had worked on the manuscripts over the centuries. "Tichendorf's edition of the manuscript enumerates some 14,800 places where some alteration has been made to the text" (p. 77). Later use of ultra-violet lamps showed multiple additional places where the original reading had been erased. Not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, but also they disagree with one another perhaps a dozen times on every page. While many of these disagreements are small and may involve merely a preposition or the spelling of a word, others omit whole verses such as the ending of Mark's gospel. When the Apostle John put our New Testament into its final form, shortly before his death at the end of the first century, he was living in Ephesus, a Greek-speaking city located near the western coast of ancient Asia Minor (modern Turkey). This is the same city that had served as the repository of the copies of Paul's writings decades earlier. It is the city used in Revelation 2 to represent the entire first stage of the Church of God. The Greek manuscripts that come from this area are the ones labeled by scholars as the Byzantine type. Scholars fleeing from the Turkish invasion in the 15th century brought copies of Byzantine texts west. Many of these Greek scholars and the manuscripts that they brought with them ended up in the area of Basel, Switzerland after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is from these manuscripts that printed texts of Erasmus (1516) and Stephens (1520) were primarily derived. Stephen's printed text was known as the Textus Receptus and was the accepted standard of the Greek New Testament until the latter part of the 19th century. Since the 19th century, Bible translation has undergone a further change. Dismissing the idea that the Bible was supernaturally inspired and preserved, many scholars have taken the approach that the oldest manuscripts, whatever their source, are closer to the original and therefore must be more accurate. Most 20th century Bible translations, apart from the New King James Version, have used these texts touted by such critics, and relegated the readings of officially preserved texts to footnotes. While these translations can be useful for Bible study, they should be treated with caution, and not accepted to the exclusion of the more historically sound texts. The Creator God not only inspired the writing of the Bible, He also guided the process of both canonization and preservation of the text. In spite of numerous attempts by carnal men through the centuries to suppress or distort the word of God, God has been faithful to ensure that His "instruction book" for life is still available for us today."
Prayer and fasting are extremely important when praying for intercession. This is a very important teaching whose weight is immeasurably significant when in combat with those forces that want them best forgotten.
I'm so glad that you brought up Metzger given his heavy involvement with the RSV and NSRV. Bart Ehrman (who was Metzger's student) has a semi-recent episode of his podcast that gets into 20th century translation and revision efforts for those interested!
End times nonsense? You might want to read Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation and not put an "allegorical" label on everything. Do you not believe Chriat is returning? God bless, brother. I'm not attacking you personally, so don't take offense.
Religion has a horrible history and is bad for humanity. That said, God reportedly existed solo for an eternity. What changed? Does allowing undeserved suffering make the companionship better?
I think the best translations either out the verse in brackets and explain everything Dan says in a footnote, or leave it out and put in the footnote. Don’t leave people guessing, tell them the truth.
@@clonetrooper71 Believe it or not, Catholic Bibles contain pretty much whatever scholars think is right. So in mine the verse is in a footnote as a variant reading. It then refers to the same verse in Mark where the explanation is more detailed. Since Fundamentalism dominates Christianity in the news and on TV, Christianity must be 100% Fundamentalist in the eyes of most people. Many people, particularly many American Catholics, would be stunned at what their church actually holds about the Bible because obviously the people on TV are what matters. I’m a practicing catholic. I practice because I suck at it.
It's also worth noting that translations are based on a particular edition of the Greek text, (which is noted in the introductory notes), which text is assembled and published by textual scholars such as Metzger, but also many others. They make most of the decisions as to what should be considered original, and their published text will usually be followed by translators. Since most translations are based on the same Greek text, they generally agree on which verses are in doubt. The differences arise because the King James was based on a Greek text that was available in Europe in 1500 before much textual work had been done, known as the Textus Receptus.
Can you please expand your comment "...and with all of the end times nonsense that's being proliferated right now it seems to be more of a concern to a lot of people" . What exactly are you implying? Thanks
@@FishfaceTheDestroyer you mean, he’s outright sharing his opinion, man. Just because he says it with authority or confidence doesn’t make him right. I don’t think the end times are coming but I don’t deny they might be- because I’m not foolish enough to think I definitively know. I like to remain- how do you say? Hmmm “humble”
Matthew 17:21 " Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." Strange that Dan would do a whole video on Matthew 17:21 without actually telling us WHAT was omitted...rather disingenuous. Fasting amplifies the effectiveness of prayer. Jesus fasted and prayed. You should also do the same.
