TikTokker: Why Are Verses Missing From My Bible?

Here I respond to a viral TikTok. A woman, unaware of textual criticism, is worried that passages are missing from her Bible. Are Bible translators trying to rob us from the words of Jesus? Or is she making a mountain out of molehill? I hope this video helps clear up any misconceptions about modern Bible translations.

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[TestifyApologetics]

Inb4 KJVO fan boys start claiming that other Bibles are Satanic.

[Tzimiskes]

The fact of the matter is that we still have these verses. Have tiktokers suddenly become manuscript and textual experts now?
What a joke.

[Godzkeys]

We aren't like Muslims that say our Bible is worthless if one or two verses are missing
The narrative and points are still the same.

[MatthewFearnley]

She could benefit from an NET Study Bible. I very much suspect that all of those missing verses are explained there.

[Idaho-Cowboy]

Thanks for the explanation. Still love my KJV, but appreciate the explanation. So tired of people point at something in the Bible as if it's some sort of gotcha, when 10 minutes of research and study could clear it up.

[moosechuckle]

Couldn’t she have just asked a pastor? Or a scholar? Or Google? Or anyone else that would have stopped her from jumping to some conspiracy?

Just wait until she hears about the gnostic gospels.

[boundintruth]

The foundations for modern textual criticism are built on Westcott and Hort. When you study who these men were they weren’t Christians at all and held opposing views to scripture being infallible and preserved. So the question remains: can men who held no high regard for God’s Word be trusted to provide an adequate template for Bible translation?

[cab]

I feel badly for her. She is so sure she is on to something nefarious.

[editsofawesomeness]

I love you Eric, but I'mma hard disagree with you here. So much of what you say – and many textual critics say on these passages – is not true and/or misleading. The evidence for the authenticity of these three passages is absolutely clear and overwhelming. I'll keep it brief, so I'll just take the first verse, Matthew 17:21, after two considerations against your introduction.

Firstly, you say that older translators weren't always super careful in the selection of manuscripts that they used. I'm not surprised that you say it, for this is the standard talk of many current textual critics. The problem is that they never provide any proof for the statement, leaving the listener, who is most likely a noob on the topic, with only two choices: either to accept the statement blindly, or to disbelieve it until evidence is actually presented. I advise the readers of my comment to do the latter, for there are and have been plenty of prestigious textual critics who think that the KJV, for example, has a much better selection of manuscripts than most modern translations. A few are John Burgon, James Snapp and Wilbur Pickering.

Secondly, you say that older translators didn't have the amount of manuscripts that we have today. While this is true, it is no argument in favor of the validity of modern textual criticism. Sure, we've discovered some papyri, but we've actually lost much more than we've gained, because of burnings of libraries and the like.

Thirdly, you present the suggestion of many modern text-critical scholars, namely, that the verse was taken from Mark (9:29) and put between Matthew 17:20 and Matthew 17:22. But this explanation falls flat on its face when we consider that a whole half of the verse, "and fasting", according to most modern textual critics and translators, _isn't actually part of Mark 9:29._ If they're right about that – they're not, but it's beyond the scope of my argument – Matthew 17:21 cannot be explained as a textual harmonization from Mark 9:29.

Fourthly, you say that the saying is still in our current Bible in "its most basic form"; but I guess you really mean, "half of the verse is still in your current Bible", because your current Bible doesn't have the words "and fasting" in the text. So your current Bible has a difference in meaning in this verse.

Fifthly, Matthew 17:21 is original, and the evidence is absolutely clear.

According to the study of Wilbur Pickering:
"Less than 1% of the Greek manuscripts, of objectively inferior quality, omit this whole verse (as in NIV, [NASB], LB, [TEV], etc.)."
- Pickering, W. (2016). The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken (Second Edition). Clube de Autores.

