Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125494 | ||
Greetings EdB! If the first copies are corrupt, how could later copies possibly be accurate? :-) This is the basic difference I would have with your approach. The later the manuscript, the greater the chance of purposeful or accidental error. You mentioned bias - there actually was bias with many of the 'majority' texts. They wanted to standardize the texts and make them say the same thing. This is why the experts don't simply count manuscripts, but weigh them. Personally, I prefer an eclectic text. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | kalos | 125501 | ||
Tim: I agree. And what I do not understand is this: If the later copies are copies of the earlier copies, then how could the later copies be MORE accurate than the earlier copies? --kalos |
||||||
3 | short and long version of Mark 16:8 | Mark 16:9 | Morant61 | 125513 | ||
Greetings Kalos! I don't know! ;-) I never have understood the reasoning behind 'older' is bad! Now, obviously, mistakes can be made even in an old manuscript. But, each generation of copies would also contain those mistakes AND any other mistakes that may have been made. So, the earlier the manuscript, the more likely it is accurate - in general. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||