Evidence for God from Science

I am hoping everyone knows about this particular scripture. Basically one says that Scribes inserted it etc...

What do people think about this?

bizzt wrote:I am hoping everyone knows about this particular scripture. Basically one says that Scribes inserted it etc...

What do people think about this?

I tend to believe that verses 9 -20 were written by someone other than Mark. I still believe they are inspired and belong.

Below are some thoughts from Metzger, who is not particularly conservative, who comes to the same conclusion.

This may help:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X D Q P Y 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (tou logou tou iscurou on apo ierousalhm oi apostoloi autou exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including o aiwn outoV, amartanw, apologew, alhqinoV, upostrefw) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (deinoV, oroV, proslegw). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. apistew, blaptw, bebaiow, epakolouqew, qeaomai, meta tauta, poreuomai, sunergew, usteron are found nowhere else in Mark; and qanasimon and toiV met autou genomenoiV, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of anastaV de and the position of prwton are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.




Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text. Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.

Hello,

i dont think i found the webapge i was looking for.

i believe that the verses are the real ending to Mark.

The site linked to below gives some information supporting its legitamacy.

i think the most important is to have faith in God. There is no reason to think that He didnt preserve His word in the greek texts used prior to the finding of the "critical texts".

the second link goes to a page that gives some information about Westcott and Hort, those who originally came up with the Critical Text and the idea that the Bible we had was not the True Bible.

the information on this subject i have read leads me to trust God through faith that He did keep His Word for us.

plus early Christian quotations of verses the critical texts say have no early support for, shows me that there is support for these verses.

i trust God with my soul, so of course i also trust Him with His own Word.

is the critical text bad? i have no idea, i dont know the mind of God, it seems to me that the received text, that which the KJV/NKJV/MKJV/KJV21/LITV/YLT are based on is more closely the original wording of the Bible. However in my reading of critical text Bibles, i cannot say that i have found any point required for salvation lacking. there are some things that did cause me concern though, such as the critical text having Jesus saying that He wouldnt go to the wedding and then He goes, while the received text rightly shows that Jesus said He wasnt going to the wedding yet.

trust the Holy Spirit to teach and guide you.

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. - Mathew 7:7-8 KJV

- jason

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/why_use.htm

Jason,

Thanks for your input.

I think we have reached the same conclusion but for different reasons.

I don't want you to feel threatened in your faith for this, but frankly, the "received text" as you refer to, or as it is more commonly referred to, "the textus receptus" while it was the best based set of manuscripts to draw from known at 1611 when the KJV was issued, has some significant problems that even very conservative, inspiration supporting, inerrency confirming, evangelical scholars recognize.

I spent a good deal of my academic career working with the New Testament on just this sort of issue.

I would suggest you or anyone else interested in this issue, go to this link to our main page and you'll find several articles referenced there that should be helpful in this area.

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/kingjames.html

Bart

Hello Bart,

thank you for addressing this in a non hostile manner. i have started to read your link and intend to read it all, if you want to would you be willing to read the links that i have posted and then we can talk more on this subject in an appropriate manner and see where it leads us?

no offense but i dont think highly of the "academic" world, considering the vast majority of it doesnt seem to hold much of a Biblical view. As the world at large and the "science" of the day would have us believe the earth is billions of years old and that everything evolved from 1 single celled organism and that there was never a world wide flood, that Jesus wasnt resurrected and so on.

i also prefer to not approach the academic world for my thoughts on theology, the Bible tells me that the Holy Spirit will teach me the truth of all things and that He is all i need, id rather not listen to other peoples interpretation and accept that when i can listen to the Holy Spirit, and after listening to Him and learning the Truth from Him.