@@kidsteach938 correctly deduced. But how exactly is prayer not magic? You're invoking a higher being to bring about supernatural change. Same thing as in many other magical systems.
@@janetgillespie6590Liberals use C.E. to be politically correct. This man is a liberal because he uses "C.E." and trusts Westcott and Hort, two Darwinists who dabbled in the occult.
The reason this verse is omitted is because it is Tremendously powerful! This is why Jesus went into the wilderness for 30 days Is to pray and fast. Then the devil came and tempted him and Jesus fought him with scripture. And the devil fleed from Jesus. This is what we are to do as well. Jesus said resist the devil and he will flee from you.
No it’s because there is little to no textual support for it the earliest manuscripts this verse probably isn’t even until the 12th century, at the earliest it might be the seventh century.
Well it actually has a pretty complicated history, end it was never actually put in the KJV Bible until the 1800s, it was originally only in the marginal notes, I only dates back to the 12th century, but it was in some of the Latin manuscripts Desiderius Erasmus was using, and he was pressured by the Catholic Church, and he knew there wasn’t that much textual support for it so he ended up only putting it in the marginal notes. I recommend reading the NET bible commentary on this passage.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 When the writers of the kjv first translated the bible it was not in there. They had to ask them to put it in but they said it's not in the earlier greek but they ended up putting it in.
7:53 and 8:11 not in original koine Greek. Nor Mark 16:9-20. Dozens of other changes made to koine Greek new testament and Hebrew Scripture by church fathers. A Man made theology .
That’s why I liked the NAB I had. It has soooooo many annotations, and always pointed out when things were likely not original very clearly. Annotations and cross reference verses made it so much more awesome to read
I have an NASB Bible from 1987 and it also has the footnote and the verse in brackets. However, Mathew 28:1, 1Corinthians 16:1-2, and other verses containing first day of the week phrase in translation bibles, doesn't have a footnote that it says Mian Sabbaton, Opse De Sabbaton, etc. in the early Greek manuscripts. Protes emera tis evdomada is the real way to say first day of the week in Koinea Greek. So I won't be using NASB but Westcott-Hort Interlinear Bible only for the Greek portion.
First, we don’t “know” that Matthew uses Mark. That’s a theory (albeit a good one in my opinion) and not an established fact. But to answer your question as to why Matthew didn’t pick it up - Mark may have never written that line. It could very well have been added later - AFTER Matthew used the manuscript of Mark that was available to him.
@@dondgc2298 Well I'll say this. For Matthew to have not used Mark yet they both have the same omissions in key parts, that would be wildly coincidental
@@dondgc2298 It's beyond a "theory" at this point. They literally quote each other verbatim and in the same order of events throughout along with Matthew making omissions and tack ons at the same points of a story. If you and i both tell a story about the same U.S president there's no way that can happen if we're using different independent sources and perspectives. But at least you get it
Are there any in-print versions of the New Testament for critical reading that leave these passages in tact but somehow mark them or color code them to draw attention to their later addition?
‘The Text-Critical English New Testament’ does. It gives statistics in footnotes about what % of manuscripts and which ones omit verses or give different readings.
New American Standard Bible 1995 (NOT 2020) is a *very* close word-for-word translation to the original text if you're not into the KJV. They put these commonly redacted verses in brackets. The Legacy Standard Bible does this as well. The NKJV is alright but they don't bracket or annotate that verse in any way. The NKJV also does a couple questionable things in it's translation that I don't much care for, but I might be splitting hairs.
Strange that, I never realised. It refers to prayer and fasting to strengthen your faith even tho it is the size of a mustard seed. I need this to ask God to heal my wife`s cancer. She prayed for me when I was dying and God healed me, if only I could pray like that !!
So interesting to see how the manuscripts were altered. The fact that the alterations took place suggests that the writings were thought of quite differently in the past than how we think of them today. Although I'm sure there are still many who would like to make little changes here and there, and perhaps a bit of that goes on in the translation choices of some editions, idk.
It does. I often read Bible passages with the interlinear text and translation. Some key words are translated differently for no apparent reason - other than that it matches modern - usually Christian - theology. A Christian example is Isaiah 9:1. The NiV translation makes the past oppression of Galilee into a prophecy of the future. One monotheist example is Exodus 7:1 “See, I have made you _like_ a god to Pharaoh.” The word Like is not in the Hebrew text and the word for God, _elohim,_ has no prefix, etc, to indicate any additional meaning.
