OK so which verse is translated accurately is it Galilee or Judea?
[Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.*
A SERIOUS OMISSION IN THE NEW BIBLES
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
[Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.*
Lets break this down
What I’m saying is, if you ignore the rest of what’s written in the chapter, book, or testament about a verse, ************** Ok look, i agree you can find a word or doctrine in other verses, but thats not the point. It doesnt change the fact that for a particular verse words are missing
and declare one Bible right and another wrong just because of different wording *********** A Bible cant be right if it has errors can it. One of the Bibles has an error for a verse and one doesnt. You have to determine which one is right
—while refusing to address whether using a different manuscript is of God, which is the root of those differences—then, frankly, you’re missing the forest for the trees. ******** which do you say is of God?
Last edited:
Please tell me how this verse is translated in the NivWhat part of it did you not understand? Or do you not realize that we are at war and that the adversary will do, and use whatever means they can to bring down Believers/Followers of Jesus Christ?
To what end?
I have told you that this is not a subject unknown to Talk Jesus, or for just about any Christian site.
I have also told you that an individual verse does not doctrine make! You can take just about any verse, out of context, and use it to mean just about anything you want it to mean. Do you not understand that?
Yes it is your opinion, when I have told you time and again, that the translators used manuscripts that do not include a word, while other translators used other manuscripts that did! What makes one right and the other wrong if the overall context of what is written doesn’t alter the word of God or what He wants us to understand?
Again, depends on the manuscript you are using, doesn't it?
This was a summary verse of what Jesus was doing and not setting a geographical boundary/layout of the country.
lol - don't worry I or another here would willingly help you. They are not contrary as you might think...especially me!
What I’m saying is, if you ignore the rest of what’s written in the chapter, book, or testament about a verse, and declare one Bible right and another wrong just because of different wording—while refusing to address whether using a different manuscript is of God, which is the root of those differences—then, frankly, you’re missing the forest for the trees.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
[Matthew 17:21 KJV] "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,562
And what does that tell you and your conclusion to that realization?
Which one is right or wrong considering they do not use the "exact" wording?
[Jhn 3:16 KJV] 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[Jhn 3:16 NIV] 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
To answer: Because 14-15 contextually is too long for them to put on a sign at ball games and 3:16 is a lot easier to remember.
So, which one is wrong?
Can't say can you! lol
Good follow up below...in your separate post............
They both were!
Don't agree? Then why not, and you tell me which one is right or wrong, and your reasoning.
What part of it did you not understand? Or do you not realize that we are at war and that the adversary will do, and use whatever means they can to bring down Believers/Followers of Jesus Christ?
To what end?
I have told you that this is not a subject unknown to Talk Jesus, or for just about any Christian site.
I have also told you that an individual verse does not doctrine make! You can take just about any verse, out of context, and use it to mean just about anything you want it to mean. Do you not understand that?
Yes it is your opinion, when I have told you time and again, that the translators used manuscripts that do not include a word, while other translators used other manuscripts that did! What makes one right and the other wrong if the overall context of what is written doesn’t alter the word of God or what He wants us to understand?
Again, depends on the manuscript you are using, doesn't it?
This was a summary verse of what Jesus was doing and not setting a geographical boundary/layout of the country.
lol - don't worry I or another here would willingly help you. They are not contrary as you might think...especially me!
What I’m saying is, if you ignore the rest of what’s written in the chapter, book, or testament about a verse, and declare one Bible right and another wrong just because of different wording—while refusing to address whether using a different manuscript is of God, which is the root of those differences—then, frankly, you’re missing the forest for the trees.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
Click to expand...
[Mat 17:21 KJV] 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
[Mat 17:21 NIV] 21 see footnote
Footnote: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Mark 9:29.
What does the footnote mean to you?
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,562
The point was it seems to be ok to just quote one verse and not be accused of violating context
OK thanksDear @DougE
I might not respond for a bit to any of your replies here after, since I'm off to church for a Bible Study.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
Oh, which Bible????? haha
Let's look at the CONTEXTThey both were!
Don't agree? Then why not, and you tell me which one is right or wrong, and your reasoning.
[Luke 4:14 KJV] "And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about."
[Luke 4:14 NIV] "Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside." ********** The NIV says Jesus is in Galilee as does the KJV
[Luke 4:31 KJV] "And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days."
[Luke 4:31 NIV] "Then he went down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, and on the Sabbath he taught the people." ********** Again the NIV says Jesus is in Galilee as does the KJV
[Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 4:44 NIV] "And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea." ********** Now all of a sudden the NIV says Jesus is in Judea. That's wrong.
The whole chapter takes place in Galilee, but in one verse the NIV says Judea.
Why is there a verse number when there is no verse?????
could it be there used to be a verse there????
There is a statement but no verse !!!!!!
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,562
They both were!
Don't agree? Then why not, and you tell me which one is right or wrong, and your reasoning.
The importance of what is written is not the where, but what He was doing "Preaching". Even more important is what He was preaching about!
Still, I understand what you are saying. However, you must consider that different manuscripts were used for the making of each. Judea at times was used to mean all Jewish Territory, which would include Galilee. It's not as if they were saying a completely different location entirely.
A modern example: I'm from New York, specifically New York City. When you ask someone where they are from and they say New York, that would include NYC and any other part of the state. Oddly enough when you ask someone that is not from NYC, but are from New York State, where they are from, they will usually say Upstate New York.