Another thing to realize, just reading the first page of your link seems to indicate that the article(s) is/are addressing KJV-Only people, this i am not, i dont use a KJV Bible, i do not want to use a regular KJV Bible as i would think i would misunderstand things do to the change in langauge. i am aware thatthe KJV Bible is not the original language or the original Bible, and i do not hold the KJV Bible as perfect, as many say it probably is/was an accurate translation of the Bible, however as i said, for me, and i would think for the majority of unbelieverstoday would have a hard time fully understanding what is being meant. i am for the TR, however, and my Bible of choice is the NKJV, however i am aware that many TR people also feel the NKJV is not acceptable, i am looking into this, and am looking into all of this, i learned some about teh various textual basis for the Bible a little while ago and am now re looking into it, i feel that the position of faith is indeed on the side of the textus receptus. my information leads me to understand that there is definatly early support for Scriptures that the critical text would otherwise say wasnt in it, including the fact that 1 of the critical text mss just happens to leave enough room for the ending of mark, and that this is the only occurence in the mss of such an empty space. i am also aware that a portion of Sinaticus was found in a trashcan.

the example above where the word yet is left out is an example of 1 obvious error in the critical text.

i am open to some of my information being wrong, but i trust God and have faith that He didnt keep only an unacceptable Bible available to many people for such a long time.

it would seem that both/all sides of the textual variants may not have complete and full knowledge of the other side.

it is however clear that the critical text position of no early evidence for the scriptures is wrong, also the so called "promise" of Erasmus for including the Johannine Comma is also false.

this atleast is my understanding at this point, and based on some quotes on one of the links of Westcott and Hort, i dont agree with their views and find it hard to accept a Bible viewpoint that they themselves started.

to say that many scholars accept the critical text is not much different to me then saying that many scientists accept evolution, satan doesnt want the world to know the Truth of Christ, and satan does all he can to distort our viewpoints and to pull even those who call themselves Christians away from the Lord, just as satan did with those who honored God with their mouths but not with their hearts in the time of our Lord.

i appreciate the manner in which you have addressed this, one seeming of true concern and so on, and i hope that we can continue our search in this in a similiar manner.

however, how much you will look into it im not sure as you seem to feel confident in your choice, and i am in mine, but i will read the links and see what the Lord tells me.

On the pages i linked to in my previous post there are several pages with information concerning this, it is those that i suggest you might be interested in reading.

remember God calls us to faith and He loves us, He sent His only begotten Son to die for us, He certaintly wasnt going to do all that and then not allow us to know about it, and the Bible does say that He would keep His word for every generation, the critical text main manuscripts were only rediscovered in the 1800's, and the evidence truely suggests that the TR is the proper text, just as the evidence truely shows that the Bible is True and the History there in is accurate.

i do quote from the KJV mostly however, as there is no copyright to deal with.

oh also, on the link you lead to, it says that the KJV translates the greek word for kidney as mind or thoughts, atleast according to blueletterBible.org, it translates it as reins.

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. - Acts2:21 KJV

- jason

Jason,

I don't mind discussing these issues for you.

As you should be able to surmise from looking around the board both in terms of the main web page and threads I am involved with, we already have differences of opinion.

First, and I don't wear this on my sleeve for anything other than to establish some background, I am 9 hours short of a BA in Biblical Literature which focused on NT Greek and Hermeneutics. I didn't finish the degree at that time due to health issues. I wound up having to finish a business degree instead but then went on to be ordained with the C&MA and have done some master's work in pastoral studies and am currently in another program now on a master's in organizational leadership.

Second, I am a firm old earth creationist who happens to believe that science is simply a tool to be used to better understand the world around us.

Frankly, I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on in this realm. However, discussions in these areas can get quite heated as the implications are very great in many areas of thought and faith.

I believe the original manuscripts of the Bible as inspired by God are inerrant and fully reliable. That being said, we don't have the originals. What we have are copies of copies of copies and it is indisputable that many changes and errors have crept in. I also believe that an overwhelming amount of these are pretty simple and very easy to identify and so I am very comfortable that what we have very closely matches what the originals must have been. New Testament manuscripts are among the most numerous and the most studied and examined from this time period in human history. It is amazing to me how well preserved the word of God is in this regard.

I'm neither impressed nor afraid of academic analysis and review of the Scripture. Truth should stand up to scrutiny. I believe in all cases it does. I certainly don't have all the answers to every question and I am no doubt wrong in some areas where I now think I am correct. The Bible is true. I can change my mind or opinion where sufficient evidence exists to pursuade me to do so. When I do, that does not threaten my faith or invalidate the scripture.

