The King James Bible

[trofimus]

I agree that is generally sound reasoning; however, it is a fact that all the early mss come from Alexandria where allegorical interpretation was practiced. The churches in the Byzantine empire, Carthage, Ethiopia and Syria all practiced literal interpretation, and treated God's word with reverence and respect. Where the Byzantine, Carthaginian, Coptic, and Syriac texts are in agreement and are contradicted by two questionable texts from Alexandria; it seems possible if not likely that the disputed (so called) additions were actually dropped from the Alexandrian text.

1. Are you sure that all early mss come from Alexandria?

2. Can you define what you mean by allegorical interpretation and why do you think it was practiced there?

3. Can you define relationship between allegorical interpretation of the text and willfull alteration of the text?

4. Can you give some examples of such alterations because of allegorical interpretation?

 

[trofimus]

Wasn’t Constantine from Alexandria, who opposed Arianism in His day? Those heretical Alexandrians!

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the only one defending the orthodox teaching of triunity...

 

[SovereignGrace]

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the only one defending the orthodox teaching of triunity...

That’s who it was!

 

[MarcR]

1. Are you sure that all early mss come from Alexandria?

2. Can you define what you mean by allegorical interpretation and why do you think it was practiced there?

3. Can you define relationship between allegorical interpretation of the text and willfull alteration of the text?

4. Can you give some examples of such alterations because of allegorical interpretation?

1) The two primary documents that omit the (so called) additions are Sinaticus, and Vaticanus: both of which come from Alexandria

2) Literal interpretation of Scripture follows the premise that Scripture should be understood literally unless there is compelling linguistic reason to do otherwise. i.e. Jesus did NOT literally mistake the Pharisees for whitewashed coffins.
Allegorical interpretation treats all scripture as symbolic of something else and nothing really means what it says.

3) In all honesty, No, I can't. It seems to me that if you don't believe that something means what it says it is easier to drop something that doesn't fit your interpretation than it would be to knowingly add to something you believe means exactly what it says and that you regard as Holy.

4) Again, No, I can't. However the 2nd century writings of Clement of Alexandria (which are readily available) IMO reflect a very casual regard toward the authority of Scripture, and use of allegory. The same is true of the third century writings of Dioniscious. Peter, and Alexander of Alexandria.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I agree that is generally sound reasoning; however, it is a fact that all the early mss come from Alexandria where allegorical interpretation was practiced. The churches in the Byzantine empire, Carthage, Ethiopia and Syria all practiced literal interpretation, and treated God's word with reverence and respect. Where the Byzantine, Carthaginian, Coptic, and Syriac texts are in agreement and are contradicted by two questionable texts from Alexandria; it seems possible if not likely that the disputed (so called) additions were actually dropped from the Alexandrian text.

That could be true, and I certainly would not fight over such things, but in my view, (for discussion sake only) how one interprets scripture should not have an affect on the word itself would it?

We have people today using the same word, yet some interpret it literally, others interpret symbolically. Even though though the text is the same.

Mark 16 (ending) is my biggest gripe. it does not fit well with any other text. Not to mention. It does not fit well with other gospel writings of the same event, to much was (in my view) added, and things were added with are not even true, or at least questionable at best (bitten by snake or drink poison and not die) So it should at the very least be suspect.

And if this is wrong, what would make us think any other text which were different should be trusted?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Wasn’t Constantine from Alexandria, who opposed Arianism in His day? Those heretical Alexandrians!

I remember reading one time along time ago that their were three schools of theology, When Rome took control. Two of them were made into a symbolic interpretation of scripture. And these two schools became the backbone of roman theology. The third (which refused to change) ended up failing.

 

[trofimus]

1) The two primary documents that omit the (so called) additions are Sinaticus, and Vaticanus: both of which come from Alexandria

2) Literal interpretation of Scripture follows the premise that Scripture should be understood literally unless there is compelling linguistic reason to do otherwise. i.e. Jesus did NOT literally mistake the Pharisees for whitewashed coffins.
Allegorical interpretation treats all scripture as symbolic of something else and nothing really means what it says.

3) In all honesty, No, I can't. It seems to me that if you don't believe that something means what it says it is easier to drop something that doesn't fit your interpretation than it would be to knowingly add to something you believe means exactly what it says and that you regard as Holy.

