How many words in the Bible?

According to various sources, such as the Art and the Bible Bible Concordance and others, the King James Authorized Bible has some 783,137 or so words. Of these 783,137 words, there are about 14,564 unique words.

Compared to three others:

• English Standard Version – 757,439
• New International Version – 727,969
• New King James Version – 770,430

Some of this is accounted for by translational differences, while for the ESV and NIV, they are also based on a Greek text with fewer words than the Textus Receptus.

Mounce’s “unanimous agreement”

In researching the topic of defending missing verses in modern Bibles, I ran across a brief video by Bill Mounce (a little less than 10 minutes). In it, he is defending “missing” verses in his NIV. At one point, he claims that evangelical and liberal scholarship unanimously agree on one thing: that “versions of the Bible that were written closer to the first century are by default more reliable. There’s been less chance for changes to happen. They’re going to be more faithful because they’re closer to the actual writing.” (This starts at about 3:18 in the above-linked video.)

First, though not my main point here, I do not agree with Mounce’s premise. Marcion’s truncated Bible seems to be closer in time “to the actual writing” than anything we presently have (definitely preceded Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). It is NOT by default more reliable. It is, in fact, exceedingly unreliable and unrepresentative of the autographs.

However, notice primarily Mounce’s attitude toward anyone who takes a contrary position to his “unanimously agreed” scholars. If you are not part of the unanimous agreement, then you are not a serious or credible scholar.

I realize Critical Text guys like Mounce consistently dismiss those of us who support the Received Text as rubes. But shouldn’t Majority Text proponents such as Hodges, Farstad, Pickering, Pierpont, and Robinson be considered eminent scholars? They do not accept this so-called universal proposition posited by Mounce. Or does Mounce & Company just write out of the “academia” anyone who disagrees with them?

I deny that there is such a so-called unanimous agreement. The consensus is a mirage, achieved by excluding those who disagree. Sounds a lot like the government ploy that dismissed the opinions and findings of eminent physicians and medical researchers who did not spout the “party line” during the Covid scare!

[Just for fun, be sure to watch this with the captions on, where the Closed Caption understands Mounce to say “Bruce mess cursed” instead of what most of you will hear him say.]

Defending Chris Myers’ point

...without agreeing with everything he wrote.

Why I Preach from the Received Text, a book I recently reviewed quite positively, has come under specific attack for its Chapter 19 – “The Invincible Word” – by Christopher Myers.

First, a few general observations on Christopher Myers’ chapter. It struck me as different from most of the previous essays I had read in the book. Many of those were much more personal and testimonial. After extolling the word of God as invincible and indestructible, Myers quickly transitioned to a history of the transmission of God’s word, with the transmission of Satan’s work along with and against it. In this relation of the history, the writer affirmed Satan’s various attacks on the word of God, through uninspired writings competing with those of the apostles, hindering the laity’s access to the word of God, variations that diminished the deity of Christ, and so forth (pp. 187-191). Ultimately, the Christian reader must choose between the faulty text disrupted by the work of Satan and the reliable one that has stood the test of time.

Mark Ward and Matthew Everhard have both charged Chris Myers of accusing folks who use certain modern translations of using Satan’s Bible. In his blog review of the book, Ward writes:

“Myers makes it clear that when he refers to Satan’s Bible, he is not speaking of the sectarian New World Translation or the Book of Mormon, but to the Bible that I carried to church this very day as I write (the ESV), and to the one my pastor preached from (the NASB), and, by a small extension, to the Bible I preached from in our Spanish ministry (the NVI, related to the NIV).” (Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text)

In a YouTube video, Everhard states:

“One of the authors calls some of the modern translations, including the NIV and the ESV, Satan’s Bible.” (Sparring TR & KJV Advocates! Interview with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen, @ 49:10)

Myers wrote:

“Modern translations based on Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others.” (Why I Preach, p. 192)