@@79k65 Do you also believe that Aisha was fit to be married at 6 years old to a 47 year old man? Was she old enough to be penetrated by him 3 years later?
The verses werent added but many were removed in the fake codex sinaiticus supposedly and coincidentally discovered shortly before westcott and hort worked on replacing Erasmus' received text and create a new standard which is still in use. David w Daniels researched it.
All the new versions I've discovered through many faithful scholars have a wholly different manuscript which they draw from than the Textus Receptus (new test) and Masoretic Texts (old Test). There is a very strong deception being perpetrated by the powers that be which sadly the majority have fallen for. The King James bible or Authorized version is the culmination of the received 5000 plus manuscripts - NOTHING MISSING! The New versions ON THE OTHER HAND (all new critical texts) have hijacked the word of God by presenting their "DISOVERED MIRACULOUSLY" texts they state are now the oldest and greatest such as the Siniaticus found being burned by monks at St. Catherines monestary.....(how convenient). To find out the whole of it there have been faithful christians such as Mr. Pinto from Adullam Films which produced free here on YT "A Lamp In The Dark", and "Wheat Among the Tares". Also actual recent discovery of the vast forgeries perpetrated and made plain by mr David Daniels from Chick Tracts also found here on YT or on their website. This matter is deep and broad but you will see the hallmark of the enemy of our souls as you wade into those waters. The kingdom of darkness is still calling to man and pounding the drum of intellect and temptation by asking in the modern bible footnotes "Did God Say????" No different than the serpent in the Garden of Eden asked Eve.
@@alanx4121Claims of Codex Sinaiticus being a 19th-century forgery are nothing new. They have all been thoroughly debunked but its like playing whack-a-mole with the rabid KJV-onlyists who seem determined to keep resurrecting them. Funny thing, though, they can't even agree amongst themselves who the forger was - some mysterious Jesuit (even though Sinaiticus was never in the RCC's possession) or Constantine Simonides. And it wasn't discovered just 'shortly' before Westcott and Hort used it for their 1869 Greek New Testament - Constantin von Tischendorf discovered Codex Sinaiticus at Saint Catherine's Monastery some 25 years earlier, in 1844.
I always thought (though I wouldn't dare say it) that that verse was withdrawn on purpose because the clergy didnt like the idea of fasting , or self sacrifice, especially when it comes to food. People want spiritual things to be easy.
According to MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," there are only a couple hundred thousand textual variances in the New Testament, only 40 or 50 of which "are of great significance."
Glad someone on RU-vid gets this right :). I taught on this and several other examples for our church to understand the history of human interaction with the early Bible texts.
I'd hardly call living in the end times "nonsense" as you have done. Don't you realise that Armageddon is coming, or have you never read God's Book of Revelation?
Mathew 17: 21 is in the KJV Crusade Alphabetical NT TIC Family Register, and in Gideons Alphabetical TOC format. It seems to be speeking to the " lunatick" in 17: 14 as 17:21 is speaking to a certain " kind " of character defect, after the deciples couldn't cast out the demon. If we look at the illustration of James " faith without works is dead ", and " not all who cry unto the Lord will be saved ", it would seem that the " work " would have to be " fasting ", and praying on the epiphany of profound insight. This does bring vision. Tesla also makes this point.
Thank you for your research. Just a note here - if End Times arrival were based merely on the lack of this verse, then that would be weird. The signs and symptoms of the End Times being in motion now are enormous. The prophetic bible references and connected evidence is somewhere in triple digits now.
I didn't get that link from the video either, but... A lot of people who were raised christian, (more or less) turned their backs on God and the bible (at least here in Europe). Now that the world turns so grim, they remember the biblical end time and try read the bible without knowing how to read it and without efficient help to understand it. That's when those kind of questions rise. I think. (I've always had a bible that points out why some verses are omitted. They are always mentioned by an 'empty' verse# and an explanation which states what other translations write).
How interesting that all these "minor edits" of the Word of God are only being cut from the New Testament. Mostly Matthew, Mark, and John. How incredibly intriguing that this would be the case.
My question is, if it was added later on, then why are we NOW saying it was omitted? Why do we even have new bibles skipping over v 21, if there never was a v 21? I think it's more confusing to do that. Shouldn't v22 just be put in as v21?
The verse AND the verse number are deleted so as to prevent ambiguity and confusion. There would be mis-references. For example, if a commentator referenced v. 22, which had been renumbered, the reader of an uncorrected text would be scratching his head, as the commentary would be misapplied. It also is a default way to inform readers that some bibles contain scribal additions (mostly in the western texts) which have been textually edited. Any good bible student can compare different versions.
