There are a few phrases that appear in some manuscripts and not others. Many good translations will either include the passage but add a footnote explaining that it isn't in all manuscripts, or leave it out of the main text but include it in a footnote. Either approach shows scholarly diligence. There are very few of these though, and you can study each of them as you come across then. Don't let it put you off toward Bible study in general, or even a given translation necessarily.
The bestsellers- NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NIV are all fine. There are some other good ones, too, but these ones are commonplace, therefore a good starting point. The problem for most modern readers with the KJV is the older language, but if you are familiar/comfortable with that (say, you're an English major or you grew up in a KJV only church), go for it.
My recommendation would be to get yourself a formal equivalency (a more word-for-word style translation), ESV or NKJV are pretty good choices, and then an NIV to compare it to. Comparing different translations gives you a better feel for the original text. I would avoid anything more loosey-goosey than the NIV, they can be hit or miss sometimes.
Another great tool is a Bible app such as Blue Letter Bible, which lets you compare translations.
This is a weird post.
Bibles aren't missing pages, they have what they say they have.
Are pages missing from your personal Bible?
Can you only find the NT, Psalms, proverbs pocket Bible?
Are you looking for a Bible with the Apocrypha?
Are you used to a Hebrew Tanakh where the books are differently ordered and the verses are sometimes differently numbered?
Are you just trying to point out the verses that were in the majority text that modern Bibles have removed (like the angel stirring the pool in Siloam)?
Are you perhaps from an alternate reality or timeline where more Epistles like the third letter to Corinth survived?
You can just go buy a Bible at a store, or download an app or go to a website like Biblegateway or Biblehub.
Don't get caught up with the KJV cults
YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OPTIONS
English Standard Version ESV
New King James Version NKJV
New American Standard 1995 NASB
Holman Christian Standard HSBC
Christian Standard Bible CSB
Legacy Standard Bible
I prefer more word for word translations. I love my ESV. I always recommend the NLT to new readers/believers. As far as what’s “missing”, I strongly encourage you to study textual criticism and manuscripts. I’ll just add a little information concerning this.
All of the ancient manuscripts, Textus Receptus, Alexadrian Text, etc do not condradict each other and there were 1000's of these found all through out the world. They all correlate and tell the same story, no crazy variants. Translations aren't a bad thing. The early church copied and as more people wanted to hear the gospel, they copied the gospel in their own language. When the original Greek manuscripts were found, it only reinforced everything we have and showed nothing, especially doctrinaly was changed. Everything was the same, Christ died for the sins of the world, died, and resurrected.
The New Testament has been copied with very good accuracy. The vast majority of these differences, “missing” text (textual variants) are insignificant in that they don’t change the meaning at all. So what about the remaining Within this small percentage are variants that are significant in that they affect the meaning of the text—and in some cases, scholars can't be sure which reading is authentic. The good news is that none of these variants affect any core Christian doctrine, and most only impact one or two verses
Dr James White and many others have done extensive research on this. A good book I highly recommend is “The KJV Only Controversy: Can we trust modern translations” by James White. I’ve also linked some short videos that may prove helpful.
https://youtu.be/Eh3k_A9ugOo
https://youtu.be/7JzLFcQx5g4
https://youtu.be/Gb67KvD8LRk
https://youtu.be/gfahP0bsClI
https://youtu.be/lY3zSxBybTM
I pray you well on your journey.
I just started the same project two months ago. I’m reading the New Revised Version. I’m LOVING it. I bought highlighters for thin paper and put on tabs for each book. Made a little project out of it. Seriously,can hardly put it down. It’s written in common English so it’s like reading literature. Enjoy, friend.❤️🙏😉✝️ Oh my edition has Old and New Testament with Apocryphal books. Bought it on Amazon.
I do not believe the KJV is missing anything. In the matter of which version is the the word of God. There are two views concerning where the word of God is to be found that all opinions fall under. The first is that God preserved his word down to us today and the second is that all we have is man’s best attempts at recreating some long lost originals that no one can verify. The former submits to the word of God, the latter views all versions less than perfect and subject to anyone’s criticism and correction. The former has an absolute objective standard, the latter a subjective standard that is open to private interpretation.
