-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I certainly understand why one would come to this conclusion given the evidence for this being the case. However I believe the very fact it's in our bibles now is not just an "oops they slipped this in" kind of thing. I believe it is in there for a reason, but I can't say that without adding that it is my belief and faith that push me that direction because, like I said before, the evidence certainly supports your view without a doubt, but what the evidence doesn't support is that just because these verses are not in the oldest manuscripts that they weren't in any manuscripts at that time. This event could have truly happened and God made sure that it was put in there however He made that come to be. Again my view does lean heavily on trusting that God made sure it was in there, and that I fully understand the evidence absolutely supports your view here. Anyway I'm really late to the conversation, I just replied right away.
John, you still have not answered my question. If the 1611 translation is the inspired translation, then the KJV you use today is not an inspired text. It has been revised numerous times since 1611. If the 1611 was inspired then why did the KJV committees choose to revise it so many times?
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well it says God does not temp us, but the world does, the "flesh" will always deceive and lure us.
James 1:13-15
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
So we are tempted by our flesh, and yes God does allow it no doubt, so again I do NOT disagree with coming to that conclusion at all. It's just me personally, in my OPINION and experience that I can trust His word, I don't live and die on any 1 verse anyway, period. I just believe it is in there now because God wanted it so. That just what I believe, but please, please, please, understand that I fully see the evidence we have 100% supports the case it was added. I do not deny it and absolutely think the evidence supports that conclusion. I just cannot think that it wasn't Gods will that it be put in, if He didn't want it there, then why's it there? Kind of thing. I just have no desire to question His word in any sense, this is in no way a correction or "teaching", simply how I see it spiritually at this point in my walk. Honestly what difference does it make with or without that part anyway? If it wasn't supposed to be there then, why is it there?
James 1:13-15
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
So we are tempted by our flesh, and yes God does allow it no doubt, so again I do NOT disagree with coming to that conclusion at all. It's just me personally, in my OPINION and experience that I can trust His word, I don't live and die on any 1 verse anyway, period. I just believe it is in there now because God wanted it so. That just what I believe, but please, please, please, understand that I fully see the evidence we have 100% supports the case it was added. I do not deny it and absolutely think the evidence supports that conclusion. I just cannot think that it wasn't Gods will that it be put in, if He didn't want it there, then why's it there? Kind of thing. I just have no desire to question His word in any sense, this is in no way a correction or "teaching", simply how I see it spiritually at this point in my walk. Honestly what difference does it make with or without that part anyway? If it wasn't supposed to be there then, why is it there?
That is TOTALLY FALSE. Please read and study carefully The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by John William Burgon. Burgon was one of the leading textual scholars of the 19th century and totally demolished all the false ideas of Westcott & Hort. That is only one of his many books on textual issues. He has thoroughly examined the evidence and debunked all this nonsense.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Yes I agree with that, but honestly don't see the connection between being tested in life, and if this was originally in the book of Mark or not. How are you thinking this out because I'm not following. Like God let this be put in the bible for us to figure out it was added? Do the ones that crack the code get a prize?
Hi WIbaptist, Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox aside, do you know any Lutherans or members of the Church of Christ/Christian Church denominations (particularly if they are non-instrumental)? If you do, then you know people who believe strongly that the waters of baptism as salvific. In fact, one or two wings of the Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism is required to be saved, that salvation is not possible apart from:
To give you an idea of just how serious they are about this, I was part of an ecumenical prison ministry a little while back and some of the guys from that denomination were telling inmates that they'd have to wait to be released from prison before they could be saved (because they had no way to baptize them in prison). When I asked them what they believed would happen to an inmate who had come to saving faith in Christ, but who died before they could be baptized, they told me that he/she would be judged and condemned at the Great White Throne judgment, that God must not have wanted them to be saved
~Deut
1. submersion in the waters of baptism and
2. the reciting of the Acts 2:38 baptismal formula specifically
To give you an idea of just how serious they are about this, I was part of an ecumenical prison ministry a little while back and some of the guys from that denomination were telling inmates that they'd have to wait to be released from prison before they could be saved (because they had no way to baptize them in prison). When I asked them what they believed would happen to an inmate who had come to saving faith in Christ, but who died before they could be baptized, they told me that he/she would be judged and condemned at the Great White Throne judgment, that God must not have wanted them to be saved
~Deut
It says they will, and they did and do. I don't understand how you think I am saying they might. They have, and will continue to do so. It is you that is forcing an interpretation on it to suggest that all believers must operate in each of those activities. No, it is saying that believers will do these things, and well, they do. There is no issue.
Scripture is the written words of God through prophets, apostles, and evangelists. So divine supernatural inspiration makes certain books Scripture and others non-inspired.
