The founder of the Protestantfaith and great theologian, Martin Luther, first translated the holy books intothe German language. He did not include this passage in his translation. Histranslation was printed several times in his lifetime without this passage. Inhis old age, in 1546 when this translation was being reprinted, Luther, fullyaware of the general practice of the Christians, felt it necessary to include inhis will regarding this edition that no one should make any changes it. Theywere not able by their nature to act upon his will and they included thispassage in his translation less than thirty year after his death.

The first people to add this passagewere the people of Frankfurt when they printed this translation in 1574.Subsequently, either from the fear of God or for other reasons, they againexcluded this verse from it. The trinitarians felt this exclusion very badly,and once again it was added to it by the people of Wittenberg in 1596 and by thepeople of Hamburg in 1599. Again the people of Wittenberg, for some unknownreason, excluded it from the second edition. From then onward, the Protestantsaccepted its inclusion in the text. In this way the Protestants unanimouslyacted against the will of their spiritual father. The famous unitarianscientist, Isaac Newton, wrote a treatise of nearly fifty pages where he provedthat this and I Timothy 2:16. are both forged and distorted. The latter versesays:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God wasmanifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached untothe Gentiles believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Since the above verse also was helpful inestablishing the concept of trinity, it was added to the text by theenthusiasts.

Addition No. 31

The Book of Revelation contains thewords:

I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,1[1]and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha andOmega, the first and the last: and what thou seest, write in a book.

Griesbach and Sholtz are in agreement onthe point that the word, ’the first and the last’ are not genuine and were addedlater. Some translators have omitted them, and in the Arabic translationsprinted in 1671, and 1821, the words Alpha and Omega were also 2[2] omitted.

Addition No.32

Acts 8:37 says:

And Philip 3[3] said, if thou believest withall thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that JesusChrist is the Son of God.

This verse is also a lateraddition made by some enthusiast to support the trinity. Griesbach and Sholtzare both agreed on this point.4[4]

Addition No. 33

The Book of Acts contains thefollowing:

And he said, who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thoupersecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he tremblingand astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said untohim, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou mustdo.5[5]

Griesbach and Sholtz agreed thatthe sentence ”it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” is a lateraddition.

Addition No. 34

The Book of Acts chapter 10verse 6 contains:

He lodgeth with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside. Heshall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Griesbach and Sho1tz are positive that the words 'he shall tell thee whatthou oughtest to do' are later addition 6[6] and not genuine.

Addition No. 35

I Corinthians chapter 10 verse28 says:

But if any man say unto you, Thisis offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it and forconscience’ sake: for the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof.

The last sentence, ’for theearth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof,’ is not genuine and is anaddition.7[7] Horne, after proving this verse to be an addition, said on page 337vol. 2:

Griesbach, after being sure of its being an addition, excluded it fromthe text. The truth is that this sentence has no support and is certainly anaddition. Most probably it was taken from verse 26.

Adam Clarke said about this sentence:

Griesbach excluded it from the text, and in fact it has no authority.

Addition No. 36

The Gospel of Matthew contains:

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth goodthings. 8[8]

The word ’heart’ in this verseis an addition. 9[9] Horne, after proving this, said on page 330 of vol. 2 of hisbook that this word had been taken from Luke 6:45.

Addition No. 37:Addition to the Lord’s Prayer

We find in Matthew chapter 6verse 13:

And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from evil:

For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.

The words ‘For thine is…’ etc. 10[10] up to the end of this verse are anaddition. The followers of the Roman Catholic sect are certain of this fact. Itdoes not exist in the Latin version nor in any of the translations of this sect.The Catholics are very displeased at its addition, and strongly reproach thoseresponsible for it. Ward, the Catholic, said in his Book of Errors (printed in1841) on page 18:

Erasmus greatly condemned this sentence. Bullinger also said that thissentence had been added later and the name of the includer is not yet known.Laurentius Valla and Lamina's claim that this passage was omitted from the wordof God has no support of argument. He should have reproached the people whoplayed with the word of God so daringly.

Other scholars have also rejected it. Adam Clarke, who has doubt aboutits being a later addition, still admits that Griesbach and Wettstein rejectedthis verse. According to the scholars of both the Catholics and the Protestants,this sentence has been added to the payer of Christ. This shows that even such afamous prayer could not escape from their practice of distortion.