I understand that those who use the ESV, NASB, NIV, et al., will take offense at Myers above expression. However, I do not believe the quotes from Ward and Everhard exactly or accurately portray Myers’ statement, in its context. While one might extrapolate that from what Myers wrote, it is not what he wrote. There is a fine line. He did not say they are using Satan’s Bible, but that these Bibles are “based on” it (“based on,” an adjective that in context seems to mean that they have attachment to or reliance on it as a source item for their translations). The attempts Satan has made against God’s word affect all these Bibles.[i] The more I look at “Chapter 19,” the more I think people have misunderstood and misapplied what Myers wrote. Is it just vacant talk that provides some sort of “moral high ground” when we say we are seeking to understand and fairly represent our opponents? If not, then we must all try to understand and then fairly represent our opponents, including Chris Myers and what he wrote. He wrote strong words. Very strong words. These words cannot help but sound inflammatory to modern Bible proponents. He is calling them out. The point he is making is that the modern translations founded on the NU Greek text are heirs to the defects (especially deletions) that have entered into the texts through the leavening work of Satan.

Possibly many TR and KJV proponents failed the Dale Carnegie “How to Win Friends and Influence People” course, while most CT and modern Bible proponents passed with flying colors! Myers sharply spells out the consequences of what he understands as an assault against the word of God, whereas the other side simply says we are adding verses instead of their removing verses, usually leaving us to intuit the rest that goes with that accusation.[i] Who is nicer? Regardless, pleasing demeanor and affable tone are not the arbiters of truth.

Satan has an interest in opposing, questioning, and confusing God’s word. This is not some KJVO or TRO conspiratorial viewpoint. The text and teaching of the Bible itself verifies this.[ii] From the beginning the serpent questioned the word of God. A wicked king tried to burn it. False apostles mimicked letters in the name of Paul. The multiplication of Bible translations, the words written about textual variants, and so on, can work to his advantage. There are textual variants (and translations thereof) that do matter. George Vance Smith, an Unitarian, served on the English Bible Revision Committee created in 1870 that produced the English Revised Version. He believed the variants had theological impact, and he wrote with some pleasure that he thought the new revision muted the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the atonement (see Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed). You do not have to be a TR or KJV advocate to recognize this. James Snapp, Jr., an advocate of “Equitable Eclecticism,” exhibits this when he writes, “But we should not let ourselves pretend that some textual variants cannot be used against orthodox doctrines...There was, and is, a spiritual battle going on” (see Abner Kneeland, Forgotten American Translator (and Apostate)). A spiritual battle!

In “Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616?” our friend Dwayne Green discusses text criticism, the mark of the beast, and the variant number 616 instead of 666. He says:

“It makes senses that the Devil would want to confuse you about what that number is.” (Mark of the beast, is it 666 or 616? @ 0:43)

Dwayne is neither KJVO nor TRO. Yet he recognizes that Satan has an interest in confusing us about God’s word. Is it only okay for those who are not KJVO or TRO or Confessional Bibliologists to point this out? No, it is truth, regardless of who says it, and regardless of who objects.

Wilbur Pickering, like Dwayne Green, is neither KJVO nor TRO. He is a modern textual critic advocating what is called the Family 35 Majority Text. He has strong words about Satan’s influence on the text of the Bible.[iii]

“Since eclectic textual criticism is based on falsehoods, it belongs to Satan. Since most theological seminaries and Bible schools teach eclectic textual criticism, even the most conservative ones, and since that is the only option that they teach, most students graduate thinking that is all there is. The graduate may believe the NT to be inspired and inerrant in the autographs, but he uses and teaches from an eclectic Greek text and modern versions based on an eclectic text. He embraced a lie because he trusted the teachers who assured him it was the truth. But that lie has become a stronghold of Satan in his mind, which is why so many evangelicals seem to be unable to reconsider what they were taught.” (Textual criticism and the spiritual factor)

The above examples demonstrate that speaking of Satan working against the word of God is not a feature of any one brand of “Bible Onlyism,” neither is it a relic of the past. Others believe and say that there is Satanic influence in textual transmission and Bible translation.

