Bible patches
 

There are scriptures in today's King James Bible and many (if not all) other versions that were not in the original manuscripts. 1 John 5:7 was an example mentioned recently in the Debate Room. Another example, also discussed in a thread a while back, is Mark 16:9-20, which contains such nuggets as the "signs that follow", including the snake-handling and poison-drinking signs. It was added at some point, perhaps to replace the forever lost original ending of Mark's gospel. How closely it aligns with the original is anyone's guess.

I've wondered what are we to do with additions like this. Are these things (or some of them) inspired and infallible? Are they profitable for doctrine etc.? Or should they be ignored? If only some of them are infallible, which ones?

The problem is though when you say "not in the original"...we don't have the originals. We have copies. Some copies do contain Mark 16 and some do not. When it comes to some of these issues the question becomes about which copies are more reliable.

With the comma though most scholars agree it is an interpolation

The "serious doubt" is based on the fact that one Greek manuscript, Sinaiticus, simply omits Mark 16:9-20. One other, Vaticanus, also omits it, but leaves a blank space exactly the right size for the inclusion of the passage. This proves that the scribe copying the manuscript was either working from a more ancient manuscript that incuded the passage, but he for some reason ommited it, or that he was working from a more ancient manuscript which also ommited the passage, but which also left the blank space, indicating the testimony of a still more ancient manuscript. In any case, the blank space left by Vaticanus testifies to the existance of the passage prior to the copying of the manuscript, which is dated about 350 AD.
Every other manuscript extant which includes Mark includes the passage in question, as do the earliest church fathers, the most trustworthy ancient versions, and the lectionaries.
You Can Understand the Bible by Daniel L. Seagraves
eighth printing 2006, pgs 187, 188



ARPH :doggyrun

Right. And since we don't have the originals, there's no way to say, definitively, which of the copies are correct, if any, when there is a discrepancy. If most scholars agree on something, does that mean it's true? There was a time, so they say, when most "scholars" thought the Earth was flat!

Don't get me wrong. I have a lot of respect for Bible scholars and their research, and they probably are correct when there is consensus. But still. There is always going to be some doubt, isn't there? And there are many discrepancies in the texts we have today. But I suppose not many of those have a major impact on important doctrines.

Actually it was most philosophers and thinkers that thought the world was flat and they did that partially through misunderstanding of what the bible says I think...

However it was not through scientific observation that the did that. There is a scientific method to textual criticisms. The stuff about the comma is not done on a whim. There are valid reasons for it

Is it known, to any certainty, how many generations of copying there is between the oldest extant copies and the originals?

A theory I've read on this passage has it that the very original ending of Mark was lost forever, damaged from being on the outermost portion of the rolled up scroll. The ending we have now was added by a scribe at some point (possibly very early), based on other writings and/or oral testimony. This commentary also said we should not assume it is not inspired, but didn't go into much detail as to why -- other than to say it is (to some extent) consistent with other scriptures. Not sure I buy that. It's one thing to see Paul shake a viper off of his hand (Acts 28), and another matter to turn this into a sign that will follow all believers!

Generations? Yes, exact number of copies? No. Why? Because many could have been destroyed

I don't think the verses in Mark were saying anyways that these are all signs that will follow each and every believer, but rather are potentional signs.

Well, maybe. But the wording seems to be more specific than that, IMO. These signs shall follow them that believe: they shall take up serpents, etc.

And some pentecostals like to cite "they shall speak with new tongues" to support their belief that if one does not speak in tongues, one is not really a believer. Funny though, they don't (all) follow their logic to the snakes and strychnine!

Because there are questions about the authenticty of certain passges, its good to know we have the Holy Ghost to lead and guide us. As I heard T. Grady Reece say, which I, at first, found shocking: "Jesus never promised to leave us a book to lead us to the truth. He promised to leave us His Spirit". The Word is, as the old song says, "a road map" which gives us a general direction to follow. Yet, the Holy Ghost within us is like the "road signs" along the way that gives us more specfic direction, leading us and guiding us into ALL truth! Oje doesn't contradict the other. The Holy Spirit provides us with amble evidence that the Bible is the infalliable Word of God.

Well you realize "them that believe" can refer to the entire group as a whole and not to each individual believer

Does that apply to the "they shall speak with new tongues..." part as well? Or is this referring to "speaking in tongues"?

Sure. So, if that's the case, would it mean that the group takes up serpents, if perhaps only a few individuals actually do so? And what about tongues? If just one member of the group speaks in tongues, can it be said that the group speaks in tongues? I think the answer would have to be the same for every one of the signs that follow.

