bible FAQ

I think to get closer to the word of God you sould compare the bible witht he older scrolls. The new old bible is when the cathics wanted to put the bible together and chose forthemselves what they wanted.

reply to post by shihulud

i see wha you are waying.... here is some equal evidence that supports the last 12 verses of mark. ( ps if in mk it added nonscriptural things as being immune to poison then it isnt conforming to other scriptures is it?)

1 greek manuscripts ther are over 4200 gr mss of teh NT at least 618 contain the gospels and only two do not have these verses

2 syriac version syriac is the language the NT was first translated into and it contained those verses

3 jeromes vulgate, egyptian version, latin version, gothic version, and the armenien version all had these verses.

4 therre are about 100 writers older than the oldest gr mss and about 200 more of them btwn 300 to 600 AD and they all refer to these verses as writen by mark and as part of his gospel.

5 the only the sinatic version and the vatican version do not include these verses and the vatican version left a space for these verses indicating the chapter ass incomplete. it was not until the 4th cent that they were questioned.

6 the doctrines in the scriptures can be proved by others:
(1) the appearance of christ is mentionedelswhere in lk and in jn
(2) the commision of v15 to preach and baptize is stated in mt 28:19-20; lk 24:47-53; ac 1:1-8
(3) the result of preaching of v16 is stated in jn 3:16-20; 1 cor 1:18-21: etc
(4) the signs to follow believers in v17-18 are promised also in mt10:1-8; 17:20; mk 9:23; 11:22-24; lk 10:19; jn 14:12: etc
(5) etc
7 if we leave out these verses b/c they are not in some versions then we should leave out most of the bible for ex: the codex vatanicus leaves out mt 16:9-20 also leaves out Gen 1-46; ps 105-137; heb 9:14-13:25; and all of 1 and 2 timothy titus philimon and revelation.

I SWEAR YOU PEOPLE LOOK FOR THINGS TO DISCREDIT THE BIBLE. i just want to wack you with a chair
lol

reply to post by shihulud
my point is this the bible has not been changed enough to take away the main point it originally had and we have some of the oldest mss in the world for translating in the bible so they are very reliable and probably never changed... only the translations were... and heres youre answer to :

this should be of merab not of michal who had no sons (6:23) merad the daughter of saul and sister of michal was given to adriel and she bore him 5 sons(18:19) some copyists in ancient times made mistakes of substituting merabs name for michal. so they are talking of a dif person.

before you give me any more contradictions regarding people by name make sure you look at the origianl hebrew name or the history of this verse

for some reason i think that these are not contradictions you learned yourself because they are not well reasearched. its almost as if you dont read the verses before and after the verse that aleggedly contradicts another. any way research your contradictions if you got em of a site or even if you have gotten them yourself

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by shihulud

 

my point is this the bible has not been changed enough to take away the main point it originally had and we have some of the oldest mss in the world for translating in the bible so they are very reliable and probably never changed... only the translations were... and heres youre answer to :

I quite agree that the bible has not been changed greatly however that still does not detract from the fact that whatever bible you read from has some sort of error contained within.

this should be of merab not of michal who had no sons (6:23) merad the daughter of saul and sister of michal was given to adriel and she bore him 5 sons(18:19) some copyists in ancient times made mistakes of substituting merabs name for michal. so they are talking of a dif person.

This is likely true but as I said whatever bible you read from.

before you give me any more contradictions regarding people by name make sure you look at the origianl hebrew name or the history of this verse

That would be quite hard for the NT as it was written in greek plus its quite hard to go around reading who knows how many bibles or commentaries of the verses concerned. Then there is the problem of each commentator etc having their own different viewpoint so you really don't get to the truth.

for some reason i think that these are not contradictions you learned yourself because they are not well reasearched. its almost as if you dont read the verses before and after the verse that aleggedly contradicts another. any way research your contradictions if you got em of a site or even if you have gotten them yourself

Quite true I really don't have the time to read all these bibles and correlate the errors contained within and yes I do read other versions but some say one thing, some say another and some add or subtract bits to make it conform. What to believe becomes a moot point.

If you wish to believe in the infallibility of the bible thats fine by me however which version do you believe to be infallible? The bible for me is a collection of books brought about by people who had an agenda to enforce their views on what was to be believed whether it be true or not.

As for the verses in Mark you seem quite capable in serving up documentation that include these verses when there is also much documentation that disclude these same verses. It may be that the original page was destroyed/lost and the found again or that the author of mark was unable to complete his book just as it may be that the ending was added by another as they didn't like how it originally ended. The fact is that it appears in some and not in others and sometimes has a completely different ending in yet others and I think people should be aware of this.

I personally don't care what people choose to believe or which books they choose to believe in. I present that facts as they are - I might be wrong in my belief, you might be wrong in yours, the point is the facts are there.


G

reply to post by shihulud
thank you again for explaining your viewpoint i diddnt really understand it and to answer your question i think the inflalible bible is the collection of the youngest hebrew manuscripts and greek maanusripts etc the original language of the bible makes it quite understandable and not contradictory at alll again as i said... its only the translations that are wrong.

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by shihulud

 

thank you again for explaining your viewpoint i diddnt really understand it and to answer your question i think the inflalible bible is the collection of the youngest hebrew manuscripts and greek maanusripts etc the original language of the bible makes it quite understandable and not contradictory at alll again as i said... its only the translations that are wrong.

I think you mean OLDEST Hebrew and Greek mss, however the oldest are not the originals, so even these mss contain errors in some form or other but as we don't have the originals to check it makes things that wee bit difficult.

Also as I think you stated the originals were based on oral tradition (or supposed eyewitness accounts) which could have contained errors or untruths/embellishments - there is no guarantee that even these were infallible.


G

reply to post by shihulud

oral accounts were and are very reliable ... th jewish people had a very good memory and many other things look on th e internet about jews oral historuy and the reliability of it... there is also a movie"case for christ" that talks about oral tradition and how reliable it was even though it is more on the NT.... and i have yet to find an error in any scripture... they are always easily cleared up when you look at what is actually said etc etc.

so yes even tehe bible we have now is infallible because there is not one bit of nontruth or are there any contradictions in it... ive answered all the questions youve had so far about the contradictions.

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by shihulud

 

oral accounts were and are very reliable ... th jewish people had a very good memory and many other things look on th e internet about jews oral historuy and the reliability of it

While oral history might be reliable to an extent there is usually embellishment, items added or taken out.

.. there is also a movie"case for christ" that talks about oral tradition and how reliable it was even though it is more on the NT.... and i have yet to find an error in any scripture... they are always easily cleared up when you look at what is actually said etc etc.

Oh yes films are so reliable in there content - how do you see Zeitgeist or the god that wasn't there? As for errors, your faith must be blinding you to the glaring errors contained within the bible e.g. What was Jesus last words? How did the author know exactly what was said between Mary M and Jesus in Gethsemane if they were the only 2 there? Who conquered Hebron Joshua or Caleb? Death of Judas? Mathews mistake in the prophecy of Jeremiah (Matt 27:9-10) when it was instead it is found in the book of Zechariah 11:12-13 and not Jeremiah. etc etc etc

No errors!!!!!! You believe what you want, I see the facts as they are.

so yes even tehe bible we have now is infallible because there is not one bit of nontruth or are there any contradictions in it... ive answered all the questions youve had so far about the contradictions.

SO how can todays bible be infallible if it contains so many errors? What bible today is infallible? Plus you HAVEN'T given any satisfactory answers to the previous contradictions.


G

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by iesus_freak
reply to post by shihulud

 

No errors!!!!!! You believe what you want, I see the facts as they are.

okay