Furthermore, James Snapp presents the very sobering state of the evidence when he says:
"Matthew 17:21 is not only in over 99% of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew; it was in the manuscripts used by the early church writer Origen (early 200s-254). One can consult Origen’s Commentary on Matthew, Book 13, chapter 7, to see this. It is also in the Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome in 383. (Jerome stated in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels that he had consulted ancient Greek manuscripts in the preparation of the Gospels’ text.) Codex W, found in Egypt, also includes the verse. The Latin manuscripts used by Ambrose of Milan in the 300s also included this verse, and so do several Old Latin manuscripts. Thus the support for this verse does not only come from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts; it comes from a patristic quotation earlier than the earliest manuscript of this part of the Gospel of Matthew, and it comes from witnesses in at least four different parts of the Roman Empire."

The witnesses to the presence of this verse are so early, widespread, diverse and overwhelming, that, respectfully, one would have to be either ignorant or a fool to trust codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus when their testimony is opposed by such incredible evidence. Certainly, there is no evidence that these two manuscripts are our "best witnesses", and that they are in many cases our "earliest manuscripts" is absolutely irrelevant when we have so many _texts_ that date to an earlier time, like patristic quotations.

I ask you, Eric, to seek the truth in this matter. I've learned so much from you and all other modern apologists, but it's time we climb out of the pit of ignorance and blind trust in regard to current textual and translational criticism. As far as I've been able to discern, the modern translations have made steps forward in readability, but only steps backwards in regards to accuracy.

I pray that God soon lifts the veil of deception on the matter. I do not believe that most modern textual critics and translators are workers of Satan, but I certainly believe they have been deceived by him in many ways. That most are genuine Christians is evident to me, but that they are good at their jobs is not.

God bless you, Eric and all here!

[pajdoman]

Just accidentally found your channel. Im an orthodox christian and im currently reading the New Testament. Im glad i found your channel, continue the good work 👍

[hyphen]

"Oldest AND best" is debatable. Oldest vs Preservation. It's a critical text vs majority/ received text discussion.

[__.Sara.__]

"Just chill out. Drink a 7 Up. Eat a Moon Pie."
I'm from the South where Moon Pies are popular, often thrown at Mardi Gras parades. Are they available in other parts of the country? Just curious 😅

[amadeusasimov]

Imagine not understanding the history of the manuscripts of an ancient text you're criticizing.
This lady doesn't even care what's written in the bible anyway.
Don't be like her, don't be ignorant of Scripture.

[amoji]

So great! Thank you bro!I was wondering about the chapter & verse number divisions and you answered that question.

[Diamond-pgkc]

Mark 9:44, 46 do not exist either and I was so confused when I saw it last Sunday. I looked it up and I got a very easy explanation. This woman really just has to google it and she'd find her answer but she instead made a Tik Tok criticizing the Bible.

[deadvikingtrolls]

"Oldest and best" sounds like marketing. The reason new translations are still being printed regularly is usually either for $ or to suit a particular denomination or ideology's agenda. Debate Chicktracts please.

[peaceman]

Thanks for another great video! I have found myself in peoples comment section that are like this sister, but I didn't know that they werre inserted from a parrel passage! Thanks, God Bless!

[dpwellman]

She's "beyond" livid. Sure. Right.

[TNDYBRIGHTLIGHTS]

Mic drop! 🎤 Tell em! Everyone is trying to get a "gotcha" over on the WORD. i.e. missing books, scriptures, etc. THE WORD is sufficient unto ALL things! Have a blessed day!

[mevangel]

The providential recension (and subsequent revisions) of the Byzantine ecclesiastical text (retained and transmitted copies originating from the localities where St Paul sojourned) that is commonly known as the Textus Receptus, contains the verses necessary to produce faith and confidence in the Word. The perception of a widely disparate transmission, is of recent emergence, owning to the efforts of ordinary men, unauthorised in their scholastic inquiries. The Orthodox Church remains faithful to the Byzantine tradition, and from soon after the cessation of the Roman persecutions, the Western churches of Rome and then Protestantism adhered to the Byzantine up until the late 19th and early 20th century. Adopting the hasty compilations of a few early uncials and manuscripts against a vast majority of orthodox copies is not recommended or required. The critical text may be a fair approximation of a text held by men such as Origen, but it is not likely to be closest to the originals. God bless.