Subscribe to Updates

Click here to subscribe to new posts by email. We use Google FeedBurner to send these notifications.

Is my Laridian Bible missing some verses?

Posted on: August 26th, 2006 by Michelle Stramel 7 Comments

Craig recently wrote an article about the complexities of the New American Bible in comparison with other Bible translations (see The Challenges of the New American Bible from August 15th).  Although the article I am including today is not nearly as complex, it does provide some interesting information for those of us who are not Bible scholars.

As the technical support representative for Laridian, I occasionally received an email from a customer stating that their Laridian Bible is missing a verse (or verses).  Usually this occurs when the person is involved in a group Bible study and as they are reading along with someone they realize that one of their verses appears to be missing.  Then an email is sent to report an “error” in the text.  That’s a good thing because we want to be sure the books we are releasing are accurate.  We want issues like this to be reported even if it turns out not to be an issue at all. 

What are these “missing” verses and why are they missing?

The numbering scheme for verses in the English Bible was first used in the Geneva Bible in the year 1560. This pattern was followed in subsequent English translations including the King James Version, published first in 1611. In the years since these Bibles were translated, many additional manuscripts have been found which predate those used by the translators of the Geneva and King James Bibles. Because of their age, these older manuscripts are believed by many scholars to more accurately represent the original documents. In many cases, however, they do not include all the verses that are in the more recent manuscripts.

Translations such as the New International Version, Revised Standard Version (and other newer translations) take advantage of these more recently discovered manuscripts and therefore do not include all of the verses found in the King James Version. Rather than reinventing a numbering scheme for the whole Bible, the translators decided to use the same verse numbers as the King James Version but leave the missing verses blank. The result of this is that several verses in these newer translations appear to be missing.

The missing verses are:

        Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14

        Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28

        Luke 17:36; 23:17

        John 5:4

        Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29

        Romans 16:24

For the Revised Standard Version, in addition to the above list, there are other missing verses and points of interest:

        Matthew 12:47; 21:44

        Luke 22:43,44

The order of Exodus 22 in printed form is 1, 4, 2, 3, 5. Laridian displays these verses in numeric order: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

James 1:7,8 was combined in verse 7 leaving 8 blank. 3 John 14 was split into 14 and 15.

When you run across something such as this and you’re not quite sure if what you are seeing is the way it’s supposed to be or if it truly is an error, check your own printed Bible.  If you don’t have a printed Bible in the translation you want to check, another good source and the one that I use frequently is BibleGateway.

7 Responses

  1. wisdom nyando says:

    Indeed some verses are missing or misleading in the new bibles that are being produced. the old King james version has something different. Now, how do we trust these new bibles or should we clearly say that nuero linguistic programming has taken control every where? Or conclude that they are all under the same team working with different names to disguise their real identy?

  2. Nothing beats a good conspiracy theory. But rather than assuming all the new translations are wrong, what if the new translations have it right and the King James translators, who had to construct some of their Greek text from Latin because they did not have Greek manuscripts for the entire New Testament, were the ones who were wrong?

    Do we trust the old Bibles, the translators of which had access to fewer and newer manuscripts, or do we trust the new Bibles, whose translators had access to more and older manuscripts? Or can the differences between them be used to help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of both? Are the older manuscripts, while closer to the originals, less reliable for some reason? Or is it the newer manuscripts, further removed from the originals, which deserve more respect?

    These are great questions and are ones on which we here don’t take a position. But we do try to give you the tools you need to evaluate them for yourself.

    Enjoy.

    Craig

  3. David Ramsey says:

    I recently had to hard boot my Palm Tungston T5. I then had to re download the Lariadian versions of the Bible. After doing so I cannot open the NIV Study Bible. It gives me an error message of “Cannot open NIV SB.” What do I need to do to open this as this is one of the main reasons I purchased this program. I am also not able to download all the versions I purchased.

  4. David: Probably would be a good idea to contact tech support. Go to http://www.laridian.com, select the Support/Help Desk link, and submit a trouble ticket.

  5. CHAD RUDOLPH says:

    Missing, Blank or Bracketed Bible Verses?

    All Bible translations have 66 books and 1,189 chapters. Most of the versions have 31,102 verses. But the ESV has 17 blank verses. Perhaps you have noticed a few blank verses in your English Bible.

    Missing Passages
    Matthew [[12:47]] (MT, TR); 17:21 (MT, TR); 18:11 (MT, TR); [[21:44]] (MT, TR); 23:13 (MT, TR)
    Mark 7:16 (MT, TR); 9:44,46 (MT, TR); 11:26 (MT, TR); 15:28 (MT, TR), [[16:9-20]] (MT, TR)
    Luke 17:36 (TR); [[22:43,44]] (MT, TR); 23:17 (MT, TR)
    John 5:4 (MT, TR), [[7:53-8:11]] (MT, TR)
    Acts 8:37 (TR); 15:34 (TR); 24:7 (TR); 28:29 (MT, TR)
    Romans 16:24 (MT, TR)
    1 John 5:7 (TR supports long version)

    Conclusion
    All the passages in question have strong support (MT & TR or CT) except Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7 and the longer version of 1 John 5:7. The KJV (TR) and NKJV (TR) include all the omitted verses. All of the popular modern published English Bible versions (NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NRSV, NAB), based on the Critical Text, exclude or dismiss all the passages. Only the New King James Version and the Majority Text Greek New Testament have objective textual footnotes that point out these differences.

    Recommendations
    It’s hard to find conservative and objective info on the Bible translations debate. But Zeolla’s book and extensive website fills the bill perfectly. After reading his material, I am more convinced than ever that a modern literal translation with objective footnotes like the “NKJV Study Bible” is the way to go.

    * NKJV Study Bible (ISBN: 0718020812)
    * “Differences Between Bible Versions” by Gary F. Zeolla

    Legend
    [[]] = CT brackets passage as doubtful
    () = Published manuscripts supporting passage.
    CT = Critical Text Greek New Testament (NA or UBS)
    MT = Majority Text Greek New Testament (Hodges’ or Robinson’s)
    TR = The Textus Receptus (TBS) Greek New Testament

    Chad B. Rudolph, Copyright 2008

  6. Chad,

    There are several Bibles that have more than 66 books and 1189 chapters. And most versions have something other than 31,102 verses.

    It’s easy to find conservative, liberal, objective, subjective, or any other kind of info on the Bible translations debate.

    Thanks for your comments.

  7. Erwin Engert says:

    I have enjoyedI have enjoyed your website. I like the the part of the missing verses. I have gone through the KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV and found that there are different verses between versions. Did you know that in the in the NRSV that III John as an extra verse. They split the last verse into two.

    Erwin.

Leave a Reply

©2014 Laridian