So, up front, that is where I am coming from. I'd be happy to discuss it with you as you wish. You'll find I'm willing to examine things that challenge me. You'll also find that I will confront sloppy thinking where I see it.

So let me know what you want to do and we can hold or go forward.

Best Regards,

Bart

also just so you know, and i don tknow if i should edit my last post or repost this, but 2 of the links on the page you linked to dont work, the one on gospelcom and the other is the last link on the page for the verse in John. i am telling you because it sounds like you are one of the people who put that page up or something?

9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 KJV

- jason

Hello,

again dont know if i should do another post or not, didnt expect you to respond so quickly.

i am fine with going ahead, i trust God, and if there is something that i am missing or not considering that i dont mind it being pointed out to me.

i believe that true science isnt bad at all, and does infact support fully the Bible, God, and His Word. i would imagine you may already know of this site, but you might be interested in checking out answersingenesis.org

i do however understand that satan tries to distort the truth and that we do not see things clearly, i also know that God is Truth and cannot lie, and that He is Trustworthy and True, and there is no reason to question His Word, or what He says. He knows everything.

i also believe the original writings are inerrant and perfect adn inspried by the Holy Spirit, i am not fully certain how to understand how it all works when considering that to my knowledge now 2 manuscripts that we have match exactly, but i trust God and i dont need to worry about it, but can learn and hope to listen to His leading me and teaching me.

when i am done reading the links i can of what you posted ill make another post about my thoughts on them.

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. - James 2:26 KJV

- jason

Hello,

i first want to point out, even though im writing this sentence after ive written most the rest, that i am glad that we both appear to not allow this issue to be a point of divison, as there should be no division amongst the body of Christ.

i have read the links that were still valid. For the most part, except for the end of the Timeline page here on this site, dont appear to differ from my own thoughts, i am not a KJV-only person, i am a TR person.

as far as the preface to the KJV goes, i couldnt fully understand it, probably due to the langauge differences.

i find the graph used to show the prevelance of the different text types throughout the years to be inaccurate as there is early support for the TR verses, as shown on the pages i linked to.

also much of the information given about Erasmus is either inconsequential when one further looks into his beliefs and feelings about the catholic church, and also there is information that,according to other sources, is just plain wrong, such as the so called "promise" he made to include the Johannine Comma. Also the information that no early Christians quote the Johannine Comma is also wrong. please see the cites i linked to for information on this.


except for the tail end of the timeline page, the rest basically support the TR as the proper text, only showing that the KJV is not the best translation for everyone today.

The conditions for something to be cannononical, when applied to the greek texts also supports the TR as it was what was more widely used and received text based on the actual facts we have today as represented by the sites i have looked at, so as far as i know it is the case that the TR type text had a larger usage base, sorry for presenting some of this information as things i am certain of as fact, the truth is that all my information on this comes from others, mostly websites that address the issue.


i do have a side question about the gospel of thomas as it was addressed on that page, it says that one of the saying slisted is pantheistic(sp), i definatly agree that the gospel of thomas is not Scripture, however i would like to understand better what is wrong with that saying, the way i originally take the saying is just that Jesus is everywhere, my understanding, though i havnt read the whole Bible yet, is that the Bible does say that God is everywhere? and of course Jesus lives in us and so would be everywhere we are, my guess is that the saying is trying to say that Jesus exists in the wood and in the ground under the stone? and that this would be wrong because Jesus created everything and everything comes from Him, but He doesnt live in wood and stone? or if you could link me to or help me to understand this that would be nice.

one of the big things regardless of past support for readings in the different texts to me is the fact that the critical text leaves out the word yet, and ends up having Jesus being a liar, also the critical text position seems to ignore that God keeps His Word for us. it agrees that most of it is pure, but then decides that God didnt keep all of it, only most of it, what is the basis for this belief? Bible verses would be appreciated, since the Bible does say that He will keep His Word for every generation.

