Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | ischus | 116052 | ||
As someone has said earlier, there are not any textual variants on theological statement or passage in the bible. I "know" what is true the same way I know what is false... by determining what other manuscripts say something different, and if that difference really says something important or just says the same thing in a different way. PLEASE understand that I believe in all of the theology and nature of God that the bible has in it. Let me take your examples here and show you the difference: Mark 16:9ff is generally accepted as not being part of the actual manuscript for several reasons: -This account does not exist in the most ancient and reliable manuscripts that are available to us (sinaiticus and vaticanus) nor is it regarded as scripture by Clement, Origen, Eusebius, or Jerome.) - The Greek here is very different from the rest of the gospel -It contains fanciful/mystical references to many beleivers doing miraculous things, when in fact only the apostles did these things (which is intersting, since even they didn't drink poison) - Matthew and Luke, whose gospels were based on Mark's material, include nothing like this in their endings. John 3:16 -Not one manuscript differs from the other in this statement. It is supported by every extant manuscript, both the oldest ones and the younger ones. -This verse is written in a way that is very familiar to John's style, and is in tact with everything else that is said about Jesus in this gospel, as well as in the rest of the bible. |
||||||
2 | ALL Scripture Inspired by God? | OT general | EdB | 116064 | ||
ischus Your right Mark 16:9-20 isn't in the two oldest manuscripts but it is in 99.5 percent of all the other Greek manuscripts we have in our possession. While it is not in the Codex Vaticanus there is room left between the end of Mark 8 and the beginning of Luke 1. It is as if the copyist knew of the passage but didn’t have it before him and left room for it’s addition at a later time. In the Codex Sinaiticus again it is missing but Mark 14:54-16:8 and the beginning of Luke 1:1-56 were written on cancel leaf and not by the same copyist. It appears some one removed the original pages and re did them. As for some you say rejected it, Jerome included the verses in his translation and Eusebius later acquiesced to Mark 16:9-20 saying they could be reconciled to Matthew with the right punctuation. Irenaeus a man discipled by Polycarp who himself was directly discipled by John quoted Mark 16:19. Clement and Origen were both silent on the issue and their silence proves nothing. It contains fanciful/mystical references to many believers doing miraculous things, when in fact only the apostles did these things (which is interesting, since even they didn't drink poison) While it does mention drinking of poisons we have no knowledge that attempts to poison the disciples didn’t occur. They tried everything else to shut them up including sawing them into pieces. For us to say no one attempted to poison the disciples which God then miraculously preserved is beyond human knowledge. All the other “fanciful/mystical” are record to have occurred in the Book of Acts. Or was that added too. You have parroted the words of the famous liberal teachers yet neither you nor they can offer substantial proof that Mark 16:9-20 is anything other than what it claims to be. I have gone further into this subject that I think it worth. Again I stand on the firm foundation that the scripture is the living word of God inspired, recorded and perfectly preserved through the generations. And I still say to hold the scripture in any lower regard is to cast doubt on the capability of God to preserve his word. EdB |
||||||