Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 3:51:14 GMT -6
Where I go to church the pastor has started using the NIV Bible which I never have liked. I have known for a long time that there are verses missing in it.....16. I have been checking and have found out why the writers of the NIV left those verses out. When they wrote the NIV they used better and even older manuscripts than the writers of the KJV had. In the older versions those verses were not in there so they were not included in the NIV which makes sense.
I have thrown away several NIV Bibles, now it looks like I'm going to end up buying one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2015 14:18:09 GMT -6
How can anyone possibly know for a fact which version of the Bible is closest to the real writings and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament ? The transcriptions were written by men, then translated into various languages. Original script loses much through translation. And how about all those so called missing scripts ? Is it possible that some of the missing manuscripts could in some way change the Bible as we know it today ? It's like the Jewish Commandments.. how many do they have, over a hundred ? And we Christians have ten ?Many things could alter the Word over the span of centuries. There may be dozens of missing manuscripts yet to be discovered,
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 1, 2015 19:59:09 GMT -6
How can anyone possibly know for a fact which version of the Bible is closest to the real writings and teachings of Jesus in the New Testament ? The transcriptions were written by men, then translated into various languages. Original script loses much through translation. And how about all those so called missing scripts ? Is it possible that some of the missing manuscripts could in some way change the Bible as we know it today ? It's like the Jewish Commandments.. how many do they have, over a hundred ? And we Christians have ten ?Many things could alter the Word over the span of centuries. There may be dozens of missing manuscripts yet to be discovered,
www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 4:22:37 GMT -6
In the NIV Mark 16:9-20 is in there which probably shouldn't be. In two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (375 AD) it has been omitted. I think the older copies are correct.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 7, 2015 11:19:06 GMT -6
In the NIV Mark 16:9-20 is in there which probably shouldn't be. In two of the earliest complete copies of the Bible known as the Vaticanus (350 AD) and the Sinaiticus (375 AD) it has been omitted. I think the older copies are correct. Yet does the rest of the Bible's codexes reflect in other places the Mark 16:9-20 passages? I suspect the following article may answer that question succinctly. www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 12:29:19 GMT -6
Mark 16:9-20 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing ,It shall not hurt them. Whens the last time anyone picked up a snake or drank poison?
You judge scripture by scripture and those verses don't line up with any other scripture in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 9, 2015 21:19:26 GMT -6
Mark 16:9-20 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing ,It shall not hurt them. Whens the last time anyone picked up a snake or drank poison?
You judge scripture by scripture and those verses don't line up with any other scripture in the Bible. It is symbolic and not to be taken literally. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the the of man be lifted up. To "drink" is to come to an understanding of whatever, wine, blood and wrath (Rev 14:8 & 10) as examples.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2015 2:49:44 GMT -6
Mark 16:9-20 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing ,It shall not hurt them. Whens the last time anyone picked up a snake or drank poison?
You judge scripture by scripture and those verses don't line up with any other scripture in the Bible. It is symbolic and not to be taken literally. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the the of man be lifted up. To "drink" is to come to an understanding of whatever, wine, blood and wrath (Rev 14:8 & 10) as examples. I'm sorry, it is not symbolic. Mark 16:9-20 was added around 200 years after John Mark wrote the Gospel.
The Gospel of Mark appears to be incomplete for some reason, most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and someone supplied the ending in the 2nd century. How kind of them.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 10, 2015 21:34:12 GMT -6
I have read Bart's book, "Misquoting Jesus," recommended by several individuals who decided not to believe in a God based on this book.
