Disputed Passages
- Thread starter oldhermit
- Start date
-
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.
We have very few first century mss, and those we do have exist only in fragments, small pieces of parchment or codes. Most of these contain only a few words.
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-0801.htm
This was a fair list for a beginner like me, of the manuscripts we have. Don't know how exhaustive it is.
This was a fair list for a beginner like me, of the manuscripts we have. Don't know how exhaustive it is.
So they do have most of pauls letters from a ms from circa 100. That should be helpful in my searching around on this matter.
There are four that I know of that are dated from the first century, the John Rylands Papyrus 52 dated between 100-125 AD, the Magdalen Papyrus dated from 70-100 AD, the Chester Beatty Papyrus 46 dated from the late first century, and most recently, the Mark fragment possibly dating as early as 70 AD.
Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God means do not put yourself in a dangerous position on purpose, and then say God save me, or prevent any hurt to me.
If it happens by chance then you can ask God to help you, but if you do it on purpose and then say God help me then He is not obligated to help you, and will not help you for you put yourself in the dangerous position on purpose.
God is not going to jump for us and help us if we do it on purpose, for that is common sense.
The devil tempted Jesus to put himself in a dangerous position on purpose by casting himself down, and Jesus said thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
In Mark 16 it does not mean do it on purpose, but if it happens by chance God will deliver them from it if they do His will.
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God means do not put yourself in a dangerous position on purpose, and then say God save me, or prevent any hurt to me.
If it happens by chance then you can ask God to help you, but if you do it on purpose and then say God help me then He is not obligated to help you, and will not help you for you put yourself in the dangerous position on purpose.
God is not going to jump for us and help us if we do it on purpose, for that is common sense.
The devil tempted Jesus to put himself in a dangerous position on purpose by casting himself down, and Jesus said thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
In Mark 16 it does not mean do it on purpose, but if it happens by chance God will deliver them from it if they do His will.
Just your view and I see you embellished what said to add your own flavor...I never said or implied the bolded drivel you said in your first point...get your facts straight, put your glasses on and actually read what I said, while trying to understand the exact point.....
Sorry I am so late to the thread. A busy day for me! Outside, family visiting, and so forth.
The reason that it is important to decide which texts are original and inspired and which are spurious, is because it is very dangerous to make doctrine on a text which is not in the originals. Witness the discussion between OH and HRFTD! Not sure where I stand with that scripture either.
My two big spurious texts are the longer ending of Mark 16, and the woman caught in adultery, in John 8. But, the longer ending of Mark bothers me more, because the doctrine is just so wrong!
So, here are the reasons I do not think the longer ending Mark is original, inspired Scripture.
The 2 oldest and most important manuscripts for the NT, Codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א) omit 16:9-20 as do several early translations or versions, including Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the 2 oldest Georgian manuscripts.
Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv 9-20 were absent from the majority of Greek copies of Mark known to them.
Although a majority of ancient witnesses, including Greek uncial and minuscule manuscripts, church fathers, this does not compensate for the textual evidence against them. The inclusion of vv 9-20 in many manuscripts is accounted for by the fact that the longer ending, which must have been added quite early, was naturally included in subsequent copies of the gospel. Many of ancient manuscripts that do contain the longer ending, however, indicate by scribal notes or various markings that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition to the Gospel. External evidence (manuscript evidence) thus argues strongly against the originality of the longer ending.
The secondary nature of the longer ending is further corroborated by the application the techniques of literary criticism. This is apparent from the first verse of the longer ending, which is a conspicuous non-sequitur; whereas the subjects of v 8 is the frightened and fleeing women, v 9 begins by supposing the resurrected Jesus, who appears to Mary Magdalene. The latter, is introduced as a newcomer "out of whom [Jesus] had driven 7 demons" although Mark has mentioned her 3 times immediately before (15:40, 47; 16:1). In vv 9-20. Jesus is for the first time in Mark referred to as "Lord Jesus" (v 19) or simply "the Lord" (v 20) rather than Mark's custom of calling Jesus by his given name. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship.
Particularly noticeable is the number of new words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the so-called shorter ending of Mark, 9 of the 34 words are new. In the longer ending there are an additional 18 words that do not appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms and syntactical constructions. Several of Mark's signature stylistic features are likewise absent from the longer ending. The longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markian themes. The repeated chastisement of the disciples for their "disbelief" is unique to the longer ending, and the prominence given to charismatic signs in vv 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark, with regard to signs and sensation. (8:11-13)
External and internal evidence thus necessitates the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark, but rather a later addition to the gospel. The longer ending is a patchwork of resurrection appearances (or summaries) taken from the other three gospels, the chief theme of which was the disbelieve of the disciples (vv 11, 13, 14, and 16). Although the longer ending is clearly secondary, it is nevertheless very old.
Excerpted from The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar NT Commentary) by James R.Edwards Pgs 497-499. A list of added words is available if requested.
So, in my opinion, God for some reason, allowed the real ending, written by Mark to be lost. However, it was various scribes who added this longer ending. It is simply not wise to make any doctrine or draw any conclusions from this spurious portion of Scripture.
The reason that it is important to decide which texts are original and inspired and which are spurious, is because it is very dangerous to make doctrine on a text which is not in the originals. Witness the discussion between OH and HRFTD! Not sure where I stand with that scripture either.
My two big spurious texts are the longer ending of Mark 16, and the woman caught in adultery, in John 8. But, the longer ending of Mark bothers me more, because the doctrine is just so wrong!
So, here are the reasons I do not think the longer ending Mark is original, inspired Scripture.