Saying just New York is not sufficient for someone who is from upstate, because they want to differentiate from the assumption that you might take it to mean NYC. lol Yet saying New York is not incorrect in either instance. You won't be from Galilee or perhaps Judea would you? Gosh please don't go there!!! Did you know that the original manuscripts, whichever one you look at, didn’t have any numbers? Also, what was the reason for adding numbers next to the verses?
By the by, if they were wanting to push that one version is correct and the other wrong, they would not have added a footnote...With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
Where did you come up with this?
[Luke 4:31 KJV] "And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days."
[Luke 4:44 KJV] "And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
[Luke 5:1 KJV] "And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret," ********* All of these verses placed him in Galilee
The Textus Receptus says Gailee
For sure it comes down to the manuscripts
The fact is that Luke 4 here demonstrates an error
The modern Bibles have errors that require gymnastics to explain and defend
The claim is made verses were added
The modern Bibles keep the verse number but removed the verse
This refutes saying verses were added
They werent added they were removed
Let me say I am not going into manuscript discussions that end up being endless
I only point out that verses are missing from modern Bibles, why?
The importance of what is written is not the where, but what He was doing "Preaching". Even more important is what He was preaching about!
Still, I understand what you are saying. However, you must consider that different manuscripts were used for the making of each. Judea at times was used to mean all Jewish Territory, which would include Galilee. It's not as if they were saying a completely different location entirely.
A modern example: I'm from New York, specifically New York City. When you ask someone where they are from and they say New York, that would include NYC and any other part of the state. Oddly enough when you ask someone that is not from NYC, but are from New York State, where they are from, they will usually say Upstate New York.
Gosh please don't go there!!! Did you know that the original manuscripts, whichever one you look at, didn’t have any numbers? Also, what was the reason for adding numbers next to the verses?
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><
I wanted to revise my reply but you cant edit in this forumGosh please don't go there!!! Did you know that the original manuscripts, whichever one you look at, didn’t have any numbers? Also, what was the reason for adding numbers next to the verses?
Why cant we have an unlimited edit capability as other forums?
Here is what I wanted to amend:
The translators for the modern Bibles had the KJV and Majority texts/Masoretic text
They were "correcting these" using their "older/better manuscripts that were discovered after the KJV was published
The KJV was used as the Bible to correct
The KJV had numbered verses
They removed the verses not found in their "older manuscripts", but kept the verse numbers
The claim is made verses were added
This refutes saying verses were added
They werent added they were removed
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 12,562
To you maybe, but not to those who have the wisdom to know the difference. So, you say an error but are unwilling to say which manuscripts are in error. Be honest; say that you believe that the manuscripts of those used by the newer bibles were in error. Instead of saying just "modern Bibles", because in truth this cannot be the case at all, if the manuscripts used are valid and of God. I hope the link provided above, will provide you valid information on this to consider since it does mention the manuscripts in question.
What you’ve written makes it clear you don’t really want to know, since the answer doesn’t satisfy your personal reasoning, and that’s something I can’t help with.
You can edit, but for a limited time only. Also, you can always ask one of the Staff, to make a change for you. Let them know what it is, and given time, they normally will have no problem doing so.
Gosh please don't go there!!! Did you know that the original manuscripts, whichever one you look at, didn’t have any numbers? Also, what was the reason for adding numbers next to the verses?
Since you do not want to discuss manuscripts since it's an endless discussion, your mention of them makes no sense to me. lol
Again, it’s not about adding or removing, but about using the manuscripts that were originally used.
The issue with the numbering is that it originated before the release of the KJV, dating back to even older Bibles in use at the time. You’re welcome to look into whether those earlier Bibles included the verses in question or not and were just accepted by the translators of the KJV.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
In regard to saying Judea referred to all of Palestine I found out it was
To you maybe, but not to those who have the wisdom to know the difference. So, you say an error but are unwilling to say which manuscripts are in error. Be honest; say that you believe that the manuscripts of those used by the newer bibles were in error. Instead of saying just "modern Bibles", because in truth this cannot be the case at all, if the manuscripts used are valid and of God. I hope the link provided above, will provide you valid information on this to consider since it does mention the manuscripts in question.
What you’ve written makes it clear you don’t really want to know, since the answer doesn’t satisfy your personal reasoning, and that’s something I can’t help with.
You can edit, but for a limited time only. Also, you can always ask one of the Staff, to make a change for you. Let them know what it is, and given time, they normally will have no problem doing so.
Since you do not want to discuss manuscripts since it's an endless discussion, your mention of them makes no sense to me. lol
Again, it’s not about adding or removing, but about using the manuscripts that were originally used.
The issue with the numbering is that it originated before the release of the KJV, dating back to even older Bibles in use at the time. You’re welcome to look into whether those earlier Bibles included the verses in question or not and were just accepted by the translators of the KJV.
With the Love of Christ Jesus.
Moderator
Nick
\o/
I dont see how saying Judea would refer to a specific region like Galilee however
I mentioned them in a general sense but to get involved in a detailed discussion I have found in the past to be futlie
Yes I knew that the numbering didnt evolve til the mid 15th centuryThe issue with the numbering is that it originated before the release of the KJV, dating back to even older Bibles in use at the time. You’re welcome to look into whether those earlier Bibles included the verses in question or not and were just accepted by the translators of the KJV.
I am saying that is irrelavant
I contend they took the KJV Bible and lets say they come to Matthew 1:17 and in their manuscripts the verse isnt there so they remove it, but they leave the number there for continuity and put in a footnote
Fact is they removed the verse
Removal of verses was the actuality, not verses being added to the KJV
