Evidence for God from Science

Mark 16:17-18

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
If god protects his word and guides what is written down in the bible

OK So Why is this in the bible if its not supposed to be there. There are foot notes that says this isn't accurate in the bible and was added at a later time. If its not correct then why don't they just take it out? Since god allows what is written in his bible and his word then why is there wrong Scriptures in the bible? Pastors are being killed and deceived because of something that is written down in the bible.??

Since god allows what is written in his bible and his word then why is there wrong Scriptures in the bible?

The only thing God allows is for us to have free will, people added to the Bible of their own free will, that is why it exists in there.

WannaLearn wrote:Mark 16:17-18

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
If god protects his word and guides what is written down in the bible

OK So Why is this in the bible if its not supposed to be there. There are foot notes that says this isn't accurate in the bible and was added at a later time. If its not correct then why don't they just take it out? Since god allows what is written in his bible and his word then why is there wrong Scriptures in the bible? Pastors are being killed and deceived because of something that is written down in the bible.??

I think it was meant specifically for disciples at that time. There's nothing in the text that says those abilities would continue indefinitely.

My 2 cents fwiw.

That this passage is in SOME versions and not in others and that it is viewed by some as a latter edition, just goes to show that the bible has always been scrutinized and understood to be "corruptible" ( if that is the right word) by human hand.

Some argue that only the verse that mention the serpents and poisons are later add on's and others argue that it was, like Rick mentioned, only applicable to the "first fruits" of the HS.
Probably why, IF those verses were in the original, that they were removed.

WannaLearn wrote:Mark 16:17-18

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
If god protects his word and guides what is written down in the bible

OK So Why is this in the bible if its not supposed to be there. There are foot notes that says this isn't accurate in the bible and was added at a later time. If its not correct then why don't they just take it out? Since god allows what is written in his bible and his word then why is there wrong Scriptures in the bible? Pastors are being killed and deceived because of something that is written down in the bible.??

Another hypothesis was that the parchment of Mark was torn and the parts mentioned were placed where the tear was located - leaving out some of the text.

I don't think the text should be used to justify snake handling - Rick sorry - you just can't bring those rattlers to the Church I attend...

As for what it says - let's not forget that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. So these things can and do happen, if not, how can the Lord be the Lord who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Come to the Reservations and have a threatening man coming at you with ill intent during a meeting while you are preaching and see how powerful the Name of Christ is and that individual fall upon the ground, slither like a snake, bodily contort in ways not human, and then come to his senses after a presence leaves - you better realize that this stuff is real when confronted with the reality that there are still some very demonized folks out there. Look a Manson for example...

All one has to do is watch Congress on the news to see that there still are... maybe Rick can take the rattlers there?
-
-
-

The oldest manuscripts for Mark's Gospel - Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus - both from the 4th century, do not have the questioned, last 12 verses of Mark. And that is a huge redflag. The renowned, conservative, inerrancy-believing Bible scholar Daniel B. Wallace has stated that, while there are several prevailing views on how these ending verses ended up in Mark, "each agrees that the verses aren't authentic." He also said that, "Once it's in the Bible, it's really hard to dislodge it." Speaking of such additions, of which he only cites a few, ALL non-doctrinal-affecting, he states, "We need to do a better job of training the church. The fact that we've been dumbing down the church for so long is just a crime, and so people are panicking when they hear about this sort of thing" (additions that weren't in the originals - or if they were suddenly removed entirely). He says that, amongst scholars, the disputed verses in Mark are largely not considered authentic.

And why, as it is against Scripture, would anyone put God to a foolish test? Handling deadly snakes? Drinking poison? And, every year, we read of another snake handling pastor being killed from a bite during a worship service (TN, KY). And this is why textual criticism techniques and a huge number of Bible manuscripts are so important to having confidence about what was actually in the original autographs.

The other and most-surprising passage Wallace cites as a being a later addition, not in the oldest manuscripts, is the Adulteri passage in which the woman caught in adultery is brought before Jesus. Wallace says "scholars have known for more than a century that it's not authentic." He says, "This is one of those sad stories, frankly ... when you read this passage, you say, 'Oh my gosh, that takes my break away! I'm just amazed at the love and the grace and the mercy of Jesus and how he could stand up to these Pharisees.'" He notes that "evangelicals have followed a tradition of timidity by continuing to include this story because they think Bible readers would freak if it were missing." Asked if John actually wrote this story, his answer is "an unquestionable no." And, as with the ending passage in Mark, this story of the woman caught in adultery is footnoted in most Bibles as not being found in the oldest manuscripts.

The church has been indoctrinated to become bible agnostics.
They have no pure word of God that they can point to any more.
For they sit in judgment against the pure words of God.
Stick to the pure word of God, the King James Bible.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

PeterAV wrote:The church has been indoctrinated to become bible agnostics.
They have no pure word of God that they can point to any more.
For they sit in judgment against the pure words of God.
Stick to the pure word of God, the King James Bible.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

King James onlyism

PeterAV wrote:The church has been indoctrinated to become bible agnostics.
They have no pure word of God that they can point to any more.
For they sit in judgment against the pure words of God.
Stick to the pure word of God, the King James Bible.
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:

The pure word of God would be Koine Greek, Aramaic and ancient Hebrew.