@@MrDragpics It most certainly is not a contridiction. Faith and prayer go hand in hand. Prayer is nothing without faith but our prayer is fortified by fasting. The Bible frequently links fasting with prayer, and some say that fasting can increase the effectiveness of prayer. Here are some examples from the Bible that mention fasting and prayer: Nehemiah 1:4 Nehemiah "fasted and prayed before the God of heaven" in his prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. Daniel 9:3 Daniel "devoted himself to plead with God 'in prayer and petition, in fasting'". Acts 13:3 "While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them'". Fasting is a spiritual discipline. It helps us grow in our faith (belief). Fasting is a tangible way to deny ourselves-to declare before God that we know it's all about Him, Not about us.
@@Bl_eu Checked older manuscripts most say fasting was not in the originals, pray when you pray you believe check what Jesus says about fasting thanks for your reply just spent time in the word checking it out.
I feel that fasting being such a powerful weapon because as you put your flesh through suffering by not giving into its desires you are spiritually empowering yourself. Therefore omitting that word from verse 21 doesn’t surprise me because there’s only one person who hates the act of fasting and that is Satan.
Fundamentalist Christian finds a coin on the floor. "It's a sign that I shall have a long and prosperous life". Splits his pants picking it up. "Trials and tribulations. It's a sign that the end times are here."
The Fundamentalist Christian was dressed immodestly by his own church's dress custom for males. If they're tight enough to split when you bend or crouch down, they're tight enough to show off your junk and your buns. For example, a limerick: There once was a young lad from Shoreham, Who wore pants made too tight but he wore 'em. He looked very discreet, 'Til he bent in the street, To pick up a dime, then he tore 'em. 😆
@@johncarbonetta7812 Revelations, and the tendency for religious people to interpret random events as significant. Christianity started off as a doomsday cult, and they have been predicting Armageddon since the very start. Polls show that most fundamentalist Christians think that the world will end during their lifetimes. And they've been thinking this for the last 2,000 years.
With all the end times "nonsense" being proliferated right now..... And what exactly do you mean by that? Are you denying that we're in the end times, and if not please define exactly what the "nonsense" part of end times discussion is and which part you consider legitimate. Also, why have you chosen to refer to the years since year zero as 'CE' instead of 'AD', the former being the world's attempt at removing Christ as our basis for referencing time? Those two things leave me extremely skeptical about your words being led by the Holy Spirit. Am I mistaken? A reply would be considered good faith on your part. Thank you.
There are only 2 bibles one is the Majority Text Textus Receptus (98% of sources) aka KJV and the ONLY other bible is the Alexandrian Text (Gnostic - demote Jesus)(2% of sources) aka NIV, NLT, NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc. To me the main issue is the lie that all new translations are just KJV's that are easier to read but they are completely DIFFERENT bible. NIV has many verses missing!! ESV is to fit with Calvinist TULIP theology (ie opinion). Theology is the study of man's OPINION relating to GOD that's why so many different 'Christian' opinion religions and THEIR Bibles and growing. Always looking for their 'RIGHT' Bible (Version) and LOOKING and LOOKING and NEVER finding!
Therefore I stick to my old Bible from school. It is the version of 1912. The Alexandrian Evangelism of St. John omittes the story of Jesus and the adulteress.The community of Alexandria was lacking love and was a bit self righteous. They could not accept Jesus forgiving such a great sinner.
This isn't a big deal to me. What is a big deal is many people think you become a Christian by saying sinners prayer but No one actually did that in the bible. A sinners prayer was made up by men based on verses taken out of context such as ask and ye shall receive. It's largely based in Romans and called The Roman Road but the writer was not telling lost people how to become saved in romans, he was speaking to people who were already saved. How did they actually get saved? Same way everyone else did, repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. That's how all Had to do it.
That’s why it is suggested to read mainline bibles and stay away from obscure translations. I read the King James, New King James, New American Standard Bible, and NIV. I did find an omission in the NIV once and quit reading the NIV.
