Matthew 9:28 cut the possessive "his" for house, since Jesus had no place to lay his head (no home). Comments include Matthew's house (9:10) or Peter's house in Capernaum. The Greek has just the article.
Matthew 9:21 changed versification to reflect the original and the portion eliminated from the previous versification 20-21. There was too much assumption in the wording about the widow's thought process. Since the notes also cover this, there is no need for this in this rendition and could be confusing for the MTTs.
Matthew 9:21 eliminate extra wording "She was saying to herself, 'I want Jesus to heal me without anyone finding out that I have this problem of bleeding. So if I touch him or even if I just touch his garment, I will be healed without anyone finding out about it.' So" since this is explained in the notes and is not in the text.
Matthew 9:10 eliminate extra clause "who did not care about the law of Moses" is not certain. We surmise that they considered themselves beyond any hope of salvation since their track record spoke against them in the theology of the Pharisees, so they settled into a despair. Jesus' message of salvation was the magnet that drew them. Regardless of their spiritual state, to say they did not care is saying too much.
Matthew 9:6 eliminate added phrase "of people while I am on the earth." This is not in the original, is not needed for the sense and is likely not even theologically correct since we assume Jesus continues to forgive sins (1 John 2). Besides, the noun "sins" is anarthrous so is a generalized term.
9:9, such authority τοῖς ἀνθρώποις "to men" - here people. Keeping the plural and not particularizing it to Jesus alone. The reason the crowd was amazed was not because Jesus, in particular, did a miracle. It should be kept ambiguous.
Matthew 9:5 Original wording:
It would not be hard for someone to say to this man, 'I forgive your sins,' because no one could see whether or not it really happened. But no one would say to him, 'Get up and walk!,' because people could easily see whether he could walk again!
Changed because this loses the rhetorical question and reverses the idea that it IS HARDER to forgive sins than to heal the paralytic.
See in Reader
Tom Warren
Hanker10
Dave Statezni
Richard Mahn