Matthew 23:14.Why is this verse left out of many bibles & How would you explain this scripture?

That verse, as far as I'm aware, is known to of existed yet the earliest manuscripts the bible was translated from did not include it, either it never really existed or the original writings were damaged and they were simply lost, some versions guess what the verse was, based on valid evidence yet others decide that if they don't know for sure what the verse was then it shouldn't be included, That's my thoughts on the matter anyway.

Those verses, found in some translations, are not in the oldest available Bible manuscripts.

Comparison with other modern translations, such as The New English Bible and the Catholic Jerusalem Bible, shows that other translators have also recognized that the verses in question do not belong in the Bible.

In some instances, they were taken from another part of the Bible and added to the text being copied by a scribe.

The different textual families have slightly different content; these are errors that crept in over hundreds of years of copying. The official Greek text of the Orthodox Church (which is not Textus Receptus that KJV and others are based on) contains it, but with verses 13 and 14 reversed . There was clearly copying trouble with these few verses. Their message does not change, though.

Do not fret.

Forgive me.

/Orthodox

About Orthodox Christianity: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/introduction

http://www.antiochian.org/discover http://saintnicholas.ucoz.com/index/intro_to_ortho...

Over time, bits were added to the Bible. The people doing the KJV may not have known this. At least, the versions that they translated from had some of these extra bits. Later translators had better access to originals, and found the extra bits, and, removed them. There are several examples of this. If in doubt, the extra bit is there, but noted to not be in all ancient versions.

There are a lot of them. The most famous is 1 John 5:7 on which the whole concept of the trinity is based and that vrs wasn't in the original manuscripts. It was added later by someone who believed in the trinity already.

Here's the list of omitted scriptures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_...

To answer your question it looks like people added their own thoughts or things they heard to the apostles manuscripts. I read them but I would not make a whole doctrine on one of those vrs as they did the trinity.

It's not the only verse omitted from some modern translations, apparently. There's an entire wiki page about what verses are left out of which translations, and the reasons given for the omissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_...

Basically the criteria turned to the oldest pieces of material that contained what a few, very few of the "scholars" claimed to be the Scriptures (since they did actually have script on them). Since that material was older they then claimed them to be the "originals" thus setting out what they hoped to do ... fool the simple.

And it continues on even moreso today because basically people are just fooled into believing that the pieces of paper are superior the older they get. Yep, that's it, even though the actual words that are from the older pieces of velum or paper do not even agree with those "superior" manuscripts they still call them the originals.

In short, they are nothing but materialistic scholars.

It is in some manuscripts but not others. However, there is no reason why it cannot be a teaching of Jesus'.

Long, hypocritical prayers after foreclosing on widows' houses are not accepted.

We do not have the original bible texts.

We have very many copies

Some of these copies are very early copies some are later.

Some seem reliable some less so.

When translators compare all these copies they can determin what the ORIGINALS said.

Matthew 23:14 is not in some of the earliest and most reliable bible texts, so many translators have determined those words were not actually in the original text (book).

This verse is omitted by Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican Ms 1209, Bazae Codices, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, Sinaitic Syriac Codex and the Armenian Version 4th to 15th Cent. [these verses do not appear in the following translations: NIV, NLT, ESV, GWT, BBE, DBT, ERV, WNT .. ]

Hope this helps,

SUNSHINE

Jehovah's Witness

ps: If you have a NWT reference bible, in cases like this you can go to the scripture and in the footnote you get an abbreviated (short) explanation of the manuscripts the verses are omitted from

The Council of Trent:

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."

A verse is certainly a part of a book of Sacred Scripture. The modern practice of dropping entire verses from Scripture based on the judgment of scholars is directly contrary to centuries of witness by the Living Tradition, and directly contrary to this infallible decree from an Ecumenical Council.