Also in talking about criticsm the site said something like, unless one arbitrarily picks one manuscript and calls it the best and the one to go by..., basically it seems to me to say that picking just 1 mss and using that authoritatively wouldnt be the best thing to do, yet that is basically what the critical text does in my understnading, it takes the 2 or 3 main critical text documents, Vaticanus, Sinanticus, and Alexandrus, and calls them the best adn authoritve mss just because they are older.

the information about the OT would seem to indicate that it is true that the mss get used and so older copies of proper Scripture do not stick around, this would support the idea that the only reason these documents still exist is because they were not in high use, also why does the critical text side seem to ignore the fact that through the centuries people have written over/made corrections on the alexandrian text types, shouldnt the fact that even through the centuries those who knew about the mss found them to be full of errors should tell us something?

shouldnt we trust God in His Word, and spend our time spreading the Good News rather than picking at His Word and deciding for no reason that He didnt keep it all for us?

also i dont mean anything offensively and if i did or if it came out that way i am sorry for that.

the verse John 7:8 is where the critical text leaves out the word yet.

6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalms 12:6-7 KJV

- jason

Jason,

Thanks for the heads up on the links. I'll check them and let the webmaster know we need some updates.

I am very familiar with Answers in Genesis. As I stated, we disagree on some things. Answers in Genesis is a Young Earth Creationist site that I have a great deal of disagreement with in several regards. That being said, I don't believe that what you believe in terms of the age of the earth has any impact on a person's salvation. It is important however because it makes a difference in how you see and interpret the Bible. I frankly believe that Young Earth creationism is not just bad science but that is also is bad theology.

You may check the main board for more on that or I can link some articles if you wish. This is a thread on scripture, so let's stay focused on that.

I understand that you are not KJV only. I'm glad to hear that.

I am a little surprised that in view of that you would argue for the textus receptus being a better and more accurate textual tradition than that used today.

Frankly, Westcott and Hort's studies in textual criticism when coupled with many additional manuscripts, makes what we have today a much better set to work from, in the opinion of many. I understand the tendency to distruct things that come from academics. There has been a very strong tendency for this information to be used to try and discredit the Bible rather than understand it better.

Frankly, a lot of the problems you are noting are not necessarily because the methods or texts utilized are inherently difficult. The problem, in my opinion experience and observation is that for a significant period of time, evangelicals saw these things happening and instead of addressing and dealing with them directly, we retreated and for a long time, education was viewed with suspicion. Instead of digging, doing our own study and applying what we believe, we surrendered the field.

Thankfully, that day is passing and there are very strong evangelical scholars who have worked to separate the methods and principals used in textual criticism from the presuppositions of those who sought to undermine scripture instead of elevating it and learning from it.

If you're interested, a very good book that explains a lot of this and helps to improve the ability to understand the Bible is "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglass Stuart is pretty good and maintains reverence for the scripture while being within the grasp of the average Christian.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031024 ... e&n=283155

Hope that helps and I'll maybe follow up with some more later.

Feel free to agree, disagree or add somthing as you see fit.

Bart

Hello,

i happen to be talking to someone else on another forum about this also and the following is mostly a copy and paste of a post there as i think it applies equally well here for the most part, i tried to edit it and any yous as refering to the other poster out and modifying it to apply to this discussion, but i may have missed a few, sorry if i did

i mention in it that i am talking to you and that you believe in old earth creation and i mention the following about it, which while this doesnt directly relate to teh actual text issue it does relate to the beliefs that it seems are common among those who do follow the critical text, which is a position of trusting humans who have no idea what happened at creation as opposed to God who not only was there, but is the very One who created all things, the old earth position is not supported by Scripture, even if Genesis itself didnt state the facts, the Scriptures do say, and now i cant find it, but something similiar to the fact that man was created in the beginning, and the Bible clearly, old testament and new, shows as fact that death did not occur until after Adam sinned, so regardless of how long someone might think the days of Genesis are, the dinosaurs did not and could not have died before humans existed. now let me add here that i may misunderstnad your beliefs about creation, i may be wrong as i am stating in the sentences above that old creation earth supports death of dinosaurs and such before sin, however it is not, i think, disputed that human history hasnt been around for billions of years, so why would the Bible say that humans were created in the beginning if in fact humans were created thousands of years when the world was created billions of years ago?