The fact is demons all have different ranks and some only will come out by fasting and praying. They still have to be commanded out but without fasting they are not leaving
Im finding this out the hard way That one is defined by the things denied of ones self . Upon meditation and fasting you deny youfself indulges and urges , pleasures. As pointed out the messiah fasted 40 days. And immediately after that the demon king himself confronted the taunted messiah. Honestly in 17:21. I think the monks and bishops were being sneaky about snacking. But gluttony is a serious crisis in America. The demons hate it when we quit playing thier game .
great video. Jesus prayed "that they may be one" and here we are always arguing about who's the most right... (John 17:20-21) Stop seeking only to validate your own viewpoint. Read your Bible, compare notes with multiple translations to help you get a higher resolution understanding, and seek Truth with a sincere heart. (Mark 1:15, John 8:31-32) Paul wrote about this Christian tribalism when folks were claiming allegiance to their human teacher instead of recognizing their kinship in Christ. (1 Corinth 1:12)
Sure. And it's not just a few random verses either. Sometimes, it is an entire passage -- such as the story of the woman taken in adultery. The point is that we KNOW what the Bible originally said & we can remove the extra text. We are not confused about what is and isn't inspired by God.
Finally someone putting out a video with some facts. Too many people even on YT just flat out dismiss the modern English translations. Without doing any sort of research. That can really discourage good people who are just trying to get closer to God. I read the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. All of which are excellent translations. Great video by the way very happy I stumbled across your channel!
@@hive_indicator318 of course they are any Bible today was translated from a source that wasn’t English, which makes them a translation. You can argue they are just interpretations or whatever no one cares. Call it what you like.
@@BeardedCaveman no. It wasn't translated in any way. It was an adaptation of the Bishop's Bible. And that wasn't even translated, but an adaptation of yet another adaptation. Unless it's possible to translate within a single dialect of a language.
@@hive_indicator318 ok think whatever you want, whatever makes yourself feel better. You are trying to start a stupid argument, you are worthless for doing so. I am going to say translations since they are considered translations. Do I care if “translation” is 100% correct? No. You are just a worthless troll trying to stir up bullshit. So that is that. Get out of mommies basement.
The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it. The translators of the older Bibles were not always as careful in the selection of the manuscripts they used. Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account.
I disagree with your conclusion. To me it looks like the second scribe was adding in the missing words which should have already been there. He had discovered that the original was missing words and so he was correcting the mistake.
A case of literary vandalism, similar to art vandalism, where a later "artist" adds to or subtracts from a work of art or literature. A very famous example is the "ecce homo" fresco (meaning "Behold the man"), which was defaced by a well-meaning believer in an attempt to "restore" it, but unintentionally destroyed it. The scribe writing in his own text to Mt 17 in an attempt to reconcile it to Mark 9 is another such example. At least, we can clearly see and distinguish his writing and the original text is unchanged.
I really enjoyed this video on providing clarity. Personally I have the E-Sword app and I always cross reference from NLT , NKJV to see how accurate it is and for the most part I enjoy the NLT. It is definitely helping me with my journey with Eloheem (God).
Probably, one of the most often cited verses that were later added & are not in the earliest manuscripts is the story of the adulteress caught in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11 in which Yeshua said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." and, "Has no one condemned you?" . . . "Neither do I condemn you."
Verse Context: Matthew 17:14-21 finds Jesus and three of the disciples returning from the mountain, to find a crowd gathered around the remaining nine. A desperate father pleads on behalf of his demon-afflicted son who has seizures and often falls into water or fire. The disciples could not cast the demon out (Mark 9:14-29). Jesus, exasperated by the doubt of His disciples, rebukes the demon and heals the boy. When they ask, Jesus tells the disciples their faith was too small to cast out the demon. Even faith as small as a mustard seed is enough to move a mountain. Verse 21 nearly duplicates Mark 9:29 but is not found in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew.
Thanks for pointing this out, this verse is also not included in the Complete Jewish Bible, pretty much my go to for studying the word so not sure when they added Matthew 17:21 in Bibles.
If verse 21 wasn't in the original writing, then why is it still acknowledged by omitting it? It only makes sense that 22 needs to become 21 and so on to honor the original text. Just curious as to why it's done the way it is instead of truly and completely omitting of text that aren't originally in it
@@robd2721 The KJV is not based on the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is based on the KJV! There was no such thing as a Textus Receptus when the KJV was first published, in 1611. The Textus Receptus wasn't compiled until 1894 (i.e. 283 years later) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it.
