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?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
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
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
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.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
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
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!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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.
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
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!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
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.
__________________
"Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for Him...." -Psa. 37:7
Waiting for the Lord is easy... Waiting patiently? Not so much.
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!
Well you realize "them that believe" can refer to the entire group as a whole and not to each individual believer
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Linear Mode