also let me apologize for seeming to say or assume that all critical text people do not believe in a literal Genesis as that isnt the case as i know from a book i was reading, and also i have no stance to make such a statemnt as i have no way to know this, sorry.

what about the fact that one of the critical text mss in my information has, i think on the whole thing, or atleast part of it, a line drawn through the center of everyword, which makes it difficult if not impossible to recognize the exact/proper letters used, also all the corrections written on it and so on. also you state that Sinaiticus was in use at the time it was found? i believe 46 pages of it that was originally found was found in a trashcan and was going to be burned, i had heard it was found in a trashcan, but actually read it in a book i have last night, and the person who wrote the book is not against critical text as he reffers to teh critical text as better or some word saying that he agrees that to his knowledge it is a better text. also when the person after repeated returns to the monastery looking for the rest of the document talked to one of the people at the monastery about teh septuagint the person said they had an old copy of it and brought it to him it was wrapped in a tissue or something i think, atleast according to my information it does not state that it was in actual use, so im not sure if the person used it or not, but wether he did doesnt really give evidence either way.

also i believe that Vaticanus was in the vatican library since sometime in the 1400's, and to my knowledge the current catholic Bible is still based on Jerome' s Vulgate? (do you happen to know how the Vulgate compares to the Alexandrian text?, i mean this as a real question as i dont know the answer) so it would appear that it was not in use by the Vatican, but then however i just now realize that something i read makes it sound like waht teh catholics use is closer to the critical text than the TR?, so sorry for saying that the way i did, and perhaps this point should be stricken as i dont know the validity of it, but i of course dont know the validity of any of this as all my information comes from other sources, i do however know teh validity of the Bible

also according to my information Erasmus was aware of both of these manuscripts but, and i dont know the proper wroding, but he considered them spurious since they didnt compare/relate, not sure the right word to any other manuscript he had read, also while he may have had only a few manuscripts in hand, my undestnading is that he compared many more, also he used the Vulgate i think as a reference, for teh actual reason he adde the Johannine Comma was not because of a "promise" but was because Jerome included it in his Vulgate so Erasmus concluded that it must have been in the Greek that Jerome used.

also why do people feel that we today are in a better position to decide which mss are closer to the originials then those who lived before us? as Erasmus was aware of these mss, he would possibly have more information than we and why do we not trust that he and the others before us properly did their work? are you aware that Erasmus turned down a cardinalship, supposedly a big deal for catholics, not bing one i dont know, that he also turned down a high position in the, i think, English government, as well as the German government, because he felt called by God to prepare a proper text?

also are you aware, and this is verifiable apparently, that the reason that the Jesuits were organized was to , and im not sure the right word, but to subvert or nullify or make of no use or of not highly thought of, the Erasmus text?

the book i was reading last night that mentions the finding of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus also talked about apocryphal NT books and made the very important point that would not those who lived in the first century and around that time be of much better position to declare what was spurious, or not of Apostle authorship and so on? why when the work has already been done for us would we feel we had to do it again, and Erasmus seems to have been truely called by God or felt called by God to prepare a proper text and has more than showed by the turning down of 3 high rank i guess positions that his concerns were not worldly.

i am concerned that i said some of this in a bad way, if i have i apologize, but i guess that it all depends on how you read it and how i was saying it, i was perhaps saying it in a bad way, so for that i am sorry, but i dont think you will read it that way, and i truely dont mean it that way, i mean it more to be of information, and please remember again that this is all information i get from other sources, and i do not know the original source of all this information, and it is possible that i could have misunderstood things or that some of what i have said could be not perfectly accurate.

oh also accordingto my information Erasmus was fluent in some 15-20 langauges or something. also there is early Christian support for the ending of Mark as well as the Johannine Comma, also i may have already said this but Jerome made the point that the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 i think) was being left out of current manuscripts, which means that he had some information that showed him that i was original and did belong in the proper text.


