Gospel of Mark - a study of conflicting versions

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    A Comparative Study of the Gospel of Mark

    The purpose of this study is to show some of the textual differences that exist in the various bible versions that are popular today. We will see that the so called "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, often disagree with each other. We will also observe that the Nestle-Aland (Westcott-Hort) Greek texts, upon which most modern versions are based, is continually changing, and that the various modern versions are inconsistent. Some will follow one reading, while others a different one.

    If you are a modern version proponent, the only logical conclusion is that there is no settled text and no certainty as to what God's words really are.


    Here is a small sampling of the type of differences we will see throughout this gospel. The only logical conclusion the multi-versionist promoter can come to is, IF God has preserved His inerrant words, the modern version editors don't agree with each other as to where or what they are. The inevitable results are doubt and uncertainty.

    Mark 10:16-26 Amazing inconsistency in the Modern Versions!

    Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of the creation GOD made them male and female."

    The word GOD is found in the Majority of all texts, including A and D. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit this word and so does the UBS, and the Nestle Greek text. The Revised Version and the American Standard Version also omit this word. The RV says: "But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them."

    BUT, the word GOD is included in the NASB (italics), and now back in the texts of the NIV, and ESV.

    Mark 10:7 "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE."

    The words "and cleave to his wife" are missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus AND the NASB. The previous Nestle's text also omitted these words. The new Holman Christian Standard puts these words in brackets. However all these words are found in the Majority of all texts including A and C, and are now back in the Nestle text and they are again included in the NIV, ESV, and the ISV (International Standard Version 2004)!!

    Do you see how the "scholars" can't agree with each other and their own Greek texts keep changing? They have no settled words of God, and what one group of scholars gives, another group takes away.

    Mark 10:21 "...sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor: and come, TAKE UP THE CROSS, and follow me."

    The words "take up the cross" are in the majority of all texts, and Alexandrinus, the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Old Latin, but the NASB, NIV, ESV omit them because not in Sin/Vat.

    Mark 10:24 "...But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter into the kingdom of God!"

    The whole meaning of the verse is changed by omitting these words. Based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omitting them, versions like the NASB, ESV, NIV read: "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!" No, it is quite easy to enter the kingdom of God. Repent and believe the gospel.

    All these words - "for them that trust in riches" - are found in the majority of all texts, including A, C, D, plus at least 21 other uncial copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Old Latin, Coptic Boharic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian versions. The previous Revised Version and the American Standard Version included these words!! They are even found in the Douay version, but then later Catholic bibles also omitted these words. Even the Catholics can't agree among themselves in their bible versions.

    What is of interest here is that there are two new versions coming out on the market - the Holman Christian Standard, put out by the Southern Baptists, and the ISV (International Standard Version). Well, the Holman version still omits "for them that trust in riches", but guess what? The ISV puts them back in!! So the RV, ASV, and ISV include "for them that trust in riches", but the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman omit them, and yet all these versions are put out by scholars who reject the Traditional Texts as found in the King James Bible.

    Mark 10:26 "And they were astonished out of measure, saying AMONG THEMSELVES, Who then can be saved?"

    The reading of "among themselves" is found in the majority of all texts, A, D, the Old Latin, Syriac, the Douay version, and even in the Nestle Greek texts. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read: "saying TO HIM" (that is, to Jesus), instead of "saying among themselves" and so do the RSV, NASB, and the ESV. However the NIV, and the two new ones coming out now, the Holman Christian Standard and the ISV read "saying among themselves" like the King James Bible.

    It should be of interest to see the various MV promoters explain for us their "science" of textual criticism and how they rely on "the original Greek".

    Will Kinney
     
  2. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark 1:1 "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD."

    The words "the Son of God" are found in the Majority of all texts, including Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and D, but Sinaiticus omits them. The ESV, NASB, NIV all cast doubt on their validity by a footnote that says: "Some manuscripts do not have 'the Son of God' ."