There are many translation mistakes in the KJV, hence why the original copies had a side bar notes for alternative translation and interpolations.

Thou art in grave error, O' PeterAv'eth.

In the last few years I've done a TON of study into the editing of the western Bible. It is mind blowing and heart wrenching how much of the Bible we have today is fake. What is even worse is the things that were removed. The audacity of the early Roman church is amazing. When caught and confronted about the changes being made, they basically respond with "yeah, we did that. God made us THE church so we can do what we want". It was their own preisthood that was calling them out too. For me, going back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is the only way to know what really happened as far as writing goes.

Isn't KJV the one that is called 'the atheist's favorite bible"?

secretfire6 wrote:In the last few years I've done a TON of study into the editing of the western Bible. It is mind blowing and heart wrenching how much of the Bible we have today is fake. What is even worse is the things that were removed. The audacity of the early Roman church is amazing. When caught and confronted about the changes being made, they basically respond with "yeah, we did that. God made us THE church so we can do what we want". It was their own preisthood that was calling them out too. For me, going back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is the only way to know what really happened as far as writing goes.

Isn't KJV the one that is called 'the atheist's favorite bible"?

I knew it was edited some, but I have no idea how much. Can you give some other examples?

SeekingSanctuary wrote:

secretfire6 wrote:In the last few years I've done a TON of study into the editing of the western Bible. It is mind blowing and heart wrenching how much of the Bible we have today is fake. What is even worse is the things that were removed. The audacity of the early Roman church is amazing. When caught and confronted about the changes being made, they basically respond with "yeah, we did that. God made us THE church so we can do what we want". It was their own preisthood that was calling them out too. For me, going back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is the only way to know what really happened as far as writing goes.

Isn't KJV the one that is called 'the atheist's favorite bible"?

I knew it was edited some, but I have no idea how much. Can you give some other examples?

sure, there are 2 museums in Europe. One of them is in England and the other in France. They have verified copies of the books of the Gospels in Aramaic. In England is the 4 we have now and in France is only Luke. One amazing difference is with Luke. when the Aramaic is translated to English, only about half of the gospel is there. In fact there is an entire chapter stuffed into our Luke in a very obvious spot that isn't supposed to be there. I Don't know the verse numbers, but it's where Jesus is kind of scolding the disciples for shooing off some children they thought were bothering Jesus. Jesus is in the middle of telling them that it would be better to have a mill stone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to keep a little one from seeking salvation. In our version, one of the disciples cuts in with some odd question about something completely unrelated and an entire chapter devoted to that is put in there. If I remember it right it was about obeying kings or something totally off topic. After that chapter ends, right on the dot, it jumps back to Jesus talking about the children. None of the other gospels have this chapter-long tangent and neither does the Aramaic copy. There fore it is safe to say that chapter is forged.

There is a similar issue with Acts being much longer in Latin and English than in Greek or other very old copies. A specific example is taken from scriptural commentary by Origen, who was doing what people nowadays do with study bibles. In our bibles today, in Acts where Jesus says "go forth and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit and teaching them in all the ways I have commanded you". Origen's copy reads "go forth and make disciples from all the nations, baptizing them and teaching them in all the ways I have commanded you". Origen's father was a student of Clement of Alexandria who was a disciple of Kefa (apostle Peter) so his accuracy is much more respected than anyone I know. the oldest copies of any of the scriptures do not contain any of the verses, references or hints about a trinitarian existence of God. I've also read an Essene copy of John's revelation. it is in Aramaic and is exactly the same up until the point of opening the 7 sealed scroll, then it gets very VERY different. This is just a tiny taste of the additions though. What is more earth shaking is what was taken out.

Origen was an early church father himself and taught pre existence of the spirit and reincarnation, just as the Apostles and Jesus did before him. That wasn't a problem until bishops in the Greek territory of the Roman Empire started to feel threatened by it and contested it. It was mostly ignored until Constantine came into power and these bishops convinced him that if people knew and believed that their spirit existed before they were born and that they have lived and will live multiple lives to gain salvation, then they wouldn't need the church so much anymore and maybe wouldn't need an emperor either. So Constantine gave in and unofficially banned Origen's teachings and put a gag order of types on him. Almost 250 years later in 553 ad.. at the council of Laodicia (might double check that name/spelling) The Roman church officially banned and removed any teaching of pre existence and reincarnation from Christianity. Anyone caught possessing, teaching or talking about things related to it would be anathema and were kicked out, tortured until "conversion" or just murdered. All of this is real and true and I'd say 98% of Christians today have never heard about any of this, but it's all there in the Roman church's archives.

all in all I'd say the old testament fared ok with forgeries and removals, so it's mostly bad translations and misunderstandings in there. If i had to give an estimate for the new testament however, I'd say nearly 60% of what you are reading was messed around with in some way, mostly by the Roman church. It only makes truth finding more difficult, not impossible with few exceptions.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/biblical-corruption.htm

this was a long read, but one of the biggest eye openers for me.

I think you are being duped. Relax, I read the articles at reluctant messenger..and foundthem not so impressive. What you have at your hands in the end, is that Christ is not God and that is where you need to decide, if you want to go down this road.