AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Matthew 23:14 Inspired Scripture or not? (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1413)

Will Kinney 07-01-2009 10:43 PM

Matthew 23:14 Inspired Scripture or not?
 
Is Matthew 23:14 Inspired Scripture or not?

The Lord Jesus Christ clearly stated “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away.” This is either a true statement or He was lying to us.

Matthew 23:14 records in full the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that are found no where else in the entire Bible. There are a couple of similar passages (See Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47) but nothing that is exactly like Matthew 23:14 where He says: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. “

The evidence for the authenticity of this entire verse is simply overwhelming, and we can even see the stumbling uncertainty of the modern versions by the way they handle this particular verse.

This whole verse has been omitted from many modern versions (but not all of them as we shall soon see) that follow the ever changing Westcott-Hort Critical text theories. Versions that entirely omit this verse first began with the Darby version in1870. John Darby basically made up his own peculiar text for the New Testament, following neither the Westcott-Hort revised Greek text, nor the Majority nor the Textus Receptus. Darby’s was followed by the liberal RSV in 1946 and then by the NRSV 1989, the ESV 2001 and the NIV 1982.

Daniel Wallace’s NET version (an ongoing train wreck) tells us that the verse is “not in the most important manuscripts...it is almost certainly not original... The present translation follows NA27 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.”

And what might these “best manuscripts” be? Well, they are primarily Siniaticus, Vaticanus and D, all of which wildly differ not only from the Majority of all Greek texts but even from each other. See my article on “the oldest and the best manuscripts?” here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm

Isn’t it odd that by simply skipping from verse 13 to 15 neither the Nestle-Aland 27 people nor some modern versions appear to be able even count right? “And now let’s count class ... ten...eleven... twelve... thirteen...fifteen... sixteen...Ooops. Looks like something is missing, Huh?” Why don’t they just be honest and change the verse numbers? Because in spite of themselves, they are bearing reluctant witness to the fact that God has an absolute Standard for His Bible and it’s not their own watered down, bogus versions.

Versions such as the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901 and the NASBs from 1960 to 1995 have the whole verse in [brackets] indicating doubt as to whether this verse is true Scripture or not. The Holman Standard of 2003 [does the same]. This means that even they did not have complete confidence in their own every changing Critical Greek texts as to whether this verse should be omitted or not. It’s a real faith destroyer to have versions like the NASB or Holman Standard that [bracket] anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the New Testament alone. Guess who wants you to ask yourself “Yea, hath God said...?” (Genesis 3:1)

There are some versions that primarily follow the Critical Greek text theories and omit thousands of words from the true New Testament who still leave this verse intact. This includes Rotherham’s 1902 Emphasized bible and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) which has gone back to including the entire verse in the text.

The evidence for the inclusion of Matthew 23:14 in the pages of the Holy Scriptures is ancient, massive and widespread. ALL English Bibles before the 1611 King James Bible included this verse. These are the Wycliffe Bible of 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 and the Geneva Bibles from 1557 to 1602, and even the 1582 Catholic Douay-Rheims version, though the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1969 and the 1985 New Jerusalem have now omitted the verse. Of course, it is firmly in place in the King James Holy Bible.

It was also in Mace’s N.T. 1729, Wesley’s N.T. 1755, Webster’s 1833, the Douay version 1950, Youngs, and is included in the NKJV 1982, Green’s literal, the 21st Century KJV and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

Matthew 23:14 is found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, including many uncial copies like E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, W, Y Gamma, Delta, Pi, Sigma and Omega. It is found in the Old Latin copies b, c, f, ff2, h, 1, r1, 2. The Old Latin copies bear witness to a N.T. text that existed long before anything we have in the existing Greek copies. It is included in such ancient Bible translations as the Syriac Peshitta, Curetonian, Harkelian, Palestinian, as well as some Coptic Boharic copies, the Armenian and the Ethiopic versions. The Gothic bible is missing the entire chapter, so it is not much help in determing the text at all. The Latin Vulgate texts as well as the Catholic versions that come from them are all mixed up. The 425 A.D. Vulgate omitted it, but the later Clementine Vulgate included it.