That agreement with Myers laid out, I also diverge somewhat with his approach. We should exercise caution not to cause sincere believers (even sincerely wrong ones) to doubt God’s word. For those who completely exclude any part of critical texts and modern translations from being God’s word, my point will fall flat. However, (the rest of you) consider that in many places the critical text and traditional text have the same readings. Some translations of verses have the same words as those same verses in the King James translation. In good conscience and the spirit of truth, we cannot deny those portions are the word of God, regardless of where they appear.

Here is Romans 1:1 from four different Greek texts. Which one is the word of God?

• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• παυλος δουλος ιησου χριστου κλητος αποστολος αφωρισμενος εις ευαγγελιον θεου
• Παῦλος δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ

Here is Romans 1:1 from three different English translations. Which one is the word of God?

• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
• Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

These examples are all the same (with the exception of the capitalization and pointing in the fourth Greek example, and, of course, the difference between Greek and English). Either every one is the word of God or none is the word of God. We cannot keep a consistent (or biblical) textual view if the same word of God ceases to be the word of God when sewn under the wrong two leather covers. SO, in my opinion, we need to respect the word of God that is the word of God, whether it is printed under the covers of a Bible text or translation we do not like, quoted in a book we would not read, printed on a banner, posted on Facebook, or spoken from the mouth of either the godly or godless. This position does not mean we cannot or should not oppose what is wrong in the the ESV, NASB, NIV, and other modern translations, as defective and deficient. It means that we carefully choose to apply or not apply certain terminology to books that contain some of God’s word, mistranslate some of it, and/or leave out some of it. It may be that we need to use that book, and the words of God contained within it, to convince some sincere believer concerning his or her views. For example, say there is a sincere believer who thinks the NIV is the word of God. Adamantly I say, “No, it is Satan’s book.” Then that person may begin to question God’s word (in other words, question God’s word in principle, not just the NIV, because he or she thinks it is God’s word). Later they may not accept any Bible as authoritative! A speaker may intend for a person to question the NIV and/or critical text and accept the KJV and/or traditional text. However, there is no guarantee that will be the results.

It is not necessary to believe that evangelical text critics and modern Bible translators are Satanists in order to believe they have been led astray in creating, adopting, and/or translating a certain defective text.[iv] Some of us believe that the Westcott-Hort/NU text tradition leaves out and changes some of God’s words. If we are correct, then the basic point Christopher Myers makes is correct. Some of us might make the point in different language than Myers, but the general point is true nevertheless.

It will be interesting to hear whether and how Myers himself responds to these criticisms.

Greater is he that is in his word (God) than he who opposes it (Satan). The word of God is not bound. It is not broken. The Devil cannot defeat it.

---

[i] In fact, if our opponents are correct, then the attempts that Satan has made against God’s word affects MY Bible. They may not wish to say that plainly, but they are saying it when they say that the Textus Receptus adds to the word of God. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6). Biblically speaking, if we add to the word of God, we are liars, following the father of lies (John 8:44), and our Bible, at least in its additions, is “based on” Satan’s Bible. Refusing to state the conclusion that follows your position may seem nice, but those are the consequences nevertheless. “Translations based on Satan’s Bible, that add to the Word of God, include the Geneva Bible, King James Bible, Modern English Version, New King James Version, 21st Century King James Version, and several others.” If you think I am wrong, tell me precisely, instead of beating around the proverbial bush.
[ii] See, for example, Genesis 3:1; Luke 4:9-10; 8:11-12; John 8:44; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Ephesians 6:10-18; 2 Timothy 4:3-4; Revelation 12:9.
[iii] Pickering is more emphatic in this interview, Transcript of TF Radio Episode 12- Dr. Wilbur N. Pickering.
[iv] Humility and honesty makes the “traditional-text Christians” admit that we have been and can be led astray in many areas of life.