4) Again, No, I can't. However the 2nd century writings of Clement of Alexandria (which are readily available) IMO reflect a very casual regard toward the authority of Scripture, and use of allegory. The same is true of the third century writings of Dioniscious. Peter, and Alexander of Alexandria.

1) How do you know that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are from Alexandria? What about dozens of other fragments and manuscripts having the same reading?

3) What about additions, what about "the only begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son" etc... its not just about dropping things out...

4) Can be. But heretics or strange teachers were everywhere, its not a specific property of Alexandria. Pelagius was from Britain, Nestorius from Constantinopol etc.

 

[MarcR]

That could be true, and I certainly would not fight over such things, but in my view, (for discussion sake only) how one interprets scripture should not have an affect on the word itself would it?

We have people today using the same word, yet some interpret it literally, others interpret symbolically. Even though though the text is the same.

Mark 16 (ending) is my biggest gripe. it does not fit well with any other text. Not to mention. It does not fit well with other gospel writings of the same event, to much was (in my view) added, and things were added with are not even true, or at least questionable at best (bitten by snake or drink poison and not die) So it should at the very least be suspect.

And if this is wrong, what would make us think any other text which were different should be trusted?

Mark 16 NEVER suggests that believers follow after those signs; rather that the signs follow after believers.
Mark 16 accords well with Paul's snake bite after he was shipwreked on Malta.
It also accords well with the martyrdom of Hermias of Comana on whom scalding and poisoning were both unsuccessfully attempted.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Mark 16 NEVER suggests that believers follow after those signs; rather that the signs follow after believers.
Mark 16 accords well with Paul's snake bite after he was shipwreked on Malta.
It also accords well with the martyrdom of Hermias of Comana on whom scalding and poisoning were both unsuccessfully attempted.

Mark 16 says that those who are saved, will have these signs (it will prove they are saved) so yes I agree, it follows them, but as I read it, it should follow all of them, If a person is bitten and dies, it would (by mark 16) show they were not part of those people. who believed (baptism is another issue)

I have a major issue with that. We all should. It did not say some will have these, and some wil not, It says they will have these signs.

 

[MarcR]

Mark 16 says that those who are saved, will have these signs (it will prove they are saved) so yes I agree, it follows them, but as I read it, it should follow all of them, If a person is bitten and dies, it would (by mark 16) show they were not part of those people. who believed (baptism is another issue)

I have a major issue with that. We all should. It did not say some will have these, and some wil not, It says they will have these signs.

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 .They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

KJV


Mark 16:17-18
Anda these signs will accompany those who believe:b in my name they will cast out demons;c they will speak in new tongues;
18 d they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;e they will lay their handsf on the sick, and they will recover."

ESV


Mark 16:17-18
17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18 They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

AMP

NOTHING is said regarding how long the signs will persist and nothing suggests that they will operate in every believer.

All that is said is that God will use them in believers' lives for validation as He sees fit.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Mark 16:17-18
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 .They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

KJV


Mark 16:17-18
Anda these signs will accompany those who believe:b in my name they will cast out demons;c they will speak in new tongues;
18 d they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them;e they will lay their handsf on the sick, and they will recover."

ESV


Mark 16:17-18
17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18 They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.

AMP

NOTHING is said regarding how long the signs will persist and nothing suggests that they will operate in every believer.

All that is said is that God will use them in believers' lives for validation as He sees fit.

I have to disagree brother. I do not see the words "as he sees fit" I see him saying those signs will accompany those who believe. Why would you say these things will accompany them, if they may or may not follow them. And again, Why did other authors leave this point out?

in fact, the greek says these signs will follow (verb, future, active, indicative, singular) those who believe (verb aorist active participle,) in other words, these signs (singular, they come as a group) will indicate and be active in all of those (plural) those who believe, and will continue to be active in all who believe (aorist)

it makes no sense to say it, unless it is active at all at all times.

It is good to see it is not only a KJV aspect. But I disagree with all who use it, I do not think that is part of scripture (and we have not even touched the "And are baptized" aspect/

 

[MarcR]

1) How do you know that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are from Alexandria? What about dozens of other fragments and manuscripts having the same reading?



3) What about additions, what about "the only begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son" etc... its not just about dropping things out...

4) Can be. But heretics or strange teachers were everywhere, its not a specific property of Alexandria. Pelagius was from Britain, Nestorius from Constantinopol etc.