Matthew 23:14 is included in the Modern Greek New Testaments used by the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world today. It is also found in all these foreign language Bibles: THE MODERN HEBREW N.T., the Arabic Life Application bible 1998, the Africaans Bible, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Chinese bibles, Check, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Danish, Estonian, Finnish, French Louis Segond 1910, Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996; the German Luther 1545 and the more modern Elberfelder, the Modern Greek N.T.; the Hungarin Karoli, Quiché Bible 1997, Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the New Diodati 1991, Icelandic, Japenese bibles, Latvian, Lithuanian, Manx Gaelic, Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap, Portuguese Almeida, Russian Synodal, Victor Zhuromski and the 2000 Russian Slovo Zhizny bible, the Spanish Reina Valeras from 1909, 1960 and 1995; the Swahili bible, Thai, Tagalog, Turkish, Ukranian and the Vietnamese bibles.


Also to be noted is that the International Bible Society, who puts out the NIV which completely omits Matthew 23:14, is not always consistent when it comes to the foreign language bibles the IBS publishes. Among the modern foreign langugage versions the IBS publishes that DO contain this verse in their translations are The Arabic Life Application bible 1998, the French La Bible du Semeur 1999, the Italian La Parola e Vita 1997, the Portuguese O Livro 2000, the modern Romanian bible, and the Russian Slovo Zhizny of 2000.

As we enter the early 21st century, the ever growing unbelief in the inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility of any Bible in any language is in full swing. The King James Bible believers are the only ones who will not budge on this most vital doctrine. We fully believe that God has indeed preserved His precious and perfect words in “the book of the LORD” (Isaiah 34:16) and that this Book is the Authorized King James Holy Bible - the Standard by which all others are to be measured.

“In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.” Psalm 56:10

Will Kinney

pneuby 07-02-2009 08:02 AM

I'll be sure to read this further when I get to work. Thanks, Will.

Will Kinney 07-02-2009 08:49 AM

You are most welcome.

Because of Calvary,

Will K

PaulB 07-02-2009 08:54 AM

Hi Will
 
I’m glad that such honest thinkers like yourself are on my side of the battle as it makes research all the more rewarding when I follow you on to the battlefield.

Well, as far as I see it, heaven hasn’t yet passed away, neither has the earth (hold on I’ll just take a look outside………..yep, it’s still there!) and further more it is Jesus Christ our Lord (who is the embodiment of truth who made that promise. So as far as I am concerned it seems very absurd for professing Christians to think that they have scored a point against the preservationists by arguing the opposite.

If the militant proponents of the modern versions carry their translations with the conviction that those actual words of Jesus are preserved and inspired, then they have to admit that inspiration & preservation do apply to the concept that they are defending (otherwise they wouldn’t have any grounds to support their own argument).

This is one of the arguments that I have consistently had with against modern versionists, who use (what they call) “translations” such as the NIV & Message to teach their assemblies (which by their own admissions are not even word for word translations). They confidently proclaim the texts of these versions (“stressing on single words “with authority) as though they are quoting Christ Himself, and yet passionately oppose anyone who claims that the Bible is preserved in the English language!
To me, that is like trying to teach subtraction and multiplication without the use of numbers – it’s just not possible!

Without the actual word of God there is no authority which means that every Scriptural quote that is made during a church service or Bible study is, at best, only a guess and nothing more!
Which then leads down the path of feelings and preference rather than the solid line of unquestionable authority, which was the line that the apostles took.

So to try and dismiss the preservationist they (the new believer) have to believe that preservation is a myth. But then they go on to convince themselves that God keeps his promises, that Christ’s words are (not only authoritative but) unquestionable and yet no one knows anything for sure other than the Bible couldn’t have been preserved in English.

It is as if they believe on the one hand that a jigsaw that they have seen portrays a beautiful picture – but on the other hand they don’t want to believe that the pieces make up the picture that they can see!

Thanks for your thoughts Will

God bless

PaulB

Critical Thinking 07-04-2009 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 23111)
... The Lord Jesus Christ clearly stated “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away.” This is either a true statement or He was lying to us.