Seek the truth in this matter, by Juda Brinkman

On August 11, 2022, YouTuber Erik Manning posted a response to “TikTokker: Why Are Verses Missing From My Bible?” on his Testify channel. Apparently, this obscure young lady’s TikTok video had gone “viral” and Erik felt a response was necessary. Juda Brinkman, a Christian in the Netherlands, also felt a response to Erik was necessary. Juda blogs (in the Dutch language) at Slangen Stompen. Here is his well-written reply. (All that follows is from Juda, with his permission.)

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 [Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14, rlv] 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 number 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.” - Snapp, J., Jr. (2018, May 28). A Moment Please, Dr. Holmes! The Text of the Gospels.

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.

Juda Brinkman, Dordrecht, Netherlands

Missing verses in the Bible

I often hear Christians who use and promote modern translations (and who are often critics of the King James Version), say something like this when talking about “missing” verses in the Bible: “What makes King James the standard?” As an example, Luke Wayne at CARM writes, “To just say that modern scholars ‘removed’ the verses simply because the verses are present in the KJV assumes from the beginning that the KJV is the ultimate standard.”

Fact is, the purveyors of modern Bibles themselves make the King James Bible the standard for “missing” verses. They keep using the “standard” verse numbers from the KJV, which in turn indicates they have material missing. No matter how you explain it, when you do this, people are going to notice something is missing! If Bible translators and publishers choose to do this, let them not complain at us who use the KJV translation of the traditional texts as our standard! Point the finger back at yourselves.

G. Gabriel Powell, in “The Mysterious Case of Missing Scripture” at John MacArthur’s Grace to You site, explains the background:

“The Bible was not written with chapter and verse numbers. In fact, the first English Bible to be printed with both chapter and verse numbers was the Geneva Bible in 1560. The 1611 edition of the King James Bible slightly altered the chapter and verse divisions, and all modern English translations followed suit.”

Here he is correct – all modern English translations (at least so far as I know) “follow suit.” That is, they also make the King James Version numbers the standard. After doing so, many complain because it is the standard. Then they scramble to cover their practice.

We are being nice.

Along the now common line that the modern Bible supporters are the “nice” guys, Luke Wayne says Modern Bible Versionists are being nice to KJV and NKJV readers or else they “would not be able to follow along when they cited a verse…It made more sense to keep the standard verse numbers that other Bibles used so that everyone could be on the same page, (both literally and figuratively).” How magnanimous! “They could create their own new numbering system that corresponded to the text they were translating” – but they do not because they are so nice. Instead they keep the “standard verse numbers” and then complain when someone notices a verse is missing, according to that standard.

The verses are not left out.

This is a common treatment. Bill Mounce, defending “missing” verses in his NIV, says, “The verses are not left out. The verses are in the footnotes.” He goes on to explain (correctly, I might add) that “this is not an NIV thing; this is a modern translation thing.” In the footnotes. That the words are removed from the verse text is not for no reason. These translators believe they should be “missing” and put them in the footnotes as a way of explaining why they should be missing and are removed, yet not missing completely. Their editorial comments are also in the footnotes, but they do not count that a “non-missing” text. Do they?

However you slice it, and however they explain it, even if these guys do not want the King James Bible translation to be the standard, it nevertheless is. That is why they keep the numbering. Ultimately the KJV, if only by default, is the standard. Look at Acts 8 in the CSB, ESV, LEB, NET, NIV, NLT, for example. These modern translations leave out verse 37. Do they change verses 38-40 to become verses 37-39? No, they follow “the standard.” There are many more varied English translations than there are KJVs. If those who are making new English Bibles do not want to make the King James Bible the standard, they could renumber the verses following the verse that is left out. Then there would be no skips in counting the numbers, and nothing obviously missing. They don’t.

Now. You did it. Stop complaining about it.