    Mark 1:2-3 "As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

    The quotes here come from two different prophets, and that is why the King James reading is correct. "The prophets" is the reading found in the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, and the ancient Syriac Harkelian version. It is also the reading of the Coptic Boharic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions and is so quoted by Iraeneus in 202 A.D. and by Tertullian in 220, long before anything we have in the Greek copies. The Nestle-Aland Greek text apparatus lists one of the Old Latin texts "r" as reading "in Isaiah and in the prophets".

    It also receives Patristic citations from Church Fathers such as Irenaeus (202 AD), Photius (895 AD), and Theophylact (1077 AD). Irenaeus writes:

    "Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way". . . Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord;" (Against Heresies, 3:10:5)


    "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee" comes from Malachi 3:1, and "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord..." comes from the prophet Isaiah in chapter 40:3 - thus the correct reading of "IN THE PROPHETS". This is also the reading of Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the NKJV.

    However Vaticanus and Sinaiticus say "Isaiah the prophet" and so the ESV, NASB, NIV read in Mark 1:2: "As it is written IN ISAIAH THE PROPHET, Behold, I send my messenger...."

    In the last part of this verse we read in the KJB: "which shall prepare thy way BEFORE THEE." So read the Majority of all texts including Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV. The versions also disagree with each other in their footnotes. The NASB says "MANY manuscripts omit "before thee", while the ESV, NIV tell us "SOME manuscripts omit "before thee".

    Mark 1:14 "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel OF THE KINGDOM of God."

    The words "of the kingdom" are found in the Majority of all texts, A and D, and in the Old Latin, the Syriac, and even in the Douay version. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these words and so do the ESV, NIV, NASB. But now the new ISV (International Standard Version) is coming out and it has put "the kingdom" back in the text.
     
  3. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark chapters 2 and 3


    Mark 2:16 "And when the scribes and Pharisees say him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners?"

    "he eateth AND DRINKETH with publicans and sinners" is the reading found in the Majority of all texts, including A, the Old Latin and the Syriac versions. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other and so do the modern versions.

    Vaticanus omits "and drinketh" (kai pinei) and so do the ESV, RSV, Holman Christian Standard, and NIV. Sinaiticus reads differently than all the others and it says: "but your teacher eats with publicans", adding "your teacher" and omitting "drinketh", but the versions don't follow Sinaiticus here. However the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NASB and the ISV all reject the Vaticanus reading in this place and follow the KJB reading by saying: "Why is he eating AND DRINKING with publicans and sinners?". Notice the two newest versions differ from each other, with the Holman Standard omitting "drinks" and the ISV retaining it.

    Mark 2:17 "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners UNTO REPENTANCE."

    So read the Majority of all texts including the Old Latin, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit "unto repentance" and so do the ESV, NASB, NIV.

    I am not listing all the textual variants that occur in this short gospel of Mark, but just a few of them by way of example. A real mess occurs in Mark 3:14 to 16. In the King James Bible we read: "And he ordained twelve * that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And to have power TO HEAL SICKNESSES, and to cast out devils: * And Simon he surnamed Peter."

    This again is the reading of the Majority of all Greek texts. However in verse 14 there are several additional words added in some modern versions not in others. The original Nestle-Aland texts did not add these extra words, but later on they changed again and added them. In the ESV and NIV we read: "And he appointed twelve (WHOM HE ALSO NAMED APOSTLES)". These extra words come from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, yet not even the RV, ASV, NASB nor the Revised Standard Version contain this reading.

    Then in verse 15 the words "to heal sicknesses" are omitted because not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and this time even the NASB, RV, and ASV follow the very texts they just rejected in the previous verse. So now the NASB, NIV and ESV all omit "to heal sicknesses" even though they are found in the Majority of all texts as well as the Old Latin and the Syriac versions.

    Then again in verse 16 the ESV, NIV and NASB add these words from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus: "THEN HE APPOINTED THE TWELVE, and Simon he surnamed Peter." Yet these extra words are not found in the RV, ASV, nor even the RSV. These extra words are not found in the Majority of all Greek texts, nor Alexandrinus, nor the Old Latin nor the Syriac ancient versions.

    If this all sounds confusing, that's because it is confusing.

    Mark 3:29 "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal DAMNATION."