Matthew 23:14 records in full the words of the Lord Jesus Christ that are found no where else in the entire Bible. ...

He was not lying, Will. You correctly described Jesus as being "Lord" & "Christ" which is virtually stating that He is God, which He is. And God cannot lie. Jesus' statement is true!

However, ALL of Jesus earthly spoken words have not been preserved for us in writing. For examples, Jesus surely spoke before He was twelve years of age; and Luke witnesses that Jesus taught "daily" for a while in the temple, and frequently "on the sabbath days" (clearly, none of the Gospels contain over three years worth of spoken ministry). John says that Jesus preformed "many other signs" not written down in his gospel (and presumably also the associated speech).

Therefore, Jesus must NOT have literally meant that all His words would be preserved in the Bible for us. In a sense, some of His words are inaccessible from us for now. Many of Jesus words are not found in the Bible anywhere.

Jesus potentially could have spoken the same words (found in Matthew 23:14) many times; and even if they were never recorded, they would still be His words. Jesus statement doesn't exclusively apply to enscriptured words (written revelation). In other words, just because Jesus said something, it doesn't mean those words had to get into the Bible.

[BTW - Have your words and mine passed away? Well, since we must give account unto the Lord someday our words must be preserved somewhere at least until then.]

While "my words will not pass away" is a true statement, it actually adds nothing to prove the authenticity of any particular words attributed to Christ. Thinking folks will recognize your inclusion of "my words will not pass away" as a circular argument here at best. You don't need it.

Will Kinney 07-05-2009 12:22 PM

My words shall not pass away
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23258)
He was not lying, Will. You correctly described Jesus as being "Lord" & "Christ" which is virtually stating that He is God, which He is. And God cannot lie. Jesus' statement is true!

However, ALL of Jesus earthly spoken words have not been preserved for us in writing. For examples, Jesus surely spoke before He was twelve years of age; and Luke witnesses that Jesus taught "daily" for a while in the temple, and frequently "on the sabbath days" (clearly, none of the Gospels contain over three years worth of spoken ministry). John says that Jesus preformed "many other signs" not written down in his gospel (and presumably also the associated speech).

Therefore, Jesus must NOT have literally meant that all His words would be preserved in the Bible for us. In a sense, some of His words are inaccessible from us for now. Many of Jesus words are not found in the Bible anywhere.

Jesus potentially could have spoken the same words (found in Matthew 23:14) many times; and even if they were never recorded, they would still be His words. Jesus statement doesn't exclusively apply to enscriptured words (written revelation). In other words, just because Jesus said something, it doesn't mean those words had to get into the Bible.

[BTW - Have your words and mine passed away? Well, since we must give account unto the Lord someday our words must be preserved somewhere at least until then.]

While "my words will not pass away" is a true statement, it actually adds nothing to prove the authenticity of any particular words attributed to Christ. Thinking folks will recognize your inclusion of "my words will not pass away" as a circular argument here at best. You don't need it.


Hi CT. Thanks for your thoughts. I have heard these arguments before, but I must say, I apparently look at the meaning of "heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" differently than you do.

If we take this saying by the Lord Jesus they way you do, then He either lied, exaggerated, didn't know what He was talking about, or else He was mistaken.

The way I understand His words there is this. The Lord Jesus Christ knew what was going to be written in "the book of the LORD" before it was actually penned. He knew what inspired Scripture would be, because God Himself is the Author of it. Didn't He say things like: "the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's that sent me." (John 14:24) and "the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:48-49.

I also sense from a certain buzz word you used - 'enscriptured' - that you yourself are one of those people we run into so often who does not believe that there ever existed nor exists now any Bible in any language (including your "the" Hebrew and Greek) that IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible. Am I right? Please let us know what your views on "the Bible" really are. Will you do that for us?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Critical Thinking 07-05-2009 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 23282)
... The way I understand His words there is this. The Lord Jesus Christ knew what was going to be written in "the book of the LORD" before it was actually penned. He knew what inspired Scripture would be, because God Himself is the Author of it. ...