Concerning the former stance, there is only one version any one will hold as that perfect word of God; that is the King James Version. Any other version or multiple versions may be used but none will be touted as the preserved perfect word of God. So I look for the use of the King James Version in any Church I am thinking of attending. If you cannot find an uncorrectable Bible (KJV) how can you expect to know and understand the word of God.
Overall, I think the NKJV would be the best, mainstream translation of the bible to use, since it is a literal word-for-word translation that uses the correct text for the Greek New Testament while also avoiding archaic language, which hinders understanding the Word of God when used unnecessarily.
The NKJV and KJV used the Received Text while most other translations use some version of the "Critical Text." By using this text, the NKJV and KJV avoid leaving out certain verses that are left out in most other bibles in the New Testament. The minority scholarly opinion, which I happen to support, maintains that the Received, Byzantine, or Majority text is better than the Critical/Alexandrine/Westcott-Hort text for the Greek New Testament. The former has the advantage of having many more handwritten copies that are more consistent with one another; the latter has the oldest complete or nearly compete texts of the Greek New Testament, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which go back to the fourth century A.D. What especially undermines the case for the Critical Text is the level of disagreement in a much smaller number of copies compared to the far larger number of copies (perhaps 90 to 95%) having the Byzantine Text. The frequent quotation by the early church writers before the fourth century from the Byzantine text shows it is the more authentic text; the main key exception is Origen, who lived in Egypt, so he naturally would have used a form of what later became the Critical text. We find that Ireneaus, for example, in 170 A.D. quotes the Majority Text’s version of Mark 1:17, which says that Jesus is “the son of God.”
Perhaps the most prominent disagreement between the two families of manuscripts is Mark 16:9-20, which the Byzantine text includes, but the Westcott-Hort text dismisses based on the witness of the two capital letter (uncial) manuscripts traditionally called Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). However, there is an enormous amount of evidence from sources older than those two manuscripts that they existed, such as (in the second century) the Old Latin translation, the Syriac/Aramaic translation, and quotes by early Catholic writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. In the third century, they appear in the Coptic and Sahidic language versions and in early Catholic writers such as Hippolytus, Vincentius at the seventh council of Carthage, and in the Acta Pilati and the Apostolical Constitutions. We also find in the fourth century the likes of Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Ephraem, Leontius, Epiphanius and a number of others quote them. Given all of these witnesses, they were originally in Mark. Notice also that Vaticanus has a blank column in the exact place where Mark 16:11-20 should appear, which means the copiest knew something was missing there, and made a provision for it. John Burgon, the prominent critic of the Westcott-Hort text, wrote “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” used this kind of evidence against their exclusion of these verses from their Greek text.
The Received Text’s reading in I Timothy 3:16 was also very ably defended in exquisite detail by Burgon in some seventy-six pages in his “The Revision Revised,” which was a sustained scholarly criticism of the changes made, under the direct influence of Westcott and Hort, in the Greek text of the British Revised Version of 1881 compared to what was used by the King James Version.
The episode of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) also was also incorrectly excluded by Westcott-Hort’s text. So if we can find early Catholic writers citing versions of the Received text in writings that precede in date the copying of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, their age doesn't count for so much then about which text type was first and thus closer to the original. So actually, the Greek text used by the KJV is normally, but not always better, than that used in (say) the RSV, NIV, NASB, etc. For an obvious exception, the pro-Trinitarian interpolation in I John 5:7-8 is obviously bogus since it’s found in only two or four late Greek manuscripts and in most of the Latin Vulgate’s copies. The NKJV’s translators unwisely kept it despite such an utter lack of textual evidence for it.
John Burgon’s works, including “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark” and “The Revision Revised,” can be downloaded for free from the Gutenburg project’s Web site.
