Mark 16:9-20 & I John 5:7-8

[deacon blues]

If the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain Mark 16:9-20, how do you feel about them being excluded from the Bible? Are you okay with possible "interpolated" verses in your Bible?

I John 5:7-8 also contain some words that aren't found in the oldest copies of the First Epistle of John. In fact there isn't a Greek manuscript that contains these words before the 1500s! That's only 100 years before the KJV! Are you okay with these words excluded from the Bible?

[good samaritan]

I believe the translation of the Bible was just as much inspired as the original text. If we trust that God would accurately give the original then we can believe that He would accurately have given the translation. It is really a matter of faith. For that matter, How do we know any of the Bible is accurate and not just another ancient book like all the rest? FAITH. I think most of these ideas are just propagated information that is floating around on the web. If a person gets the idea that a little maybe false; it opens up the idea that any and all could be false.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I believe the translation of the Bible was just as much inspired as the original text. If we trust that God would accurately give the original then we can believe that He would accurately have given the translation. It is really a matter of faith. For that matter, How do we know any of the Bible is accurate and not just another ancient book like all the rest? FAITH. I think most of these ideas are just propagated information that is floating around on the web. If a person gets the idea that a little maybe false; it opens up the idea that any and all could be false.

We can have faith AND scholarship. If all of the oldest copies of the new testament do not contain the passage found in I John until 1500, we have to believe that passage was interpolated. The rest of scripture is unquestionable when using scholarship.

[mizpeh]

What about John 8:1-11?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

What about John 8:1-11?

Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its usual place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by some Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_8#Pericope_adulterae

editors in the woodpile!

[Scott Pitta]

A few facts are in order.

!. no 2 Greek manuscripts of the NT read word for word identically the same. No 2 are alike.

2. All English translations I am aware of use a Greek text that is compiled from a group of manuscripts. No translation is based on only one Greek manuscript.

3. Determining the probability of the original reading is a matter of textual criticism, not faith.

Do I have faith that the Bible is God's Word, that it is truth ? Absolutely. I am aware that I will never know with certainty the original wording of the books of the New Testament.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

If the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not contain Mark 16:9-20, how do you feel about them being excluded from the Bible? Are you okay with possible "interpolated" verses in your Bible?

I John 5:7-8 also contain some words that aren't found in the oldest copies of the First Epistle of John. In fact there isn't a Greek manuscript that contains these words before the 1500s! That's only 100 years before the KJV! Are you okay with these words excluded from the Bible?

The idea that there are interpolations in the Bible doesn't bother me one bit. I worship and serve God, not the Bible.

At some point, as important as the Bible is to and for us, our experience and life belong to the Author, not the Book.

If humans, over time, have in some way, corrupted the texts of the Bible, it doesn't make God any less real, the immersion of the Holy Spirit any less real, the Gospel any less effective, the blood of Jesus any less powerful.

Think of it: Everything that is in the Bible as it pertains to a holy, Godly life, is still true, even if the Bible never existed, or was destroyed on a global scale.

1st century illiteracy was very high. Middle Eastern cultures and ethnic groups were oral cultures, that followed the voice, and not page, of God.

If we date Adam back to nearly 6,000 years ago (or more), and no part of the Bible was written down in any form until Moses arrived on the scene, you have people living for God, experiencing His grace, His love, His power, His wrath, and His salvation, without one word ever written down, for over 3,500 years (plus or minus, as needed to get to the time of Moses).

Not a single patriarch had a Bible, and we are heirs of Abraham, who believed God (and not the Bible, because it didn't exist in any form, even partially) and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

So, what can a few bad translations, interpolations, and other human mistakes do, that the CREATOR AND SUSTAINER OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER, can't undo, in the hearts of those who were created and redeemed by Him?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I believe the translation of the Bible was just as much inspired as the original text. If we trust that God would accurately give the original then we can believe that He would accurately have given the translation. It is really a matter of faith. For that matter, How do we know any of the Bible is accurate and not just another ancient book like all the rest? FAITH. I think most of these ideas are just propagated information that is floating around on the web. If a person gets the idea that a little maybe false; it opens up the idea that any and all could be false.

Brother, I see this as blind FAITH. Not being able to admit that the Bible we have today is a product of much human manipulation is a mistake.

If God inspired the translations, then why are there so many? An inspired translation would be the only necessary one to have. And guess what? The KJV isn't that one.

Consider that there are actually missing pieces of the Bible. Entire books of the Bible are lost forever. The Book of the Wars of the LORD, the Book of Jashur, the Words of Iddo the Seer, Paul's other letter to the Corinthians, Peter's other letter to the Laodiceans, and etc.

Gone for good. Why didn't God preserve these into the canon, so they could be translated under His inspiration?

Listen, the Bible is a tough nut. It can take any and all critiques and challenges. And so can we, or rather, so we should be able to.

If we can't withstand our faith being sand-blasted by some scholar's claim, and if we think any challenge to the Bible is merely internet malarky, then we can't fulfill certain aspects of the Scriptures.

Truth is designed to be the world's punching bag. You can bang away at it for as long as you want, but in the end, you'll wear out, and the truth will remain.

If a person gets the idea that a little maybe false; it opens up the idea that any and all could be false

If a person is never once challenged, or refuses to be challenged on the veracity of the Holy Scriptures, then their faith is weak, and they aren't ready for much of what's actually in the Bible. All a person can then resort to is "But the Bible says...", while all the while never really knowing, deep down in the guts of the soul, that what's actually in the Bible is worth the effort to find out if it's true.

[shazeep]

amen.

[shazeep]

as uncomfortable as it is to contemplate, maintaining that the KJV is inerrant is the falsehood, as the texts it was taken from prove; and likely why we have lexicons to establish the veracity of a passage. Also, our current Canon was not chosen by lot, but by council, if i am not mistaken.