me and my friend have looked in five bibles and a concordance and it is in the concordance and two of the bibles but not in the other three...why?
2007-06-11 06:47:15 · 16 answers · asked by kaka 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
the Bibles that it was not in are....
life application study Bible: zondervan
thompson chain- reference bible: B. B. kirkbride Bible co.
Holy Bible- reference kjv: world publishing co.
Holy Bible: Zondervan
2007-06-11 07:04:46 · update #1
Sorry, but verse 21 comes right after verse 20 in my Bible. Check again, my friend.
2007-06-11 06:52:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because the codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the ancient Syriac and Egyptian versions omit them, it’s concluded that they couldn’t have been part of the original work.
Matthew 17:21 is an exact replica of Mark 9:29.
Some people think it was added later to make Matthew agree with Mark. There is also a debate about the word fasting, as does not show in the early manuscripts. Some new translations just skip the word.
2007-06-11 07:03:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original text of the Bible didn't have chapters and verses. They were added later. Certain early manuscripts do not contain some of the material that ended up in later versions of Scripture. Translators make every effort to get to the original text as written in the first century. It's an on-going process.
2007-06-11 06:55:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man, that is funny... especially where I've seen so many people bitc-- about adding to or taking from the Bible.... I'd just stick with the oldest text you can find... I use the King James version.
I know there's some Christian churches that have other books of "scripture"... they say that God isn't done speaking, so they don't end with Revelations' warning to not take away or add to the book.
I think that warning only applies to the book of Revelations, though. There's a similar warning in... I think it's Leviticus, so go figure...)
2007-06-11 07:22:56 · answer #4 · answered by Next Up 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certain translations, such as the NIV, NLT and the Message take that verse out of the Bible. Sort of the same thing happened in Mark 9:29 (they omit the phrase, "and fasting") but it IS Scripture and should be understood as such. Try a more reliable translation like the NASB or the NKJV.
2007-06-11 07:10:03 · answer #5 · answered by DB 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am reading out of a King James Bible and it has a chapter 21 in the book of Matthew. What bible are you reading?
2007-06-11 06:57:41 · answer #6 · answered by Francine M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This has to do with the texts that different versions use for translation. The text that was used for verse 21 was later determined by the majority to not be up to the standards to be considered canonical, and largely considered that people put it in there because of personal theological agenda, and since most translators have left it out.
2007-06-11 06:52:46 · answer #7 · answered by Drake the Deist 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Dear sports,
Here is Matthew 17:21:
"Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
The King James Bible is the best English translation to use.
2007-06-11 06:54:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
King James is the only Bible that is complete and free of errors.Verses are removed in false bibles to hide the truth from the reader.Fasting and prayer are important to a Christian.
2007-06-11 07:15:16 · answer #9 · answered by kitz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Matt.17:20And He *said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith ; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
Matt 17:21 ["But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting."]
Matt 17:22 And while they were gathering together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men;
What bible are you using?
2007-06-11 06:53:12 · answer #10 · answered by Tzadiq 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