    Damnation is a very strong word and is found in Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Wesley's 1755 translation, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible. The NKJV tones down the word "damnation" to "condemnation". In fact, the NKJV eliminates the words "damned" and "damnation" altogether in the New Testament.

    The reading of "is in danger of eternal DAMNATION" is found in the Majority of all texts, as well as A, C correction, some Old Latin and the ancient Syriac. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read along with the ESV, NIV, NASB "is in danger of eternal SIN." Eternal damnation I understand, but what exactly is an eternal sin?

    Will Kinney
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Dear Will,

    Personally I agree with you that Aleph and B are flawed MSS. You did a great deal of work and presented it in a straight forward manner.

    Thank you.

    A question which supporters of the Traditional Text often ask is what would be the outcome in a court of law if 5000 witnesses (Byzantine) testified one way concerning a matter as opposed to the contrary by 2 (Aleph/B)?

    This is really not an infammatory question and in fact it need not be answered publicly just pondered.

    HankD
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark chapters 4 and 5

    Hi Hank, thank you for your comments. As we will see through this little study, it is Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are the primary sources of 90% of the word changes in the New Testament, and these two often do not agree with each other, let alone with the majority of witnesses.

    We will also see that the modern versions do not even agree with each other in many important ways. Someone (I think it might have been you) suggested we look at manuscript evidence, so here is an opportunity.

    God bless,

    Will Kinney

    Mark 4 and 5


    Mark chapter four.

    I will briefly list the words omitted by such versions as the RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV because of Sinaiticus/Vaticanus, but found in the Majority of all texts. The words not found in these versions are highlighted in capital letters.

    Mark 4:4 "...and the fowls OF THE AIR came and devoured them."

    Mark 4:11 "Unto you it is given TO KNOW the mystery of the kingdom of God."

    Mark 4:12 "Lest at any time they should be converted, and THEIR SINS should be forgiven them."

    Mark 4:15 "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown IN THEIR HEARTS."

    Mark 4:24 "and UNTO YOU THAT HEAR shall more be given."

    Mark 5 relates the events of the man who had the unclean spirit and his healing. We are told that he lived among the tombs; had often been bound with fetters and chains, but he had broken these asunder and no man could tame him. Mark 5:5 "And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and CUTTING HIMSELF with stones."

    The RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, and NIV all tell us he was CUTTING himself with stones. Even the NASB says he was "gashing himself" with stones, but the RSV, ESV say he was "BRUISING HIMSELF" with stones. This is a "minor change", but there is a difference in meaning. The Holman and ISV go back to "cutting himself with stones".

    What is more significant is that this man, when he saw Jesus coming out of the ship, ran "AND WORSHIPPED HIM." Mark 5:6. The verb used here is the usual word for "worship" and is so translated by all versions many times. Those that read of this man coming to Jesus and worshipping Him are the RV, ASV, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, and even the RSV.

    Matthew Henry remarks: "When he saw Jesus afar off, coming ashore, he ran, and worshipped him. He usually ran upon others with rage, but he ran to Christ with reverence... the poor man came, and worshipped Christ, in a sense of the need he had of his help, the power of Satan in and over him being, for this instant, suspended."

    This devil possessed man recognized the Deity of Christ and worshipped Him as God. The passage also is sometimes looked at as though the unclean spirit recognized who Christ was and trembled before his Creator. Either way, the use of the term "worshipped him" implies His deity.

    However the NASB, ESV say merely that he "BOWED DOWN TO him", while the NIV has: "he FELL ON HIS KNEES". The ISV says "he fell down in front of him." None of these is what the Greek texts say, and they downplay the recognized deity of the Lord Jesus.

    Will Kinney
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    Yes, and no matter who said it, indeed it is the best way to show the inconsistencies of Aleph and B. Much better than simply making the claim.

    I believe it was Burgon who said that he found 8-9000 major differences between the common NT books of Aleph and B alone.

    This is being supported by your research.

    As a footnote Will, many MV translations and scholars are slowly coming around to a more positive view of the Traditional Text. Translations of the Bible need time to refine. The KJV has a 400+ year history of refinement.

    HankD
     
  7. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark Chapter 6


    Mark 6:11 "And WHOSOEVER shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, IT SHALL BE MORE TOLERABLE FOR SODOM AND GOMORRHA IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, THAN FOR THAT CITY."