Readers of your post would not neccessarily know your point of view. Yes, it is true from the very beginning He would have known what would be included and what would not be preserved in writing and this can be a legitimate position. However, it can also be a convenient escape for just about anything that cannot be (or is undersirable when) taken literally.

And it is possible to understand the verse another way. As soon as a verse is viewed with some non-literal 'special' meaning it is not immediately subject to your artificial quadrilemma: "He either lied, exaggerated, didn't know what He was talking about, or else He was mistaken" (I reject all of those thoughts about Christ). For examples, other legitimate interpretations could be (but not limited to) that it has a poetic, metaphoric, figurative, or prophetic meaning. Indeed, in context a somewhat more limited interpretation is that Christ was speaking of His prophecies ("my words") being fulfilled ("shall not pass away"). Jesus knew those prophecies would be included in the Gospels so, in that sense, I agree with you here.

I didn't know that "enscriptured" was a 'buzz' word! I rarely use it, but it seemed appropriate in this topic.

I'm not concerned with promoting my views here. I suppose that given opportunity, many of my opinions (not that they are particularly important because they come from me) will emerge in due course. But let this be sufficient for now: I think the KJV which exists right now is the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible!

My focus is that argumentation defending the KJV be truthful, complete, and pure. For example, I agree that God Himself is the Author of the Bible, but I disagree that John 12:48-49 & John 14:24 support a separate & distinct assertion that Jesus Christ knew what was going to be written before it was actually penned. He did, but those verses merely witness that Jesus spoke the words that the Father gave Him (unrelated to foreknowledge, written revelation, or any relevent evidence that Jesus knew it would be in the Bible). You certainly throw around a lot of scripture.

Will Kinney 07-05-2009 02:42 PM

God's book - the King James Bible
 
Hi CT. Thanks for your thoughts. One thing I did want to ask about though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking (Post 23288)
But let this be sufficient for now: I think the KJV which exists right now is the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible!

Forgive me if I am assuming something that is not true, but as a result of discussions on many other forums and with lots of different Christians, I have often found that people cloak what they really believe by using ambiguous or unclear phrases. If you really think the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible, then are you equally prepared to state the only logical alternative in regard to versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc? Because these multi-choice versions differ from the 100% true KJB by literally thousand of words omitted (anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the N.T. alone) and often reject the Hebrew texts and have completely different meanings in hundreds of verses, are you then willing to take the stand that these other versions are NOT the complete, inspired and 100% Holy Bible?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like for you to give us a straight up and honest answer to it.

Thank you,

Will K

chette777 07-05-2009 10:51 PM

I like that Will Multiple Choice Versions now we have a lump acronym for them MCV's. sound like a new sports car.

CT, You jined only yesterday or today if your on the west coast. Your six posts ALL seem to be against Will Kenny. did you come to this forum just to argue here with him and try to show him as a man in error to our eye's?

We all know Will fairly well and he has proven himself a true defender of the KJV Bible.

but you we know very little of? What is your back ground? how about and introduction to who you are and maybe a testimony? you know I got an email from a man who just was browsing and he saw my testimony via this forum and he is back at church. your testimony published here or a link to a personal web site might help a lost person get saved or encourage the brethren.

So before you go on attacking Will Kenny who is well respected here and get your self on the disrespectful side of us why not share something of yourself to us.

Critical Thinking 07-06-2009 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23322)
... Your six posts ALL seem to be against Will Kenny. did you come to this forum just to argue here with him and try to show him as a man in error to our eye's? ...

Well, it may seem that way, but that would mostly be because Will writes more than just about any one else (but look at the 1611 vs. 1769 thread). No, I didn't come here to argue with him or any one else. I am here to point out error wherever I find it. I am here to make posters and readers think.
Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 23322)
... What is your back ground? how about and introduction to who you are and maybe a testimony? ...

Certainly, Chette. I was born-again as young lad. Jesus is my Savior, how about you? I was priviledged with several years of Christian education. I read my KJB and pray daily. Currently I am serving the Lord in several church ministries and regular personal evangelism. Thanks for asking!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study