The 2 oldest and most important manuscripts for the NT, Codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א) omit 16:9-20 as do several early translations or versions, including Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the 2 oldest Georgian manuscripts.
Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv 9-20 were absent from the majority of Greek copies of Mark known to them.
Although a majority of ancient witnesses, including Greek uncial and minuscule manuscripts, church fathers, this does not compensate for the textual evidence against them. The inclusion of vv 9-20 in many manuscripts is accounted for by the fact that the longer ending, which must have been added quite early, was naturally included in subsequent copies of the gospel. Many of ancient manuscripts that do contain the longer ending, however, indicate by scribal notes or various markings that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition to the Gospel. External evidence (manuscript evidence) thus argues strongly against the originality of the longer ending.
The secondary nature of the longer ending is further corroborated by the application the techniques of literary criticism. This is apparent from the first verse of the longer ending, which is a conspicuous non-sequitur; whereas the subjects of v 8 is the frightened and fleeing women, v 9 begins by supposing the resurrected Jesus, who appears to Mary Magdalene. The latter, is introduced as a newcomer "out of whom [Jesus] had driven 7 demons" although Mark has mentioned her 3 times immediately before (15:40, 47; 16:1). In vv 9-20. Jesus is for the first time in Mark referred to as "Lord Jesus" (v 19) or simply "the Lord" (v 20) rather than Mark's custom of calling Jesus by his given name. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship.
Particularly noticeable is the number of new words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the so-called shorter ending of Mark, 9 of the 34 words are new. In the longer ending there are an additional 18 words that do not appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms and syntactical constructions. Several of Mark's signature stylistic features are likewise absent from the longer ending. The longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markian themes. The repeated chastisement of the disciples for their "disbelief" is unique to the longer ending, and the prominence given to charismatic signs in vv 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark, with regard to signs and sensation. (8:11-13)
External and internal evidence thus necessitates the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark, but rather a later addition to the gospel. The longer ending is a patchwork of resurrection appearances (or summaries) taken from the other three gospels, the chief theme of which was the disbelieve of the disciples (vv 11, 13, 14, and 16). Although the longer ending is clearly secondary, it is nevertheless very old.
Excerpted from The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar NT Commentary) by James R.Edwards Pgs 497-499. A list of added words is available if requested.
So, in my opinion, God for some reason, allowed the real ending, written by Mark to be lost. However, it was various scribes who added this longer ending. It is simply not wise to make any doctrine or draw any conclusions from this spurious portion of Scripture.
This is exactly how i have examine thee scripture , that is being reviewed upon. It fit perfectly with the rest , i believe it to be inspired by God.
Shalom
that's why i'm asking about the textual evidence for John 8:1-11
((not because i find it puzzling - lol it's not the only part of the Bible difficult to fully comprehend, by any means))
We are talking about the New Testament, because it can be critically researched.
The Old Testament is a black box. Its too old for knowing with certainity what is and what is not original.
"These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned"
Gen 36:31
- the note about "Israelite kings" in Genesis proves that parts of Genesis were written during the times of Israel or at least edited with later insertions and commentaries
The Old Testament is a black box. Its too old for knowing with certainity what is and what is not original.
"These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned"
Gen 36:31
- the note about "Israelite kings" in Genesis proves that parts of Genesis were written during the times of Israel or at least edited with later insertions and commentaries
Hi Angela. Long time no see. Here is a link to an opinion written by Dr. Dave Miller on the textual criticism of Mark that I think you will appreciate.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=704&topic=103
Masoretic finalized around 900 AD. Septuagint finalized around 270 BC.
Compare the two. Catholic Bible favors the Septuagint. Protestant Bible favors Masoretic.
Compare Deut. 32:8-9, the world divided according to the number of the sons of God (Catholic) vs. sons of Jacob (Protestant).
Sons of God is a problem for the Creeds which state God has a one and only Son.
Does NT Jude call other princes (sons of God) as archangels? yes he does.
Ezekiel 28, Lucifer is walked out of the garden of God by the anointed cherub vs. Lucifer is the anointed cherub who is walked out of the garden of God.
Lucifer as one of the sons of God is a problem for the Creeds but Lucifer as anointed cherub is not a problem.
Amos 7:2 Septuagint vs. all modern bibles , In the Septuagint, Locusts have a king (Missler says this refers to the locusts that come from the abyss of Revelation 9) vs. all modern bibles, the first cutting of the hay crop goes to the king and the locusts ate the second crop.
Isaiah 7, Seputagint reads a virgin will conceive. Masoretic, a young maiden (premenstrual) will conceive.
Mary, the mother of Jesus was both.
The biggest is Luke 9:35, Jesus is the beloved Son of God vs. Jesus is the chosen Son of God.
If Jesus was chosen literally before 'In the beginning' this is a problem for the Creeds but not a problem for how Genesis portrays the firstborn (the chosen) son of Noah (Shem was born third), Terah (Abram was born third) , Abraham (Isaac) , Isaac (Jacob the second twin), Joseph (grandson of Jacob, Ephraim is born second).
I just realized that we don't have signatures anymore.... NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Septuagint is older and more original than masoretic text, but Septuagint is also very late from original OT writings. The place in Gen 36:31 is the same in the LXX as in MSS.
R
Ralph-
Guest
Show me in the Greek where you are getting this from:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mar/16/1/s_973016
(click on a verse reference for the Greek words)
Might need to go to your preferences and make sure you've enabled their display.
R
Ralph-
Guest
Nobody is saying Mark 16:18 says you can purposely drink poison and it won't hurt you. So we don't have to do that to prove it belongs in scripture. We know it can be there because the rest of scripture confirms it.
17“These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”-Mark 16:17-18