]1) How do you know that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus are from Alexandria? What about dozens of other fragments and manuscripts having the same reading?

If you Google them you will get the same information. Once a change is made it is likely to be copied. The issue is where did the change most likely occur.

3) What about additions, what about "the only begotten God" instead of "only begotten Son" etc... its not just about dropping things out...

I still believe both that changes are more easily made if you don't believe that something means what it says. Also changes are more likely to occur in one place (Alexandria) than to happen identically in Turkey, Carthage, Ethiopia and Syria in 3 different languages.

4) Can be. But heretics or strange teachers were everywhere, its not a specific property of Alexandria. Pelagius was from Britain, Nestorius from Constantinopol etc.

True, but the issue is not the occurrence of false teaching. It is determination of which mss are likely to be more reliable.

 

[preacher4truth]

I somehow like Steven Anderson, I cannot help myself

uh...

 

[SovereignGrace]

The ending of Mark 16 seems a little off, imo. Jesus said ppl can drink poison and pick up snakes and no harm would come to them. Many a snake handler, if they could raise themselves from their graves would tell you differently. Plus, it makes it sound like baptism is very necessary. Those that believe AND are baptized. That sounds iffy. Snake handlers & CoC use this passage for defense of their beliefs.

 

[willhelmet]

1 John 5:7 is one of the most heavily patterned verses in the King James Bible. In fact the number 157 is the 37th prime number. I will post it here before the day is done.

Couldn't find the post in reference to this information. I will add that if you take 157 and convert it to base 12 you get 111.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The ending of Mark 16 seems a little off, imo.

Well, whether you like it or not, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark are incontrovertibly the Word of God. Read and study the book by that title (written as a monograph by Dean John W. Burgon, who personally examined the relevant manuscripts) to see that it is found in the majority of NT manuscripts. Even where it was supposed to be in Codex Vaticanus, the scribe was careful to leave a blank space which corresponds to the space required for those 12 verses.

 

[trofimus]

to see that it is found in the majority of NT manuscripts.

I would really appreciate if you, the KJVO guys, decide which is the way you want to go:

a) what majority says matter (Mk 16)
b) what majority says does not matter (1J 5.7, Revelation)

Even where it was supposed to be in Codex Vaticanus, the scribe was careful to leave a blank space which corresponds to the space required for those 12 verses.

The "blank space" is everywhere where some book ends and new one begins. You can verify it yourself. It, therefore, does not indicate that the scribe intentionally implied that something is missing.

When one book ends for example in half of a page, the scribe started another book on a new page.

 

[trofimus]

. Even where it was supposed to be in Codex Vaticanus, the scribe was careful to leave a blank space which corresponds to the space required for those 12 verses.

Also, look at how endings of books look like in Vaticanus. After all books that are ending, there is a name of the book in the end. In Mark, you can see that this sign of end is immediately after Mark, no blank space is actually left for other verses. The space after it has nothing to do with what you propose.

Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM

 

[MarcR]

The ending of Mark 16 seems a little off, imo. Jesus said ppl can drink poison and pick up snakes and no harm would come to them. Many a snake handler, if they could raise themselves from their graves would tell you differently. Plus, it makes it sound like baptism is very necessary. Those that believe AND are baptized. That sounds iffy. Snake handlers & CoC use this passage for defense of their beliefs.

Mark 16 NEVER suggests that believers follow after those signs; rather that the signs follow after believers.
Mark 16 accords well with Paul's snake bite after he was shipwreked on Malta.
It also accords well with the martyrdom of Hermias of Comana on whom scalding and poisoning were both unsuccessfully attempted.

Those people who handle snakes or ingest poisons intentionally ate putting God to the test.

Matt 4:5-7
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple
6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'"
7 Jesus said to him, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
ESV


IMO Mark 16 was intended to assure people who were experiencing persecution that God is still in control.

 

[SovereignGrace]

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]

[SUP]9 [/SUP]When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. [SUP]10 [/SUP]She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. [SUP]11 [/SUP]When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

[SUP]12 [/SUP]Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. [SUP]13 [/SUP]These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

[SUP]15 [/SUP]He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. [SUP]17 [/SUP]And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; [SUP]18 [/SUP]they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
[SUP]
19 [/SUP]After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them

It says they will pick up snakes with their hands and when the drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all. That's what its says in Mark 16. It also says those believe AND are baptized, will be saved. This ending seems to make baptize a necessity.