Addition No. 38

The Gospel of John chapter 7verse 53 and the first eleven verses of chapter 8 are later addition. ThoughHorne does not support this 11[11] opinion, he still said on page 310 of vol. 4 ofhis commentary:

The following scholars do not acknowledge the genuineness of this verse:Erasmus,12[12] Calvin, Beza, Leclerc, Grotius, Wettstein, Semler, Sholtz, Maurus,Haenlien, Paulinus, Schmidt and many other authors mentioned by Wolf andKoecher.

He further said:

Chrysostom and Theophylactus wrote commentaries on this gospel but theydid not include these verses in their comments. Though Tertullian and Cyprianwrote essays on adultery and chastity, they did not seek any support from theseverses. Had these verses existed in the versions they had, they must have citedthese verses in support.

Ward said:

Some ancient theologians raised objections with regard’ to the beginningverses of chapter 8 of the Gospel of John.

Norton similarly decided that these verses were certainly a lateraddition.

Addition No. 39

Matthew 6:18 contains:

And thy father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The word “openly” in this verse is an addition. Adam Clarke under hiscomments on this verse proved it and said:

Since this word had no authority, Griesbach, Grotius, Bengel, and Millexcluded it from the text.

Addition No. 40

Mark 2:17 contains thewords “to repentance”13[13] which is also a later addition. This was shown by AdamClarke with sufficient proofs and he observed:

Griesbach omitted this and Grotius, Mill and Bengel followed him.

Addition No. 41

Similarly Matthew 9:13 alsocontains the phrase ”to repentance” which is a later addition. Adam Clarke afterestablishing this said:

Mill and Bengel suggested its exclusion, while Griesbach has alreadyexcluded it from the text.

Addition No. 42

We find in Matthew:

Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup, that I shalldrink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They sayunto him, we are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cupand be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with.14[14]

In this verse the statement that”to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” is a later addition,and similarly the statement, ”ye shall be baptized with the baptism that I ambaptized with,” is not genuine.

Adam Clarke, after establishing that both the verses are an addition,said:

According to the rules set by the scholars for distinguishing the wrongfrom the correct text, these two statements do not seem to be a part of theoriginal text.

Addition No. 43

The Gospel of Lukecontains:

But he turned and rebuked them and said, Ye know not what manner ofspirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives but tosave them. And they went to another village. 15[15]

The verse beginning with, ”Forthe Son of man....”, is not genuine and was added later by an unknown writer.Adam Clarke observed with regard to this verse:

Griesbach excluded this verse from the text. Most likely this passage inold versions was only this much: “But he turned and rebuked them and said, Yeknow not what manner of spirit ye are of. And they went to anothervillage.”

1[1]The Lord’s day, that is, Sunday.


2[2] 2. The present Urdu and English versions do not contain these phrases. We have copied the above verse from the old King James Version.


3[3] The disciple of Christ referred to said this to an Ethiopian on the way to Gaza


4[4]In the Urdu version this verse has a sign of doubt while the new English version has omitted it and the King James version’s list of alternative readings and renderings the suggestion includes the suggestion verse’


5[5]Acts 9: 5-6.


6[6] This sentence does not exist in the new English versions.


7[7]Similar to the previous example this has been excluded form the text in new translations.


8[8]Matt. 12:35


9[9] It has been omitted in the present Urdu translation.


10[10].The King James version contains this sentence while the new English translation omits it


11[11]These verses describe a woman accused of adultery being brought to the presence of Christ and people demanding that she be stoned to death. Christ decided that the one without sin among them should throw the first stone at her. The people, convicted by their own consciences, left the place one by one. Christ allowed the woman to go and advised her not to sin again. The new English translation omits this passage from this place but at the end it has been included with a translator’s note that that verses have no definite place in the old scriptures. Some other translations do not have this passage at all, while some others place it in Luke after 21:38. Some other translations have even placed it after John 7:36 or 7:53 or 21:24 (New English Bible page184).


12[12] Erssmus(1466-1536), the famous sixteenth century scholar, one of the great leaders of the Renaissance.


13[13] The new Urdu and English translations do not contain this phrase while the old Arabic and English translations still include it. The list of alternative readings suggests the exclusion of this phrase and also of 6:4 and 6:6 of this Gospel


14[14] Man. 20:2’2-23.


15[15] Luke 9:55 56.