Major Doctrines affected by Modern English Translations

gb: "Who is right? The snake charmer or the person who started a lie that was not found in any manuscripts until if I remember right something like 1100 years later. Wow what evidence! None for 1100 years. So then how did it come on the scene so late?"

Strong correction on this point, gb. The earliest Greek MSS containing the long ending of Mark date from the early 5th century (MSS A and C), while the earliest Greek MSS that omit the long ending of Mark (Aleph and B) date from the mid-4th century; basically a 50-75 year difference.

Further, the 2nd century text found in the Old Syriac version (Curetonian Syriac MS) has the long ending, along with numerous Old Latin MSS that also have a second-century text. The church father Irenaeus actually quotes the opening and closing verses of Mark (i.e. the long ending) at a datable point within the 2nd century that then serves to confirm both the Old Latin and Old Syriac textimony.

 

Their lifetime and our lifetime are MUCH different.

 

Massive MSS contained Mark 16:9-20. Early church fathers witnessed them. MVs' footnotes said MSS added them LATER. A few early MSS supporting MVs had them. Notice MVs' footnotes messed up themselves.

 

Dr. Strouse refuted D.A. Carson's book.

 

How many manuscripts differ? </font>[/QUOTE]99% MSS supported the KJV; 1% MSS supported MVs. </font>[/QUOTE]askjo, where do you get such strange logic? What are your sources. I don't find this information in ANY book I possess, not even those written by KJVO's. </font>[/QUOTE]D.A. Waite's book, Defending the KJB.

 

Back to 2nd Century some MSS contained them.

 

Back to 2nd Century some MSS contained them. </font>[/QUOTE]I have heard the same story before. The evidence is speculative. So which ones?

 

gb. that is the quote out of the NIV before they put Mark 16:9-20. Askjo is trying to attribute the statement to me, which is dishonest, but I would expect nothing less of him.

 

Yet, when it is pointed out that the footnote in the KJV for "lucifer" is "day starre", KJVO's retort that the footnote is wrong, and that footnotes are not scripture. Here is a clear example of a KJVO double standard. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Johnv -- Preach it!

This page of this Baptist Board Site: <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1411.html" target="_blank">
Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles</a>

shows
this double standard:
---603 - The footnotes are not scripture in the KJV but are scripture in the nKJV.

BTW, for those who have never read the
original REAL King James Version, the edition
of 1611, the margin notes there are sidenotes

Praise Iesus - Sonne of God

 

He has been playing the same drum with the same beat. Someone else posted the same thing a few motnhs ago and it was spurious. But those men keep listening to their guru without checking out the source. Their loyal to their master is incredible but without any substance. They are not like the Bereans in Acts 17:11.

 

Back to 2nd Century some MSS contained them. </font>[/QUOTE]I have heard the same story before. The evidence is speculative. So which ones? </font>[/QUOTE]Speculative, yes. Dr. Thomas Holland wrote an entire appendix in his book Crowned with Glory about the longer ending of Mark. In this appendix he asserts:

I also found (while looking for an online copy of that appendix) this quote from chapter 8 of the same book:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html
</font>[/QUOTE]Actual manuscript evidence is debatable (Peshitta and Coptic versions?) but the assertion of early witnesses does add some credible weight to the authenticity of the longer ending.

Hoping to add more light than heat.

 

I believe what askjo is alluding to is the fact that of the extant 5000+ NT MSS less than 50 of them are clearly "Alexandrian" type. The majority of the extant NT MSS are Byzantine which is the MSS source (for the most part) of the KJV.

The MV's almost always in support of the Alexandrian texts variants which represent less than 1% of the Extant NT koine MSS and specifically the two favorites of Wescott and Hort, Aleph and B.

The ongoing debate which will not end until more MSS evidence is unearthed (or the Lord returns) is the question as to which is the more reliable MSS family. The Byzantine Majority with late dates or the Alexandrian Minority with earlier dates.

There seems to be an MV bias torwards Aleph and B which are also in disagreement with each other more often than not (according to John Burgon).

The bottom line is that each side wants the text which best represents the autographs.

The worst part of this whole debate is the one thing that is EVIDENT (ala michelle), the display or manifestation of the flesh.

But the discussions have improved over the years and that is good

HankD

 

AVL1984 quoted to you:

Go to see Clint Kritzer's answer.