Criticism of Ehrman has included: he "overstates his case" and has not identified "significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the New Testament"[24]; while he himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, his popular writing and speaking makes the sheer number of them out to be a major problem[24][25]; some of his history is incorrect [26]; passages he cites as inauthentic have been known to be so by scholars for over a hundred years[24][25]; he quotes selectively and omits key facts[26]; and some of his grammatical analysis is incorrect[24]. He has been faulted for being "strangely certain about the correct explanation of the variants" while at the same time maintaining that the textual transmission is unreliable.[27]
[24] Daniel B. Wallace (April 24, 2006). "The Gospel According to Bart". bible.org. Retrieved June 2, 2015. [25] Robin Schumacher (July 8, 2013). "The Gospel According to Bart Ehrman". Retrieved June 10, 2015. [26] Daniel B. Wallace (May 1, 2012). "The Bart Ehrman Blog and the Reliability of the New Testament Text". Retrieved June 2, 2015. [27] P. J. Williams (December 31, 2005). "Review of Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus". Retrieved June 2, 2015.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 3:26:54 GMT -6
I have read Bart's book, "Misquoting Jesus," recommended by several individuals who decided not to believe in a God based on this book. Criticism of Ehrman has included: he "overstates his case" and has not identified "significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the New Testament"[24]; while he himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, his popular writing and speaking makes the sheer number of them out to be a major problem[24][25]; some of his history is incorrect [26]; passages he cites as inauthentic have been known to be so by scholars for over a hundred years[24][25]; he quotes selectively and omits key facts[26]; and some of his grammatical analysis is incorrect[24]. He has been faulted for being "strangely certain about the correct explanation of the variants" while at the same time maintaining that the textual transmission is unreliable.[27] [24] Daniel B. Wallace (April 24, 2006). "The Gospel According to Bart". bible.org. Retrieved June 2, 2015. [25] Robin Schumacher (July 8, 2013). "The Gospel According to Bart Ehrman". Retrieved June 10, 2015. [26] Daniel B. Wallace (May 1, 2012). "The Bart Ehrman Blog and the Reliability of the New Testament Text". Retrieved June 2, 2015. [27] P. J. Williams (December 31, 2005). "Review of Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus". Retrieved June 2, 2015. Okay, but any good Bible should have a footnote on Mark 16:9-20. I have a Scofield and a Companion Bible and both have that foot note. "Most modern critics agree that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are not an integral part of his Gospel". In the Companion Bible Appendix 168 E.W. Bullinger has a whole page on the subject. As to Mark 16:9-20 being fraudulent it's been common knowledge for years.
A comment on study Bibles, the Companion Bible is by far the best Study Bible one can get today. The only trouble I have is the print is rather small and it's a little hard on the eyes but they have a large print Bible now (hard cover) I might get one later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2015 10:10:43 GMT -6
The Bible does have errors. That should bother no one, that is why we have 2 Timothy 2:15....Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Sooo, I have studied, I'm satisfied with what I believe.
What God reveals to one person does not necessarily mean it is revealed to another and vice versa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 3:40:37 GMT -6
There are errors in both the Old Covenant as well as the New Covenant but the New Testament or New Covenant is the greatest document on jurisprudence ever given man.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 16, 2015 18:52:50 GMT -6
The Bible does have errors. That should bother no one, that is why we have 2 Timothy 2:15....Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Sooo, I have studied, I'm satisfied with what I believe. What God reveals to one person does not necessarily mean it is revealed to another and vice versa.I am not sure where you were going with the hi lighted comment above. Are you saying that God reveals to some individuals certain things and not to others those things? Or, are you saying that God reveals certain things (scriptures) one way to some and another way to others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 19:46:21 GMT -6
It's kind of like when Elisha's servant woke up early and behold an host compassed the city with horses and chariots. And His servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? And he answered him "fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them." And Elisha prayed and said " Lord, I pray thee, " open the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and behold the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
There are natural eyes and spiritual eyes. They were there all along but until God opened Elisha's servant's spiritual eyes he couldn't see them.
You may read the Bible and see something I don't, my spiritual eyes may not be open to that at that time.
Yes, to both questions.
|
|
|
Post by rdlb on Jun 17, 2015 17:19:14 GMT -6
It's kind of like when Elisha's servant woke up early and behold an host compassed the city with horses and chariots. And His servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? And he answered him "fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them." And Elisha prayed and said " Lord, I pray thee, " open the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and behold the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. There are natural eyes and spiritual eyes. They were there all along but until God opened Elisha's servant's spiritual eyes he couldn't see them. You may read the Bible and see something I don't, my spiritual eyes may not be open to that at that time. Yes, to both questions. I will agree to one yes to my first question and disagree with the yes to my second question. The Spirit of Truth leads and guides to all truth. Truth from the Father of lights has no variation or change James 1:17. We should get the same revelation of any scripture, I have found that to be a truth.
|
|