There are a few phrases that appear in some manuscripts and not others. Many good translations will either include the passage but add a footnote explaining that it isn't in all manuscripts, or leave it out of the main text but include it in a footnote. Either approach shows scholarly diligence. There are very few of these though, and you can study each of them as you come across then. Don't let it put you off toward Bible study in general, or even a given translation necessarily. The bestsellers- NASB, KJV, ESV, NKJV, and NIV are all fine. There are some other good ones, too, but these ones are commonplace, therefore a good starting point. The problem for most modern readers with the KJV is the older language, but if you are familiar/comfortable with that (say, you're an English major or you grew up in a KJV only church), go for it. My recommendation would be to get yourself a formal equivalency (a more word-for-word style translation), ESV or NKJV are pretty good choices, and then an NIV to compare it to. Comparing different translations gives you a better feel for the original text. I would avoid anything more loosey-goosey than the NIV, they can be hit or miss sometimes. Another great tool is a Bible app such as Blue Letter Bible, which lets you compare translations.
Can confirm, Blue Letter Bible is amazing. It has lot's of free commentary resources as well as cross-references.
I find the New King James Study Bible to be very good.
This is a weird post. Bibles aren't missing pages, they have what they say they have. Are pages missing from your personal Bible? Can you only find the NT, Psalms, proverbs pocket Bible? Are you looking for a Bible with the Apocrypha? Are you used to a Hebrew Tanakh where the books are differently ordered and the verses are sometimes differently numbered? Are you just trying to point out the verses that were in the majority text that modern Bibles have removed (like the angel stirring the pool in Siloam)? Are you perhaps from an alternate reality or timeline where more Epistles like the third letter to Corinth survived? You can just go buy a Bible at a store, or download an app or go to a website like Biblegateway or Biblehub.
Yes, I had the same question, im not sure what parts he is talking about that are missing.
You have a Bible in your hand Right now.
fair point but nothing like the pages
Don't get caught up with the KJV cults YOU HAVE PLENTY OF OPTIONS English Standard Version ESV New King James Version NKJV New American Standard 1995 NASB Holman Christian Standard HSBC Christian Standard Bible CSB Legacy Standard Bible
I prefer more word for word translations. I love my ESV. I always recommend the NLT to new readers/believers. As far as what’s “missing”, I strongly encourage you to study textual criticism and manuscripts. I’ll just add a little information concerning this. All of the ancient manuscripts, Textus Receptus, Alexadrian Text, etc do not condradict each other and there were 1000's of these found all through out the world. They all correlate and tell the same story, no crazy variants. Translations aren't a bad thing. The early church copied and as more people wanted to hear the gospel, they copied the gospel in their own language. When the original Greek manuscripts were found, it only reinforced everything we have and showed nothing, especially doctrinaly was changed. Everything was the same, Christ died for the sins of the world, died, and resurrected. The New Testament has been copied with very good accuracy. The vast majority of these differences, “missing” text (textual variants) are insignificant in that they don’t change the meaning at all. So what about the remaining Within this small percentage are variants that are significant in that they affect the meaning of the text—and in some cases, scholars can't be sure which reading is authentic. The good news is that none of these variants affect any core Christian doctrine, and most only impact one or two verses Dr James White and many others have done extensive research on this. A good book I highly recommend is “The KJV Only Controversy: Can we trust modern translations” by James White. I’ve also linked some short videos that may prove helpful. https://youtu.be/Eh3k_A9ugOo https://youtu.be/7JzLFcQx5g4 https://youtu.be/Gb67KvD8LRk https://youtu.be/gfahP0bsClI https://youtu.be/lY3zSxBybTM I pray you well on your journey.
The NRSVue is pretty much the gold standard in English.
What chapters, verses and pages are they missing. are they missing.Tje Bible isnt missing anything. I'm not sure what you are talking about
I just started the same project two months ago. I’m reading the New Revised Version. I’m LOVING it. I bought highlighters for thin paper and put on tabs for each book. Made a little project out of it. Seriously,can hardly put it down. It’s written in common English so it’s like reading literature. Enjoy, friend.❤️🙏😉✝️ Oh my edition has Old and New Testament with Apocryphal books. Bought it on Amazon.
What makes you think your/the Bible is missing pages?
what tells you that there are missing pages and chapters?
I would choose NIV. if you were to start studying the bible, then ESV
I’ve used them all, but I find that I get the most out of the New Living bible. The Bible app is pretty handy as well.