it is correct that the majority doesnt = correctness, but it is correct that true concerned Christians would not allow spurious or wrong texts to circulate, what is the evidence for teh so called wide spreadness of the Alexandrian text? we have only 3 true documents for it? i dont find earlier support to be too concrete as it can be shown that there is early support for the Byzantine text as well. also if you are against the majority is right thing, keep in mind that the TR does not follow the majority in every instance, and there is support for the passages of the TR, stronger support than what i can see about the critical text, and regardless of support faith should come first, and as we both agree trusting in the Holy Spirit to teach us.

all of these things seem to show through the centuries that the Alexandrian text was not really that highly thought of, considering it had had a line run through it, and a portion and been thrown in a trashcan, that it has so few manuscripts remaining, that previous text preparerers have not followed it and so on.

now i still have some concerns and questions about all this, about Erasmus, Jerome, the Vulgate, Esubies, Origen and so on, as different things i read make different ones of them out to seemingly not hold true to all Christian beliefs, while other things i read show them to be true Christians, none of us, except Jesus, is perfect, but the vast majority of my information leads me to believe that the TR is in fact the proper text, granted i probably have not read as much critical text supporting things, however both sides are capable of making an argument to get people to believe it is the right one, i see no reason to doubt the TR at this point.

i am glad that none of us are making the text issue a point to divide over, as it of course isnt

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Matthew 22:32 KJV

- jason

Jason,

God bless you my friend.

You're all over the map and frankly it is going to be hard to accomplish anything for either of us if we jump around like this.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to track 10 different issues some of which are not directly related to what this thread is.

Briefly, the idea that physical death for animals entered the picture because of man's sin, is a common Young Earth claim and it simply isn't true. Here's a link you may examine addressing the issue if you are so inclined.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... years.html

I believe the Old Earth Position is better supported by Scripture than the Young Earth position, and certainly the evidence from creation itself is overwhelming in that regard. As God is the creator of this world as well as the revealer and inspirer of Scripture I expect the 2 to be in agreement and they are. The problem is that man's interpretation both in theology and science often gets things wrong.

Young Earth Creationists, in my opinion and observation, don't have the humility to be able to admit their theology can be wrong and so they hold stubbornly to that position and imagine that their interpretation is the equivilent of Scripture itself. That is why YEC rhetoric appeals so much to their position as the "Biblical View."

There are plenty of threads here and articles that deal with this. Here's one on the main board should you want to examine the Biblical basis for an Old Earth.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

I believe in a literal Genesis. Literal is determined by:

1. What God intended to say.
2. What the original audience receiving the message understood.

If you want to understand a passage literally, it is not enough for you as an English speaking person in the 21st century to read a translation and to decide what you think it means. There are many elements at work:

1. As you've noted, the Holy Spirit plays a role in bringing us to the truth and we should always approach the scripture with prayer and humility asking God to guide us.

2. We need to rely upon the translation of the text from the Biblical Hebrew by someone else unless we learn it for ourself. The purpose in learning this isn't just translation. It's been translated. It is to learn the language it was originally written in so we can understand the subtle nuances, the idioms and special uses of language that we lost in translation to name just a few. Those who study in this area, do so to better understand the message and avoid the confusion that can arise when these elements are not known and applied.

Reading through the rest of your post, I can address some of what you are saying, but frankly a lot of it has no real bearing on the subject.

Sinaiticus found in a trashcan? So what? What bearing does that have on anything? If you find a $1,000 bill in a trash can does it spend any different?

Vaticanus is called that because that is where the manuscript is located. It's physical location does not have any bearing upon its history and reliability as a manuscript.

Here's what i think you need to understand about the Textus Receptus that was used to translate into the King James Bible.

The translators of the KJV took the best manuscripts available to them and they pretty much assimilated the thousand or so manuscripts into a common text. Where the manuscripts differed, they simply for the most part counted the number of manuscripts that had one variant or another and with rare exception, they went with the variant that had the most manuscripts supporting it.

