FAQ |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
But By Prayer And Fasting
According to a certain Graham Pockett, he asserts that Matthew 17:21 in the AV is an addition by a copyist.
******* Here is his quote and my comment. ******* Graham writes: Matthew 17:21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. Comments about this “omission”: [in the NIV] Verse 21 in the KJV was most likely added by a copyist to qualify the explanation that Jesus gave as to why He could cast out the demon and the Apostles could not. Whereas Jesus simply said they needed faith, the copyist obviously didn't think that this was enough and added the comment that you needed prayer and fasting as well. Reading the text, in context, clearly shows that this verse was added later and was most unlikely to have been in the original. Verse 22 starts a new teaching so verse 21 was the final verse in what Jesus was saying about faith. Typically, added verses are placed at the end of a discourse, not in the middle of one. ******* Most likely added? You see? This is the huge problem that there are so many variants. Nobody knows anything. They set a hypothesis forward as the world does. This is called scientific. LOL. ******* Matthew 17:21 is not an addition Is there any pure Holy Bible in your mind? I trow not. It is deleted by the heretics that pimped out the Alexandrian perversions is the real story about that one. And good godly men get sucked into believing these unsaved heretics. If you are against the AV here, then you are against a whole slough of other Bibles because they also have that in there. Looks like the International Standard Bible committee does not agree with your assumption here. Also the translator committee of the NASB do not agree with you either. There also are the committees of men from the ASV Douay-Rhiems Darby Webster Weymouth WEB Young's Literal ******* It is omitted because of Satanic influences. Imagine taking the very power out of the word of God exactly where it is needed. {Fasting and Prayer} But this is exactly what the modern versions often do. They pick on all of the best and favorite verses in Christendom and pervert it and cause doubt to arise. For shame. ******* Peter Fuhrman Every word of God is pure: Well I know that! Do you? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
In 2 Peter 3:1-7 it talks about people who think the Word of God is being corrupted. Since they observe additions and ommissions occurring historically, they believe that there is no perfect Bible today. Yet we are to be "mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets" etc. How can we do that, unless we have 100% the words today, nothing added, nothing taken?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
just remove "fasting" then
Here is the question that I would like to have answered by those who created the modern translations:
Why even go so far as to qualify these alleged additions by copyists? Why go so far as to add the qualifier "Some manuscripts prayer and fasting?" If the majority of the mss used do not say fasting then declare majority rules and omit the words that are found in the minority. Correct? Take a stand. Remove fasting. Yet they don't. All of these modern translations continue to compare to the King James and if the King James has it then their modern translations keep it, even if they bury it in the margin or footnotes. And yet their translation is an improvement upon the original. I don't know about you, but when I buy a product that continues to have a defect or design flaw from a previous edition I do not consider the new product to be any sort of improvement. Why is this? Why are these KJV only items constantly listed in modern translations? I find the practice confusing because it appears as if they themselves are confused (James 1:8?) or not entirely conviced and because of that they don't want to take a stand on whether or not fasting, in this case, is required. Is Rev 22:19 on their mind? I thought according to the modern translation crowd the warning in Rev 22:18 & 19 was only a warning against willful distortion? Certainly by their reasoning removing fasting would not be willful distortion because 1. it was added by a copyist and therefore should be removed, and 2. Jesus simply said (their argument, not my stance) they needed faith and not fasting. I was told once by someone who preferred the NIV to the KJB that one goal of the NIV and other modern translations was to provided the widest-range of translations from the largest amount of mss available, in other words the least common demominator approach. Let everyone know what all the manuscripts say, but point out what was in the majority and what was in the minority. Wait. I thought that is what we have in the King James? At least one manuscript said fasting so the King James translators added it. Peace, Harley |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, don't lay aside the power of turning the Bible into an Ad Libs game, where the reader gets to fill in his own words and meanings as needed. People simply don't want an authority. Most people aren't interested in an immutable text of God's word, because once they have it, they have to submit to it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I absolutely love the story of the adulteress found in John 8. I cannot wait to ask Jesus exactly what he wrote on the ground. And how powerful is this: "...Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Quote:
Besides, the King James is still much more concise than these other translations. I don't know who said it first, but less is more. Peace, Harley |
|
|