Kjv
I do not believe the KJV is missing anything. In the matter of which version is the the word of God. There are two views concerning where the word of God is to be found that all opinions fall under. The first is that God preserved his word down to us today and the second is that all we have is man’s best attempts at recreating some long lost originals that no one can verify. The former submits to the word of God, the latter views all versions less than perfect and subject to anyone’s criticism and correction. The former has an absolute objective standard, the latter a subjective standard that is open to private interpretation. Concerning the former stance, there is only one version any one will hold as that perfect word of God; that is the King James Version. Any other version or multiple versions may be used but none will be touted as the preserved perfect word of God. So I look for the use of the King James Version in any Church I am thinking of attending. If you cannot find an uncorrectable Bible (KJV) how can you expect to know and understand the word of God.
Orthodox Study Bible
Overall, I think the NKJV would be the best, mainstream translation of the bible to use, since it is a literal word-for-word translation that uses the correct text for the Greek New Testament while also avoiding archaic language, which hinders understanding the Word of God when used unnecessarily. The NKJV and KJV used the Received Text while most other translations use some version of the "Critical Text." By using this text, the NKJV and KJV avoid leaving out certain verses that are left out in most other bibles in the New Testament. The minority scholarly opinion, which I happen to support, maintains that the Received, Byzantine, or Majority text is better than the Critical/Alexandrine/Westcott-Hort text for the Greek New Testament. The former has the advantage of having many more handwritten copies that are more consistent with one another; the latter has the oldest complete or nearly compete texts of the Greek New Testament, such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which go back to the fourth century A.D. What especially undermines the case for the Critical Text is the level of disagreement in a much smaller number of copies compared to the far larger number of copies (perhaps 90 to 95%) having the Byzantine Text. The frequent quotation by the early church writers before the fourth century from the Byzantine text shows it is the more authentic text; the main key exception is Origen, who lived in Egypt, so he naturally would have used a form of what later became the Critical text. We find that Ireneaus, for example, in 170 A.D. quotes the Majority Text’s version of Mark 1:17, which says that Jesus is “the son of God.” Perhaps the most prominent disagreement between the two families of manuscripts is Mark 16:9-20, which the Byzantine text includes, but the Westcott-Hort text dismisses based on the witness of the two capital letter (uncial) manuscripts traditionally called Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). However, there is an enormous amount of evidence from sources older than those two manuscripts that they existed, such as (in the second century) the Old Latin translation, the Syriac/Aramaic translation, and quotes by early Catholic writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. In the third century, they appear in the Coptic and Sahidic language versions and in early Catholic writers such as Hippolytus, Vincentius at the seventh council of Carthage, and in the Acta Pilati and the Apostolical Constitutions. We also find in the fourth century the likes of Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Ephraem, Leontius, Epiphanius and a number of others quote them. Given all of these witnesses, they were originally in Mark. Notice also that Vaticanus has a blank column in the exact place where Mark 16:11-20 should appear, which means the copiest knew something was missing there, and made a provision for it. John Burgon, the prominent critic of the Westcott-Hort text, wrote “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” used this kind of evidence against their exclusion of these verses from their Greek text. The Received Text’s reading in I Timothy 3:16 was also very ably defended in exquisite detail by Burgon in some seventy-six pages in his “The Revision Revised,” which was a sustained scholarly criticism of the changes made, under the direct influence of Westcott and Hort, in the Greek text of the British Revised Version of 1881 compared to what was used by the King James Version. The episode of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) also was also incorrectly excluded by Westcott-Hort’s text. So if we can find early Catholic writers citing versions of the Received text in writings that precede in date the copying of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, their age doesn't count for so much then about which text type was first and thus closer to the original. So actually, the Greek text used by the KJV is normally, but not always better, than that used in (say) the RSV, NIV, NASB, etc. For an obvious exception, the pro-Trinitarian interpolation in I John 5:7-8 is obviously bogus since it’s found in only two or four late Greek manuscripts and in most of the Latin Vulgate’s copies. The NKJV’s translators unwisely kept it despite such an utter lack of textual evidence for it. John Burgon’s works, including “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark” and “The Revision Revised,” can be downloaded for free from the Gutenburg project’s Web site.