The Textus Receptus is a printed version of the Greek text underlying the KJV. It was first compiled in 1894 (i.e. 283 years after the 1611 KJV) by Scrivener, who looked for _printed editions_ (not actual manuscripts) of the Greek & Hebrew texts supporting the KJV translation, from which he then created the Textus Receptus. Since then, the Textus Receptus has been revised multiple times and today there are over 100 versions of it. The Textus Receptus contains supposed Greek readings that have absolutely no manuscript support, especially in Revelation. For example, the reference to "Thou art righteous, O _Lord,_ which art, and wast, _and shalt be_ " in the KJV and Textus Receptus at Revelation 16:5 is not supported by _any_ manuscript evidence. _Every_ known manuscript contains the equivalent of "Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, _thou Holy One_ ". Indeed, there is _no_ Greek manuscript support for the Textus Receptus' last six verses of Revelation - Erasmus simply created his own version of the Greek text by translating from the Latin Vulgate's text into Greek. The KJV translators used Erasmus' 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament for their translation. Erasmus' 3rd edition includes the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) from the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus. From there, it found its way into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus. Additionally, we now _know_ that the _Pericope Adulterae_ (John 7:53-8:11) is a later addition to John's Gospel and that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition to Mark's Gospel. As such, none of these passages deserve the canonical status the KJV and Textus Receptus give them.
I’m glad you mentioned Metzger, Bart Ehrman also has a pretty good blog on this particular verse, another really good articles by Matt slick I know I know, you’re probably thinking “ dogmatic” The article is actually pretty unbiased. I found out about this passage because of the King James Bible, I mostly use the American standard Version, and the ESV, and why didn’t understand is why verse 21 wasn’t included in either but it wasn’t a KJV, I think it’s because the KJV has a lot of textual variants, it also includes John 5:7 which has a very interesting history, and John 7:53-8:11.
Without the original first writing, we have no idea what is or is not supposed to be in the scriptures. I would rather see the questioned passage be included with a footnote citing that it does not appear in the earliest copies than simply omit it.
kinda silly to pick some rando verse and say it was not "original" when none know of what any "original" is . a feaking definition of early vs "original" would be be a nice start.
I'm instantly leery of any claims on any Biblical topic by New Testament authorities who use 'Common Era (CE)'. Oh really, the 'Common Era'? And what or who divides 'Common Era' from 'Before the Common Era (BCE)'? Was there something--oh I don't know--notable happening during that period of time that prompted the big divide, or was it an arbitrary move to tidy up the timeline? A commonly agreed-upon administrative decision? Let secular authorities use BCE and CE. That said, this is the first video of yours I've watched and for all I know you might be one of those purely secular authorities, but even so I've noticed Woke pastors in Woke churches preaching sermons nowadays who come across as indistinguishable from such authorities, as godless and secular in their way as any old-school Soviet commissar.
If it's in the Catholic Bible (and it is), then it counts. All other versions of the Bible are just that..."versions" tailored to whoever created it's beliefs. Like why Martin Luther added the word "alone" to "faith" to create a new narrative that never existed before the 16th century. If all Christians just read The Holy Bible (not a "version" of The Holy Bible), there'd be no denominations because everybody would be on the same page and that would be a beautiful thing.
So I think the question is though, is Matthew 21 true? Because jesus's public ministry didn't start until he came out of the wilderness after he had fasted for 40 days. And the thing is, if you've ever dealt with demonic spirits in my finding, it's definitely easier when the flesh is not have any dominion
Q1 - Why is it that for every other ancient manuscript, if one copy has information in it - that bit of information is considered important and added to the compiled / completed manuscript, but in the case of the NT - the opposite is true? Westcott and Hort could only dream of this much acceptance of their deception! Now (after 140 years) people think they are actually doing God's will by calling into question the validity of scripture. Q2 - If Jesus gave this instruction set, in the verse referenced, and we choose to ignore, or even worst, remove it, how can we help those individuals that need to be free? A2 - We can't because we don't follow the instructions given by our lord. Please Note: Nothing removed by Westcott and Hort is un-important - they tried to remove the only direct reference to the Trinity via their 90% removal of 1John5:7. This is not just a difference of opinion - TR vs ABS. Westcott and Hort's editorial biases were completely documented in the letters they sent to each other talking about (with great glee) how they could undermine the faith via their 'subtle omissions'.
Not true it in the NIV it says by prayer.. it doesn’t include fasting so the original comment makes complete sense. There is a reason why it was removed so that we wouldn’t know how to handle spiritual warfare there is no reason a whole verse should be deleted unless you trying to hide the power of it .
Old manuscripts don't equate to accurate manuscripts. I'll take the Geneva Bible and King James Bible based off the Texts Receptus. All the other modern and Catholic Bibles can have their Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