(Don't know if you are one that cites this passage as proof that tongues are required of Christians. I'm pretty sure you don't require snake handling!)

But look at the poison-drinking sign. As some have pointed out, it doesn't say they shall drink poison and not be harmed. It says if they do, they will not be harmed. Still, it's pretty clearly written and explicit in its claim: if they drink poison, it will not hurt them. Not sure how that could be applied as above, with signs following "them" as a group but not necessarily each individual. If several individuals drink poison and some but not all of them survive, does that count?

That illustrates the point in bringing up this question about additions to the Bible. Even if they are well-meaning, and even if they may, to some extent, be in harmony with other scriptures, they can be dangerous. E.g., I know there are cases of deaths by snake byte, in snake handling churches (not enough faith, or sloppy technique?). I also have heard that the snake handlers sometimes also drink poison, but I don't know whether that practice has resulted in death. Even if a bogus addition, if there is such, doesn't kill someone, it could lead to false doctrine.

THEM that believe...can be speaking of a group in general and not everyone individually. That does not mean though the converse

It means these signs will follow the group in general, not every individual. Paul is an example.

Paul picked up a serpent by accident and did not die. NObody else in the bible had that happen. IT was not something that everyone did, but he is a Spirit filled believer. These are signs that follow that group

"...do all speak with tongues?" So, some in the group do, but not necessarily all?

I did not say that. Read what I said. I said that verse in mark is speaking of the whole group. Then I said the converse is not true just because of that.

You are making a statement and attributing it to me as if it was my opinion.

I was not making a statement about tongues. I was making a statement about the grammar of Mark 16. It does NOT say "Not all will speak with tongues"...it says "these signs shall follow them that believe". You are trying to make that mean "not everyone speaks with tongues".

When I make a statement of fact that is all I am making. I am not making a commentary on some OTHER issue.

If you will reread your post, it was very easy to infer that you were saying that the group has tonque talkers, but not necessarily everyone in the groups individually. Don't panic, all I did was ask the question, I didn't say that was what you meant.:reaction:reaction:reaction

Im saying the GRAMMAR is that Mark 16:16 is speaking of the group as a whole not individuals. The converse of that is NOT true though either. You can't say "Well if this is speaking of the whole group then that means only some individuals will have this sign".

That would mean that some might not have the sign, but all could have the sign. Right?

no

It means that "these signs" will follow the group as a whole. That's all it means. You keep doing what I said we can't then asking me if that is right lol.

It means "these signs will follow the church" there is no specification as to whether or not some might not have any one particular sign.

OK, I think I have it. All these signs will follow the church, a particular individual will have some of these signs?

These signs will follow the church. :donuts

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 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.

them that believe, could be anyone who believes.

The point being discuss is that these signs will follow those that believe, but that doesn't mean that every individual believer will have every single sign in their individual lives, rather that all these signs will follow the body of believers as a whole.

so you are saying the verse actually says:

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow the body of believers as a whole; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 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.

interresting. my bible said it differently.

Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 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.

them that believe can be anyone who believes.

Sis. some use this scripture to require that each and every believer have everyone of these signs in their life. Paul had an experience with the serpent, but I don't believe his required that every believer take up serpents to prove they are saved or that they have faith. Nor does every believer purposely drink poison, so why should we require the other signs in every individual believer.

I don't think we are in disagreement, just some clarification. Or maybe we are?

no i can agree with that. the point i was trying to make is, signs CAN follow anyone, not that it is required for signs to follow.

Jesus said

Joh 14:12 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

if we are doing the works Jesus did and greater works, then it is likely that signs will follow. and alot of times i find that its an individual here and there that have the kind of faith that Jesus talked about.

so yes in the context you are talking about, i am in agreement, just wanted to clarify what was my thinking when i read all this.

OK, to get back to the original question: what are we to do with known additions and changes to the scriptures? To summarize some facts, which I think we all agree on (correct me if I'm wrong, as if I needed to tell ya!):

1. We do not have any of the original manuscripts. They are all lost. But they were copied some number of times, and those copies were copied, etc. Some copies are also lost (almost certainly).

2. There are differences in the copies.

3. There are differences of opinion on which copies are best.

4. Even the best copies we have may have differences from the originals. Some things were added, some things were changed, some things were deleted or lost, some lost things were replaced with something.

5. We have no way of knowing what all the differences are, nor how many there are, nor how closely they resemble the originals.

6. Some of the differences may have an effect on doctrines.

This list isn't a summary only of things said on the thread, so far. I've added some details. So, anything in there to disagree with?

The converse of that is not true though either: It doesn't mean that every individual won't or can't have every single sign in their individual lives

True, I agree, but it is very unlikely considering the list of signs.