Regarding the last twelve verses of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus shows A BLANK SPACE within the Gospel of Mark which is exactly equivalent to the space required for the last twelve verses of Mark. That in itself is proof that those verses were removed from that document. But the majority of manuscripts do have this passage.
Here is a summation of the book by John William Burgon whose full title is:
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.
Dedication.
Preface.
Chapter I. The Case of the Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, Stated.
Chapter II. The Hostile Verdict of Biblical Critics Shewn to Be Quite of Recent Date.
Chapter III. The Early Fathers Appealed to, and Observed to Bear Favourable Witness.
Chapter IV. The Early Versions Examined, and Found to Yield Unfaltering Testimony to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter V. The Alleged Hostile Witness of Certain of the Early Fathers Proved to Be an Imagination of the Critics.
Chapter VI. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part I.
Chapter VII. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part II.
Chapter VIII. The Purport of Ancient Scholia, and NOtes in MSS. on the Subject of These Verses, Shewn to Be the Reverse of Waht Is Commonly Supposed.
Chapter IX. Internal Evidence Demonstrated to Be the Very Reverse of Unfavourable to These Verses.
Chapter X. The Testimony of the Lectionaries Shewn to be Absolutely Decisive as to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter XI. The Omission of These Twelve Verses in Certain Ancient Copies of the Gospels, Explained and Accounted for.
Chapter XII. General Review of the Question: Summary of the Evidence; and Conclusion of the Whole Subject.
Appendix (A). On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture. The Correct Text of S. Luke ii. 14, established.
Appendix (B). Eusebius
Appendix (c). Proof that Hesychius is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.
Appendix (D). Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work.
Appendix (E). Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of
Appendix (F). On the Relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Sinaiticus (א).
Appendix (G). On the so-called
Appendix (H). On the INterpolation of the text of Codex B and Codex א of S. Matthew xxvii. 48 or 49.
Postscript.
L'Envoy
And this is what Burgon said in his introductory remarks:
Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premium, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premium the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular...If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.
Regarding the last twelve verses of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus shows A BLANK SPACE within the Gospel of Mark which is exactly equivalent to the space required for the last twelve verses of Mark. That in itself is proof that those verses were removed from that document. But the majority of manuscripts do have this passage.
Here is a summation of the book by John William Burgon whose full title is:
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.
Dedication.
Preface.
Chapter I. The Case of the Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, Stated.
Chapter II. The Hostile Verdict of Biblical Critics Shewn to Be Quite of Recent Date.
Chapter III. The Early Fathers Appealed to, and Observed to Bear Favourable Witness.
Chapter IV. The Early Versions Examined, and Found to Yield Unfaltering Testimony to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter V. The Alleged Hostile Witness of Certain of the Early Fathers Proved to Be an Imagination of the Critics.
Chapter VI. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part I.
Chapter VII. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part II.
Chapter VIII. The Purport of Ancient Scholia, and NOtes in MSS. on the Subject of These Verses, Shewn to Be the Reverse of Waht Is Commonly Supposed.
Chapter IX. Internal Evidence Demonstrated to Be the Very Reverse of Unfavourable to These Verses.
Chapter X. The Testimony of the Lectionaries Shewn to be Absolutely Decisive as to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter XI. The Omission of These Twelve Verses in Certain Ancient Copies of the Gospels, Explained and Accounted for.
Chapter XII. General Review of the Question: Summary of the Evidence; and Conclusion of the Whole Subject.
Appendix (A). On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture. The Correct Text of S. Luke ii. 14, established.
Appendix (B). Eusebius
Appendix (c). Proof that Hesychius is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.
Appendix (D). Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work.
Appendix (E). Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of
Appendix (F). On the Relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Sinaiticus (א).
Appendix (G). On the so-called
Appendix (H). On the INterpolation of the text of Codex B and Codex א of S. Matthew xxvii. 48 or 49.
Postscript.
L'Envoy
And this is what Burgon said in his introductory remarks:
Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premium, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premium the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular...If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Hi Tourist, I agree with you on both counts. Except for this, they seemed very mature, and very knowledgeable about the faith which, unfortunately, gave more weight to what they were saying.
I've never opposed anything else that was said down there, at least openly, but I felt I had no other choice than to do so in this case (and I was not alone in doing so).
~Deut
I've never opposed anything else that was said down there, at least openly, but I felt I had no other choice than to do so in this case (and I was not alone in doing so).
~Deut
I'll rephrase. how does one go about deciding if a particular piece of writing is the words of God through prophets, apostles, and evangelists.
sounds like you're taking a history or scholarship approach. if there is good evidence that it was regarded by early Christians as the words of God, then it is to be considered scripture.
sounds like you're taking a history or scholarship approach. if there is good evidence that it was regarded by early Christians as the words of God, then it is to be considered scripture.