In my KJV they are not taken out. There is a side note explaining that these verses are not found in the most reliable ancient Gk manuscripts tho.

Remember these were copies of the originials. Some of these verses are just not in the majority or the most reliable so we need to be aware of this.

Some seem as tho they were added for clarification. Like in Mk 9:44,46,48 you see the same verse repeated and it's a quote from Isa 66:24. I guess someone took liberty to add that to this section thinking it fit but in the most reliable and majority copies this verse was not found.

Another is Mk 15:28 again it's not found but is a quote from Isa 53:12. It's not that it's not biblical it's just that it isn't found or supposed to be there.

In Luke 23:17 a parenthesis is added for effect and again this most likely was added by a scribe but it's not that it isn't true because you do see mention of this in John 18 so the custom was true, it most likely here in Luke was an added verse by the scribe that copied it over.

So yes, this is well known and shouldn't bother you. I'm not sure why your version just took them out, maybe they felt the evidence was overwhelming enough not to include them.

Simply put. Many of these Modern Translations, do not come from the same manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated from.

The King James Bible originates from what is commonly known as the 'Received Text' or the manuscripts that had originated from the original writers and been copied and re-copied and duplicated for the wider reading.

Many of the Modern Translations come from what is known as the 'Critical Text' basically from two major source manuscripts, one of which was recovered from a bin outside a Monastry. These were called the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus. (NT Greek) and were riddled with alterations and critical changes, hence the title 'Critical Text'. It was certainly older, than the Textus Receptus or Recieved Text, but that was only because the texts had not been copied, my guess is it was because they were a mess. Two Cambridge professors Westcott and Hort, had a go at working on the Critical Text and surrendered a New Greek Translations which had an English translation, along with some work on a book called 'The Shepard of Hermes' The two professors were basically very flamboyant fellas and like to experiment with different ideas to revolutionize the text. Ofcourse, many of the texts from the manuscripts had been already tampered with and with the aid of numerous reworkings, and Bible was produced called the Revised Edition 1881. The texts that were missing revealed a definite desire to obsure certain prime doctrines, like the Trinity and certain aspects of the message of salvation. For a more detailed study, have a look at the seven year work by Professor Riplinger called, 'In Awe of Thy Word' She noticed these blatant errors whilst attempting to counsel some of her students.

I have spent some time examining the History of the Roman Catholic Church, and the path of blood and hatred that was directed at those who possessed the Received Text, or Textus Receptus, or any Bible other than their Bibles, and certainly there is a sameness about the Rheims Duo, the Jerusalem Bible and the Modern Bible that have flowed out of Westcott and Horts original work.

Though the King James is really difficult to get around the English, the sourses from which it came do much to help one into a good understanding, though weak grammar will help no one to understand what is written in the bible, for it is definitely litreture, from God, and dare I say it without seeming disrespectful. Reading a book written by God, has got to be an experience of literary amazement. One read of the Song of Solomon, certainly taught me that God really knows plenty about sex, he invented it after all. Peace.

The link to Proffessor Gail Riplinger, should be easily enough to find on the internet.

In my KJV they are not taken out.

Read more closely. I said they are IN KJV but not in NIV.

Many of these Modern Translations, do not come from the same manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated from.

Agreed.

Many of the Modern Translations come from what is known as the 'Critical Text' basically from two major source manuscripts, one of which was recovered from a bin outside a Monastry.

Yes you are talking about St. Katherine's at the base of Mt. Sinai. The Mt. Sinai that they claim to be the one Moses received the Torah and Ten Statements. The problem I have with this is that St. Katherine's is based on Constatine's mother's dream. If you follow the Exodus in your scriptures it is impossible for the St. Katherines to be the Mt. Sinai of the bible. It has to be in Saudi Arabia. So as for these critical text there is good reason to criticize them.

I said they are IN KJV but not in NIV.

and to further clarify I am refering to the NIV from Zondervan.

Are you in the KJV only camp? Just wondering. While I read the KJV myself for the most part...grew up on it, I believe the NASB is the closest to the original Gk and Hebrew.

One verse you didn't mention was 1 John 5:7-8...maybe it wasn't ommitted from yours? Anyway from what I understand a Spanish Christian named Priscillian put in on the side as a note in a Greek maanuscript and it got included as tho it was originally there showing up in the manuscripts in the 800's.

Later in the 1500's Erasmus, a biblical scholar, put in in with a footnote after saying it wasn't in any of the Greek manuscripts but later appeared in translated copies. My KJV does mention this saying some of verse 7 and all of 8 are not in any ancient Greek mss.

Are you in the KJV only camp? Just wondering.

No I am not in the KJV only camp. I just find it interesting that there are several verses missing. By missing I mean removed. There is a 1973 NIV that has these verses but many of the newer versions don't. I am trying to see if other's have looked into this. If you want to label my bias it is mainly against Zondervans versions of publishings. I personally dig into what I can find with Greek and Hebrew Texts. My understanding of these new translations come from the Critical texts as were mentioned above but what I am finding is that I have a hard time accepting them. There are many different versions out there that still have these verses but as you know the KJV is widely known and thus is why I used it.

Because I want to know why I cannot accept the idea of "oh it's just not there." Humankind has too much of motives for me to accept that ideology.

AERCYK:
I apologize for my rant for it may have been ill received. It was not directed towards you but to the many people you prance around with this notion that these documents found there give them credence. As for Westcott and Hort I have some more to study on them. I consider them QUITE suspicious at this point. I may have to check out the book you suggested.

One verse you didn't mention was 1 John 5:7-8

I'll have to look into that one further when I get to the house. Thanks for the tip

KFC,

I looked this one up and found that it is there. It is part of the many verses that were truncated.

Through my studies I am finding that the history of the NIV and RSV versions spur from Douvay bible manuscripts. Anyone else find the same thing?