The problem with this in terms of what we have today is:

1. We have more texts to draw from today then they had then due to new manuscripts being discovered.

2. To understand this point, let me give an illustration. Have you ever played the game in a group where someone whispers a message in someone's ear and it is then whispered down the line only one time and then at the end of the line the message is repeated and it usually is so different from the original as to be hilarious? It is a fun game but it illustrates a point. Imagine you had such a line of 20 people and the major change in the message took place at the 5th person. You come into the room and interview all 20 people and ask them what the message is.

You'll get 5 people pretty close to the original and 15 close to what came out at the end, right? So what would you do to sort this out? Would it help if you questioned the people and lined them back up in the order they were before you came in the room and paid more attention to the front of the line where the message originated?

That in very simple and imperfect nutshell is the difference between how the text is treated now and how it was treated to make the textus receptus.

That is probably more than enough for now.

Please try and keep focused. It's better to talk about something consistently and work it through than to try and drink an entire lake through a straw.

Bart

to point out only things that are fact, and not going deeper in to faith, you ignore all the Scripture that says or shows that death is a result of sin.

here are a few samples, if you would take the time to read them and see that they show that death is from sin, and before sin, there was no death, and sin entered by Adam.


Romans 5:12 KJV
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 6:23 KJV
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:21 KJV
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56 KJV
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.



9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 KJV

- jason

JBirdAngel wrote:to point out only things that are fact, and not going deeper in to faith, you ignore all the Scripture that says or shows that death is a result of sin.

here are a few samples, if you would take the time to read them and see that they show that death is from sin, and before sin, there was no death, and sin entered by Adam.


Romans 5:12 KJV
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 6:23 KJV
23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:21 KJV
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:56 KJV
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.



9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. - 1 John 1:9 KJV

- jason

Ok Jason,

I understand the position.

To be consistent are you suggesting that when Romans 5:12 states that death passed upon all men, that animals and men are the same? Why apply only part of the verse and not the other? Do you see any inconsistency?

When you note in Romans 6:23 that the wages of sin are death, but that the gift of God is eternal life, then can animals have eternal life? What within that verse teaches that?

In I Corinthians 15:21, since you believe death came to animals by the acts of Adam just as it did men, then please show me where animals will be resurrected by the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Are you selectively implementing only part of the verse and taking it out of context perhaps?

You get the picture?

This is where it helps to understand the original languages and the cultures of the people involved. The death being spoken of likely included physical death for men, and certainly spiritual death which is separation from God, but it is not referring to animals which have no soul.

How far do you take this concept of death? Does it extend to plants? Did Adam and the animals eat prior to the fall? Were there insects on the ground that were stepped upon ever? Were there small organisms?

I'm very familiar with the argument. I used to make it when I was a Young Earth Creationist myself.

It simply isn't a valid argument and it interprets the scriptures wrongly in this regard.

You're welcome to disagree. I hope you have some Biblically based arguments to counter these however.

Blessings,

Bart

Hello,

i am sorry that you are so mistaken.

first off the Bible says "since by man came death", not death to only humans, but death period.

also the Bible answers alot of the questions you asked, did they eat before the fall?

Genesis 2:16 KJV
16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:


also as far as will plants and animals be in Heaven? this also is answered in the Bible, for example in Revelations, we know the tree of life is present, also none of this is word for word, but the lion and the sheep will eat hay together.

i am not taking the verses out of context, li read the Bible for what it says and hope to listen to the Holy Spirit and everything He teaches me.. The Bible tells us a great many things, but it also allows us to understand and grow closer to God, and with understanding God, and who He is, we can also further understand why He does the things He does, and help us to look into the Bible and understand what eternity with God will be like.

There is no Scriptual support for your position, and i do not know that there is anything i can say to help you.

As long as you trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God, who is God, with your salvation, and that He took our punishment upon Himself, and has cleansed you from the sin that you sincerely repent of, then i am glad to know that, but you have sadly let the worldy ways overrun your understanding of God's pure Word.

we are addressing the issue of translation, but regardless of translation, the questions you ask have already been answered in each one, pick any true Bible translation, the answers are in there, trust God, trust true science, not the ways of the world.

not sure what to say, but may we all continue in faith in Jesus Christ, and listen to what the Holy Spirit has to tell us.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- John 3:!6 KJV

- jason