    The reading of "and whosoever shall not receive you" is that of the majority of all texts, as well as A, C, D, 33 the Old Latin, Syriac, and even the Douay version, but later Catholic versions are more like the NASB. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus change this to "and whatsover PLACE shall not hear you", and so read the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, and the more modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem version.

    Of greater concern is the whole latter part of this verse. The NASB, ESV, NIV omit all these words because not found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, C or D, yet they are in the Majority of all texts, plus at least 19 uncial copies, as well as the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, some Coptic Boharic copies, the Gothic and Ethiopian ancient versions.

    Mark 6:14 "And king Herod heard of him: (for his name was spread abroad:) and HE SAID, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead."

    The reading of HE SAID is that of the Majority as well as Sinaiticus, A, and C. Even the Revised Version and the ASV followed this reading, as well as the Catholic Douay version and now the ISV does too. However only Vaticanus and a couple of other minor copies read "THEY SAID", and the NASB has "PEOPLE were saying", while the ESV, NIV, and the other new Holman Christian Standard have "Some said". The more modern Catholic versions have also changed this to "Some said". Then in a misleading footnote they tell us "SOME early copies read 'he said' ". How about all copies and many ancient versions read "he said", except 2 or 3. This would be a tad more truthful.

    Just wait a second and you will see how "reliable" our "oldest and best" copies really are.

    Mark 6:20 "For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and OBSERVED HIM; and when he heard him, HE DID MANY THINGS, and heard him gladly.

    There are two problems with this verse in the new versions. First of all, James White criticizes the translation of "observed him", and the NKJV goes along with the NASB, NIV, ESV by saying "he protected him".

    You can see my article about this at: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/turtle.html

    There I deal with three of James White's criticisms of the KJB. The Turtle, Observed, and Pineth Away.

    The second problem with this verse is the reading of "he did many things". This is the reading found in the Majority of all texts inluding A, C, and D, the Old Latin and the Syriac ancient versions. It is even the reading of the Douay version, and that of the NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, etc., and now the brand new ISV (International Standard Version) has gone back to this reading too, but the Holman Christian Standard does not.

    However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read differently with "he was much perplexed" and so read the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the more modern Catholic versions like the New Jerusalem.

    In Mark 6:22 we read: "And when the daughter OF THE SAID HERODIAS (mentioned in verse 19) came in, and danced, and pleased Herod...the king said...Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee."

    The vast majority of all texts read this way, including A and C, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually say that Herodias was Herod's daughter! The reading found even in the UBS text says: "and when HIS DAUGHTER HERODIAS came in and danced..."

    However not even the NASB, NIV, or ESV followed their "oldest and best texts" here.

    Additional textual differences in this chapter are:

    Mark 6:33 "And the people saw them departing, and many knew HIM (referring to Jesus)...AND CAME TOGETHER UNTO HIM."

    "HIM" is the Majority reading again, but Vaticanus omits the word, while Sinaiticus has "THEM" and so read the NASB, NIV, ESV. The words "and came together unto him" are omitted in the NASB, NIV, ESV because not in Sin/Vat, but they are in the Majority texts.

    Mark 6:36 "Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves BREAD: FOR THEY HAVE NOTHING TO EAT."

    This is the Majority reading as well as Alexandrinus, and the NKJV, but Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ even from each other. Sinaiticus says "buy some foods to eat" and omits "for they have nothing to eat", while Vaticanus says "buy something to eat" and omits the latter phrase. The NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV follow the Vaticanus reading here.

    Mark 6:51 "And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves BEYOND MEASURE, AND WONDERED."

    So read the majority of texts as well as A and D, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus omit "beyond measure and wondered", and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. In fact, even though the words "in themselves" are found in their own texts, the NASB, NIV, and ESV have omitted these as well.


    Will Kinney
     
  8. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark chapter 7


    Mark 7:2 "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, THEY FOUND FAULT."

    "THEY FOUND FAULT" is in the Majority of all texts as well as the Syriac and the Douay version, but Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and A omit these words and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. Though "they found fault" is in the Catholic Douay version, the later Catholic versions now omit these words too.

