[Diligent]

Originally Posted by solabiblia

One thing that concerns me about the "removal" arguments is that A) they invent an unporven reason for the removal, and B) they seem to have no adequate answer for the more likely insertion argument.

From my "Magic Marker Binge" http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Critics commonly charge that the traditional Bible text used by believers for 1800 years adds material, and that we should be thankful for Westcott and Hort who came along in the 19th century to restore the text of the New Testament that had been corrupt for 1800 years and during the entire reformation. This charge is of course made against evidence to the contrary, as you will find if you research the text lines (read other articles on this website). Further, it is interesting to note that one of these verses is this:

Romans 13:9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The phrase "thou shalt not bear false witness" is missing from the modern critical text (and therefor most modern versions). Now I ask you: is it reasonable to assume that a scribe added a self-incriminating phrase to the passage? Isn't it more likely that "those who corrupt the word of God" (2 Cor. 2:17, KJV) removed the phrase which indicted them?

"More likely," riiiiight.