Ending of Mark

Dr. bob,
With all due respect,
You surprise me!!
I am sure there are areas that we would disagree on issues. ( this could be said of everyone on the baptistboard) but I am surprised to hear a fellow Baptist ( especially in the conservative camp) stating that part of the scripture should not be in the Bible.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I hope this is the case.
I honestly believe that from reading your post for the last 2 years that you are a man that believes the Bible to be the written and inspired, infallable word of God.

 

Atestring, this is primarily a discussion as to why the KJV added these verses to what Mark originally wrote.

Dr. Bob, does not question the inspiration/inerrancy of Scripture. The problem lies in weeding out all the stuff the KJV added due to its catholic/anglican/unregenerate/baby sprinklin'/popish translation committee approved.

 

Dear Dr Bob,

You said...

Is it not also possible that the Arian scribes deleted a word or two here and there?

HankD

 

Is it not also possible that the Arian scribes deleted a word or two here and there?

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Not likely because of the infrequency and inconsistency of it. They left too many places to be destroyed a doctrine. A similar analogy is the "conspiracy to remove the blood" in Col 1:14. The charge is made that people took away the blood atonement. But seeing as how they left in Col 1:20, just six verses later, they were either really inept or falsely accused. Of course, the latter is clearly the case. If someone trying to disprove or remove a particular doctrine was taking out words, they would have had to remove them all. As it is, there is far too great an inconsistency in such "removals" to give any serious consideration to these great conspiracies of removal. Adding certain things is much more likely because it would not have to be done at every place ... because it is adding phrases that are already frequently used and thus familiar ... and becuase it could be done almost without thinking. How many of us sometimes conflate verses in our own citations (we quote parts of two verses as if they were part of the same verse) ... That is most likely what happened in Col 1:14 as well as in a host of places where the words "Jesus" or "Christ" were added.

 

Dear Pastor Larry,

If you remember, some months back I did a little exercise to show that some of the most ancient of papyri (p66,p75) supported the longer Traditional Text readings against Aleph/B. I documented these readings and you (at that time) agreed that the Tradional Text might be the correct rendering.

I realize, of course that there is more than one reason for scribal errors beyond a simple tampering for doctrinal reasons.

HankD

 

Here is balanced read RE: Traditional Text vs. Aleph/B. Dry but fascinating...

http://members.aol.com/DrTHolland/Chapter10.html

This is not meant to try to belittle anyone's point of view but simply a way of saying that the "jury is still out" when it comes to the question of mss reliability.

HankD

 

do you think that we should burn King James Bibles? I would not want to have a version that is corrupt.
Do you think we should get a pair of scissors and cut out the end of Mark?

Interesting that the KJV is not the only translation that has all of the book of Mark. Should we throw those versions away or get scissors and cut the end of Mark out of them also?
Should we be required to get a Doctorate in Greek before being qualified to read the Bible?

 

No, of course not.

No, of course not. You'd be snipping out the beginning of Luke on the other side of the page.

No.

No.

 

To all,

I hope we all don't forget that each in our own way loves both God and His Word.

There is something of value in the KJVO theory as well as the W&H theory.
But yes, (IMO) both have VERY definite weaknesses.

Personally I believe that the KJVO point of view is an over reaction to the Wescott and Hort obsession with Aleph/B (and a few other Uncials) over the usual vast majority of textual witnesses.

Now I will receive missiles launched from both sides

Dr. Bob, (again IMO) It is difficult, nay impossible at the moment to find someone/anyone with a truly neutral and objective point of view.

Each side has put all their emotional eggs in their own singular basket.

HankD

 

Dr Bob,

OVER 10,000 posts!!!

HankD