    Mark 7:4 "...And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, AND OF TABLES."

    This is another case of constant change among the versions. The previous Nestle text omitted these words because not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and so are omitted in the NASB, NIV. BUT the Nestle text has added them back in and the newer ISV, Holman Standard, and the ESV now include them! The NKJV gives an erroneous reading of "couches", even though the context is things they washed, while the ISV has "dinner tables".

    Mark 7:8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, AS THE WASHING OF POTS AND CUPS: AND MANY OTHER SUCH LIKE THINGS YE DO."

    This whole last part is found in the Majority, and Alexandrinus, the Syriac, and even the Douay version, but the NASB, NIV, ESV omit all these words because not in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus. The later Catholic versions now omit them too.

    Mark 7:16 "IF ANY MAN HAVE EARS TO HEAR, LET HIM HEAR."

    This entire verse is found in the Majority, A, D, Old Latin, Lamsa's Syriac translation, and the Douay version, but Sin-Vat omit it and so do the NASB, NIV, ESV. But wait, the Holman Christian Standard has now put the verse back in the text, but not the ISV!

    Mark 7:18-19 Here a big change in the meaning of the verse occurs because of the corrupt manuscripts followed by most modern versions.

    In the King James Bible, as well as Tyndale, Geneva and the earlier versions we read: "...whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, AND GOETH OUT INTO THE DRAUGHT, PURGING ALL MEATS."

    The simple meaning of the verse is that the food (meats) goes into the belly, and then goes into the toilet (draught), and in this way the wastes are purged from the body.

    John Gill comments: "but into the belly; - it is taken in at the mouth, goes down the throat, and is received into the stomach, and from thence it passes through the bowels:

    and goeth into the draught;- "the private house", as the Jews call it, without going into the heart at all:

    purging all meats; - that which it leaves behind, is pure and nourishing; and whatever is gross and impure, is carried with it into the draught, so that nothing remains in the man that is defiling."

    "goeth out into the draught" is what all Greek texts say {eis ton aphedroona ekporeuetai), and the "archaic word" draught (pronounced draft), is found in the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, Darby, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and Webster's 1833 translation. Other versions like Young's, Douay, and Third Millenium Bible say "goeth into the drain." The Hebrew Names Version says "goes into the latrine".

    The NKJV has paraphrased this expression and added the word "thus" which is not found in any text. In this way it slants itself toward the meaning found in the NIV, NASB. The NKJV reads: "and IS ELIMINATED, thus purifying all foods."

    However, the NASB, NIV, ESV have followed a different reading found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and have added words to even their own Greek texts in order to have the verse make sense. Yet the resultant meaning is very different from that of the KJB and others.

    The ESV says: "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart, but his stomach, and is expelled? (THUS HE DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN.)

    The NIV is similar with "it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach and then out of his body. IN SAYING THIS, JESUS DECLARED ALL FOODS CLEAN."

    Both these versions have added several words not found in any text, and have totally changed the meaning of what the Lord said. That foods are cleansed from the body by the natuaral process of digestion, OR that Jesus declared all foods clean, are NOT the same thing. Both readings cannot be what God inspired.


    Mark 7:24 "And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre AND SIDON."

    "AND SIDON" is found in the Majority as well as Sinaticus and Vaticanus, but not in D. The Revised Version, ASV, RSV, the new ESV, Holman Standard, and ISV include these words, but the NASB, NIV, NRSV omit them. Go Figure.
     
  9. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Will, As you know I'm a MV advocate, and a "Bible Rummager" :D And I consider you a "Bible Facist"---having said that, I sincerily do appreciate your research in backing your views. It does make even a "Bible Rummager" like me at least understand your views more and not react to you in silliness (unless you say something I deem silly ;) )- Hey, I can't believe I'm paying a KJVO a compliment! :eek: Maybe one of these days Precepts....well, that would take the fun out of my replies to him. [​IMG]
    PS- I still wish your posts were shorter :D
     
  10. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Will, like Pastor Larry said he does in another thread, just go to the MSS when the versions differ.

    Which of course is a bit hard for the average Christian since we don't have any Hebrew and Greek training.

