What about the MISSING VERSES in the BYZANTINE TEXT

In this snippet Dwayne compares all the readings that are typically missing from the Critical Text as compared to the Textus Receptus or the King James Version. If we compare the missing verses with the Byzantine Text, how does it fare? Dwayne sets out to answer this question in this short snippet.
~~~ CONTENTS ~~~
0:00 Introduction
1:27 Acts 8.37 the conversation with Philip
2:30 Noticing a pattern
3:20 A Marginal Byzantine reading
4:47 Let's not right off all the passages because of KJV onlyism
6:45 All of the omissions in the Byzantine text are Acts and Luke
9:04 The percentages of manuscripts that support omitted texts
11:36 Byzantine vs Majority
14:28 Acts 9.5-6, no percentages listed
15:00 Conclusion

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

Thank you for this!! I would like to now see a comparison of the TR and the Majority Text with the Patriarchal Text just for fun. :)

[@PhillipOnWater]

And also for such an edition to care about the TC of the original spelling, rather than standardizing spelling

[@eclipsesonic]

5:48 - Yes, please do this! I find textual variants in the New Testament to be incredibly interesting, so that would be right up my alley. 👍👍 Btw, one interesting fact about Mark 11:26 is that it wasn't present in some of the translations predating the KJV, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew's and the Great Bible. Same goes with Luke 17:36.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Keep your eyes peeled :) I've been busy this week so look for one to drop next week.

[@eclipsesonic]

@@Dwayne_Green Nice! I'm looking forward to it. 👍👍

[@hefinjones9051]

Acts simply has more variation. The difference between Erasmus Acts and Complutesian Acts is very noticeable. In the background is the massively distinct so called Western Text of Acts which is 8% longer than Alexandrian acts and I'd venture more than 6% longer than Byz acts

[@stephenchittenden2703]

Dwayne, is there a spreadsheet available, where you or someone else has identified every place that the CT does not have a verse or verses, that are included in the Byzantine text? I’ve been a NKJV guy for a long time, but do love the BSB, and am eager for the MSB to come out in print form. I want to love my CT translations, but I’m reading through my NKJV again, and can’t help but get struck by the large number of footnotes where a verse is omitted in the NU text, accordion the footnote. If someone has already assembled a comprehensive spreadsheet with all those instances, I’d be grateful to see it. Thanks!

[@billcovington5836]

Thank you I’m going through each. I have found that the NKJV has the word for word traditional text above and in the apparatus below, we have the NA28, USB and the other variants. I’ve also found that the NIV the CSB the NASB and all the others have the traditional text variants below in the apparatus. So I have concluded that I have the complete Word of God, either above or below. So, as found in the NKJV, I myself prefer to have the modern textual variant readings below in the apparatus and the traditional text in the top. Others might prefer the other way, but yes we have the word of God. So the debate for me has ended.

[@bobbymichaels2]

You might have it but you don't know which words are God's words and which are not. You have to be your own authority and decide for yourself.

[@veneroantonio905]

There’s also a difference in the TR in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9,where it seems contradictory, “And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭9‬:‭7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ Here the verse says they HEARD A VOICE. ““And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭22‬:‭9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ Here it says they DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE. Did they or did they not hear the voice? The WEB and PT make more sense, “The men who travelled with him stood speechless, hearing the sound, but seeing no one.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭9‬:‭7‬ ‭WEBBE‬‬ HEARING A SOUND ““Those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they didn’t understand the voice of him who spoke to me.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭22‬:‭9‬ ‭WEBBE‬‬ DIDNT UNDERSTAND THE VOICE. This makes more sense than the TR where it seems contradictory,or is it just the translators that doesn’t know how to translate the passages? That’s why it’s always good to read CT,TR and MT, and not be an onlyist,same with the Old Testament,don’t just stick with the Mesoretic Text,read the Septuagint,Dead SEA Scrolls Bible( I know it’s not complete) and the Samaritan Pentateuch.

[@mrsamurangx3030]

Might be a good idea to categorize them into doctrine, just so everyone can see how systematically calculated these omissions are.

[@ST52655]

Yes 💯

[@PhillipOnWater]

The only thing I don't like about the RP Byzantine text is that they standardized spelling like the Nestle-Aland. We need a Byzantine text that tries to reconstruct the original spelling like the Tyndale House.

[@hefinjones9051]

ECM doesn't help much on the % but only on the number if units of varation. TuT for the %. TuT has about 90+ test points where collation of whole mss. tradition been done

[@Dwayne_Green]

Yes, I misspoke... I knew the percentages came from TuT, not sure why I said ECM. It's the pressure of doing it live. lol

[@RevRMBWest]

When Erasmus forged the Greek 'Textus Receptus' he used manuscripts which were or could be classified as being of the homogenous Greek text, the so-called Byzantine Textform of modern textual criticism, the Syrian Text-type of Hort. But Erasmus was pressured by the authorities of the day to add to this Textus Receptus some verses which were not found in the Byzantine Textform, but were in the Latin Vulgate. So the TR does not fully represent the Greek text of the East as so often supported by other areas: it does add to it. This is why Dean John Burgon recommended a revision of the TR to more perfectly reflect the most widespread Greek Textform. But the TR is much better than the Critical text which turned Aleph and B into something like idols. Burgon had a very poor view of these two 'masterpieces'. I tend to agree with him, for as Herman Hoskier pointed out, they so often differed between themselves, and so could not be good witnesses; hence the troubles of much 'eclectic' modern criticism which has relied too heavily upon them and has led many of its votaries to believe that they can never get back to the original text.

[@treybarnes5549]

I looked up some of these verses. There were brackets around a lot of these verses in their new age bibles. This indicates that the scholar has no idea whether the verse should be there or not. That’s a real good indication that they shouldn’t be writing a Bible and also I have more knowledge and wisdom than they have. Because if I didn’t know what belongs in the Bible, I wouldn’t trying to write one.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I have to correct you, the square brackets are not an indicator that they are "not sure", but rather an indicator that its likely not original.

[@treybarnes5549]

@@Dwayne_Green kind of the same. semantics really. “likely” “probably” “maybe”. all works that are certainly not sure.

[@bobbymichaels2]

How to determine if 1 John 5:7 belongs? Look it up in the KJB. It's there, therefore it belongs. If you are in doubt, then you don't trust your Bible. I trust mine.

[@CalebDaniel-wl9hv]

What then, if I have a Bible that doesn’t have it? May I then say that yours added something? If not, why not?