The Missing “Book” of the Bible

Based on a search at BibleGateway.com, all the following New Testament verses (except Mark 16 and John 8) are missing in English Standard Version and New International Version Bibles.[i] The Mark 16 and John 8 passages are included in brackets with the warning that they are not included in “the earliest manuscripts.” Supporters of the modern Critical Texts believe Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 do not belong in the Bible. However, the purveyors of this line of thought usually do not have the audacity to omit the words altogether from their line of text.[ii] These omitted verses together contain nine hundred and fifty-four (954) words, according to Microsoft Word “Word Count”[iii] – fifty-eight more words than the entire three-chapter epistle of Paul to Titus.[iv]

Thirty-two passages in the King James translation and 1881/1894 Textus Receptus Greek text that are rejected by the Critical Text, the ESV, or the NIV

• Matthew 6.13b: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.[v]
  
• Matthew 17:21: Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. 
• Matthew 18:11: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. 
• Matthew 23:14: 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. 
• Matthew 20:16b: for many be called, but few chosen. 
• Mark 6:11b: Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 
• Mark 7:16: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 
• Mark 9:44: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 
• Mark 9:46: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 
• Mark 10:24b: for them that trust in riches 
• Mark 11:26: But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. 
• Mark 15:28: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. 
• Mark 16:9-20: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.  Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. 
• Luke 4:8b: Get thee behind me, Satan 
• Luke 9:55b–56a: and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. 
• Luke 17:36: Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 
• Luke 23:17: For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast. 
• John 5:3b–4 waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 
• John 7:53–8:11: And every man went unto his own house. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. 
• Acts 2:30b: according to the flesh 
• Acts 8:37: And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 
• Acts 9:5b–6a: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him 
• Acts 15:24: saying, Ye must be circumcised and keep the law 
• Acts 15:34: Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
• Acts 18:21: I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem 
• Acts 23:9: let us not fight against God. 
• Acts 24:6b–8a: and would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain, Lysias, came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, Commanding his accusers to come unto thee 
• Acts 28:29: And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. 
• Romans 16:24: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. 
• Colossians 1:14b: through his blood 
• 1 Peter 1:22b: through the Spirit 
• 1 John 5:7b–8a: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,

In this post, I will not attempt to discuss the reasons these verses should or should not be included in the Bible. (Suffice to say I think they should be in it.) However, I want to make one point. Some people enjoy debating about the original language texts and competing translations. Despite bearing down against certain Bible versions, at a certain point in the “debate” they often feel a need to say something like this:

“I really don’t care which version of the Bible you use. It doesn’t matter. All Bibles say and mean basically the same thing.”

This seems quite flippant for someone to say this after they have been strenuously arguing (usually against our embracing the King James translation, the TR Greek text, and/or the Bomberg Hebrew text). O, the magnanimity! It sounds so laissez faire, perhaps intended to elicit an agreement from us that it really doesn’t matter.[vi] But does it? Fact is, comparing the KJV to the ESV and NIV in the above cases, they have diminished some 1000 of God’s words or we have added some 1000 to God’s words. To me, that sounds like it matters.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:17-19
 
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2

---

---

[i] This conclusion does not apply only to the ESV and NIV. I compared these two because of their relative popularity in “evangelical” Christian circles.
[ii] Excluding several paragraphs is much more attention getting that leaving out a verse here and there.
[iii] This list does not include all omissions. Generally, I include the longer or more notable ones. In my study of the book of Acts alone, it appears that such textual differences will near 200 (I have not yet completed the study of the differences).
[iv] These omitted words in total make their content more than either the book of Obadiah, Titus, Philemon, 2 John, 3 John, or Jude. Additionally Mark 16:9-20 (12 verses, 255 words) and John 7:53-8:11 (12 verses, 245 words) are roughly equivalent in size to 2 John (13 verses, 298 words) and 3 John (14 verses, 294 words).
[v] I have used “a” and “b” after the verse numbers to indicate where only part of a verse may be missing. The intent is to suggest to “first half” or “last half” of the verse – though this is not an exact correspondence. Some verses could rightfully be divided into more than two parts.
[vi] After which they will take their fight about the KJV, etc. to someone else. Internet apologist James White (The King James Only Controversy, p. 67) makes the no big deal point this way, “The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different New Testament manuscripts would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures.” Interesting admission. For all the strife they stir up, by their own standard, they say they are fundamentally accomplishing nothing.