Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Using the oldest manuscripts as best? | Mark 16:20 | justme | 79758 | ||
When a verse is edited out of scripture because the earliest manuscripts don't have the verse, is it ethical not to have a side note. In Christianity Today of (April 2003) this month there is an advertizement attacking "some popular modern versions..." for "the name Lord, Jesus, and Jesus Christ is deleted in many modern Bible translations?" Then at the botton of the add it says "New research now available in the book" and under this in bold slanted letters "Touch Not The Unclean Thing", Is this kind of "Christian advertizement" not kindling a spirit of false rumors? | ||||||
2 | Using the oldest manuscripts as best? | Mark 16:20 | Searcher56 | 79759 | ||
Scripture ... Mark 16:9-20 ... justme, We know all we have copies of the original, so we rely on manuscripts. I don't buy the earliest manuscripts are always the best. It would be nice to be able to trace each manuscript ... then we may find words or sections were added. Mark 16:9-20, even verse 20 itself, is one section. I think the publishers need to let us know the facts ... maybe even what manuscripts are available and say some don't have a certain word or section. I am dismayed with "the name Lord, Jesus, and Jesus Christ is deleted in many modern Bible translations" ... if it is true. We need to view modern versions to see how they compare ... with the Hebrew . Aramaic . Greek text. Searcher |
||||||