Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | believeth and is baptized | Mark 16:16 | lightedsteps | 222922 | ||
Hi Doc Always good to hear from you You cite 3 reasons for believing this verse does not belong. 1. It is absent from most of the earliest manuscripts. 2. Early church writers tell us that it is absent from many other manuscripts. 3. There are stylistic aspects of this passage that are not in keeping with the rest of the book. As far as I am concerned, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God to the Church, mind you I said Church, as the mystical body of Christ, not any religion, I also believe that this inerrancy extends as far as the canon itself, as well as the writers of the books, I do not in any way believe that anything having to do with the Bible is not what it appears to be. Therefore I take with a grain of spiritual salt, what New Testament scholars might have to say on the matter. Others have said the book of Mark was actually written by Peter. If we took what they all say now, or have said in the past, all we would have left of our Bibles, would be a very nice piece of leather, (with our name embossed on it in gold). I may sound old fashioned, but I have to believe the canon we have received, is the one that GOD wanted us to have. I'm sorry but when it comes to belief, just because someone has a Phd, or Ma. after their name, I still question their findings, (teachings). We have been warned in the Bible about False teachers, when I hear of such things, I question the motive for such statements. What I mean is, do these teachings edify the reader, or do they make the reader, question the Bible text as true or not? (example) Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Once the doubt has been raised, then any belief is possible. We can become to sophisticated in our beliefs, when God meant His word to be understood by the simplest of men. When you said "After all, doing something in the natural and expecting supernatural results has a name: magic -- and we are told to eschew such things." I know you didn't mean these such things did you? Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Grace be unto you lightedsteps |
||||||
2 | believeth and is baptized | Mark 16:16 | BradK | 222925 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, Allow me to offer comment here. As Doc had mentioned, the area of which you seem to question is that of Textual Criticism. This is the science of reconstructing the original text(s) of Scripture based upon available manuscript evidence. It is a highly specialized field and not one where opinions are offered like a grain of salt. I understand where you're coming from and you're most certainly entitled to your opinion. However, are we to believe you have a better handle on textual matters- or are more qualified - than a godly learned man who has studied these? While's it's OK to question things- and we need to think critically- I wouldn't throw the proverbial "baby-out-with-the-bathwater" on this. You (almost) alone appear to support Mark 16:9-20 as canonical without question. Upon what evidence would you support your statement, "this inerrancy extends as far as the canon itself"? Do you have understanding about the Transmission of Scripture and how the NT was Canonized? There were many complexities involved. Doubts about Mark 16:9-20 are more in the realm of Textual Criticism and have little connection with Inerrancy! (See Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy- Article X) Your question "do these teachings edify the reader, or do they make the reader, question the Bible text as true or not?" has no bearing upon Canonicity or Textual Criticism. No disrespect intended, but it seems you're arguing from ignorance?:-) I would not call men like the late Bruce Metzger or F.F Bruce "false apostles" They are men, certainly fallible, and fallen like the rest of us. Yet as C.H. Spurgeon wisely commented, "It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others." F.F. Bruce was Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England for some 20 years. Having just re-read his "The Canon of Scripture", let me share his thoughts on Mark 16: "What of the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel (16:9-20)? These verses- the longer Marcan appendix- were not part of Mark's work. That in itself would not render them uncanonical- as we have seen, canonicity and authorship are two distinct issues- but their contents reveal their secondary nature. They seem to present, in the main, a summary of resurrection appearances recorded in the other Gospels." He goes on to conclude, "The right of these twelve verses to receive canonical recognition is doubtful". Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||