How MODERN BIBLE TRANSLATIONS justify the omission of Matthew

In this snippet, Dwayne reviews the textual footnotes found in a number of our modern English Bible translations. Is it justifiable for these Critical Text based translations to omit Matthew 23:14, or should it be retained as in the Byzantine Text or the Received Text. Join me as we take a look at how these footnotes are worded and how the give the wrong impression of the textual data.
#TextualCriticism #byzantinetext
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Introduction
1:04 Lets read the verse
2:10 Other Bible Translations and footnotes
2:45 The ESV
3:50 The NASB95
5:29 The NIV
6:44 The NRSV
7:42 The NLT
8:06 The CSB
9:06 The NET
10:52 Taking a look at the parallel passages
12:24 Is Gospel Harmonization a justifiable explanation?

[@jamestrotter3162]

I find it strange that the modern versions have a footnote for this verse saying that it isn't found in the earliest manuscripts, yet the old Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, which is translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated by Jerome in the fourth century from very early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, has Matthew 23:14. So, evidently the Greek manuscripts that Jerome used to translate into Latin, had that verse in the text. So maybe those Greek manuscripts that he worked from are older and closer to the original autographs than Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus.

[@wolves201]

When I first read this in the NIV I seriously questioned how much other stuff had been put in or taken out scribes. As such, I seriously questioned the authority and validity of scripture.

[@JAHtony1111]

Its in the geneva bible. Thanks. Great vid.

[@yayorandel6048]

All the verses they want to take out are the most famous verses, soon enough they will take out the words "father" and "son" and verses pertaining to christ as God.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Not to be technical Bro. Dwayne. I think better words all translations should use is "contained or not contained", that is the question. If the older Sinaiaticus or Vaticanus does not have these verses to begin with, they did not delete nor omit, they just simply were not in the text. If later manuscripts do contain those verses, I can't say for sure that they were added or not, we just have manuscripts that contain those verses and others that do not. That way we take out that malice may be involved. Blessings!!

[@jamessheffield4173]

Sinaiticus in the original hand had Father forgive them in Luke and marked by the first corrector as doubtful. Wikipedia

[@bmanrobinson4532]

Rodney, Look up the "simmonides affair" and you'll realise that Codex Siniaticus was written in 1840 and not 400AD.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

​@@bmanrobinson4532sir that is KJV only nonsense. Every objective scholar knows the 1840 myth is not true.

[@YanatanHOS]

Shalom my name is Yanathan and I am with Anointed House Of Saints. We are interested in biblical discussions and dialogues with people of various viewpoints and opinions. Please let me know if you would be interested in speaking further we would like to set up a conversation with you not for debate, but just to educate people on different interpretations of scripture.

[@revdavidpeters]

Weird fake Jews

[@thevulture5750]

The KJV Bible is mathematically encoded