Page - 6 -


Compare the following references with the A.V.! Did you know that the NIV you may have been reading was so different? NOTE that the difference is not just a matter of translation but of preferring to translate from a corrupt and erroneous text. (Compare the readings with the GNB, NEB, RSV etc. as well).

Some examples of WHOLE verses that are omitted

Matthew 6 v 13 in fact, the footnote adds a falsehood that it is found in some late manuscripts. It is in a large number of manuscripts AND in the 4th century Codex W.
Matthew 17 v 21
Matthew 18 v 11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Matthew 21 v 44 included but treated as suspect in a footnote.
Matthew 23 v 14
Mark 7 v 16
Mark 9 vv 44 & 46
Mark 11 v 26
Mark 15 v 28 which refers to Christ's fulfilling the Scriptures.
Mark 16 vv 9-20 added BUT after a comment that the most "reliable" manuscripts (by which they mean the corrupt ones) omit this section - thus throwing doubt on it.
Of course, Satan does not want this section to be believed for it contains important teaching about the Resurrection of Jesus, the Commission to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and the signs that will follow those that believe.

These verses do not appear in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but the areas where they should have been was left blank (i.e. a deliberate omission).

Luke 17 v 36
Luke 23 v 17
John 5 vv 3,4
John 7 vv 53 to 8 v 1 treated in the same way as Mark 16
Acts 8 v37 the reply of Philip and the Ethiopian's confession of faith. How strange that manuscripts which record the Ethiopian's question and then omit any answer or confession of faith should be considered more reliable! Of course, it would suit the ritualists who baptise babies.
Acts 15 v 34
Acts 24 vv 6-8
Acts 28 v 29
Romans 16 v 24

Page - 6 -