    Thats a small part of why I appreciate the wonderful work you do in your stand for truth and your excellent exposes on the error of the modern version cult.


    Jim
     
  11. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    Study to show thyself approved. If you don't know Greek or Hebrew, it's your own fault. You could learn the languages if you wanted to. Did you know that some of the greatest mathematicians in history were self taught? They had no formal training but wanted to learn math and did. Same goes for you and me.
     
  12. Jim Ward

    Jim Ward
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    TC, the next time a baby Christian comes to me with concerns over how two versions read differently, I will give him/her your post as my reply. I am sure that they will find much encouragement in it and will find you to be carrier of many many fine wishes.

    Or they may find you to the same arogant blowhard that I find you to be.

    I doubt though that your words will be of much help to them.


    Jim
     
  13. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    ...and the first MV hot of the press in 1611 :D
     
  14. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    your hypocrisy is close to your fellow sect member, Precepts :rolleyes:
     
  15. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    I abviously wasn't addressing a baby Christian. I was addressing you who say you have been a Christian for so many years and haven't tried to learn any of the original languages the Bible was written in.
     
  16. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Orvinis:"PS- I still wish your posts were shorter"

    I suppose too much of the Truth is hard for anyone to deny isn't it? that must be why you wish his posts were shorter.
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    You didn't need to go very far in Mark. Just verse two to find a difference.

    "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, Who will prepare Your way;" (NASU)

    "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (KJV)

    Which is it?

    In its historical context there is loads of support for the NASU.
     
  18. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    In a college Bible study that I lead, we were discussing the aorist tense and how it often doesn't get fully addressed in the English while we were talking about a passage in I Corinthians. More than a few showed interest in learning Greek, so I may start a beginner class in the language along with our regular Bible study. Not all of them are old Christians, either, which is exciting to me.
     
  19. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank:
    And what about it when the "simple" claim is just as accurate as the detailed claim? Both are the same truth, the only difference is the amount of detail. I already know the Truth and I don't have to know Koine Greek and Ancient Hebrew to know the facts.

    The inconsistencies are passed down through the multitude of mv's since 1611, which just so happen to follow suit with Aleph and B. Along with the "USB" and "NA" which follow suit with w/h.

    Funny you post this right after you nearly condemned "simple claims" I have rarely read any of Burgeon's works. I don't see any "details" to support your comment.

    And the Truth is still the Truth no matter the details. Thanks Brother Will!

    Not sure exactly what you mean by a "400+ year history of 'refinement'", but the AV 1611 KJB hasn't changed one bit in the Truth of God's Word.

    Brother Will's expose' shows many times over even the "blessed" NasV has corrupt readings resulted from the omissions of certain words like exposed here:
    NasV
    Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
    Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.

    "A man" is singular, We are left to understand the "father and mother " become "one flesh" after the "man" has left and "they are no longer two, but one flesh."

    When "and cleave to his wife" (found in the KJB and the Text from which it is derived)is left out the text reads as if the "man" caused a separation of the father and mother and after his departure they get back together and become one again as it was before they had children.

    It hasn't been until "KJVO's" have been consistently pointing out the multitutdes of contradictions and in the translations of the texts found in mv's have these "scholars" begun to go back to the "Traditional Texts" from which the KJB was derived.

    Pride has empowered this "mv" craze by the factors of what is supposed to be understood as "higher education". We're documenting proofs now that this "pride in a higher education" is the pitfall of the scholar due to the simplest of understandings, mine in point.

    I'm sure glad to see the turning back to the Bible, away from these MSS that contain multiple errors and contradictions with each other. The evidences are right there in English for us all, even w/o knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew as so many "enthusaists" flaunt themselves with and flail those who don't have their "education".

    Sorry Hank, Thanks Brother Will
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, gb, it's both in this case. "Isaiah" is referred to as "the prophets" many times by the Jews. The only discrepency would be the singualr reference to Isaiah alone, when in fact all the "Prophets" prophesy of the coming Messiah. "Isaiah" is often considered as all the Prophets writings by Jews and include them all "minor and major" prophets.
     

Share This Page

Loading...