Fran C Posted January 14, 2017 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 337 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 214 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I am sorry to say, that while I am somewhat familiar with the fact that some debate exists, I do not know much about it. What little I think I recall, is that this theory has to do with textual analysis, where people look at writing style, word usage etc. and then get the idea, that that chapter was written by a different author. This kind of textual criticism, can be ridiculous some time. I remember that there were a couple of fellows, who "proved" that the first five books of the Bible, were written be many authors, not Moses. Others had come to the same conclusion, but they guys wrote a computer program to analyze the texts. This was accepted by those who already believed the multiple authorship theory to be correct. Of course it was, we too easily accept the evidence of those who agree with us. However, someone else, later came along, an used this same program, to analyze the paper that these fellows had written about there lamination and results. Based on the results of this computer analysis, it appeared that this paper, had many, many authors, instead of the two who wrote it. This is a great illustration, of the shakiness of this approach to scripture authenticity. As I recall, there is no manuscript evidence, that John 21 should not be considered authentic. This is one of the reasons that it is a good idea to look at the earliest texts possible, because obviously addition happen later, not at the beginning. Now, I want to thank you for bringing this up, because it points out a flaw in my thinking. I was writing a response to Ezra, as you know, that mentioned the way the gospel of Mark ends. One of the reasons I am leery of this debated ending, is because it does not "look" like it belongs. It seems a bit out of place in the context, and the style just somehow feels foreign to me. I don't recall if I mentioned that in my response to Ezra, but I was thinking that. After writing this response to you, I realize that judging style and substance as a criteria for authenticity, is weak, especially for someone like myself, who is not trained or knowledgeable in that field. So, if I made an argument based on style on that ending in Mark, I retract that from the evidence. If I did not mention it, then at least I can confess my fallibility of thought. Omegaman, I'm coming more and more to realize that we should not be "people of the book". I've stopped worrying about all of the above. Man is so limited. You're right. One gets an idea and then sets out to prove it As if the bible were a scientific book. I trust in the person and character of Jesus. HE was real, He walked this earth, and He let us know what God expects from us. I also like to study on an intellectual level, but my love for God comes before everything. No fallibility of thought there!! Thanks for the info. Fran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted January 14, 2017 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted January 14, 2017 9 minutes ago, other one said: if you want to read it, highlight it and right click and use google translate and it will translate it to english. Yeah, sort of, it will translate modern Greek to English, but it does not know Koine. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes it does not, sometimes it has not clue at all. Just as English changed in the last 400 years from KJV to now, you can imagine that Greek has changed in the last 1600 to 2300 years - a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 14, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,128 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,857 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2017 10 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: I'll bite! Just ordered in on Amazon. Should arrive late Jan or early Feb. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.html I think this is the book and you can download it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted January 14, 2017 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted January 14, 2017 18 minutes ago, other one said: I would recommend mp3 format spoken by Alexander Scorby.. I agree that people need to hear the Word as well as read through it. Yes, Alexander Scourby is excellent, so is Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Max McLean is not as good in my opinion, but not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted January 14, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,128 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,857 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said: Yes, Alexander Scourby is excellent, so is Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Max McLean is not as good in my opinion, but not bad. and when you listen to it you don't have to mentally try and pronounce those crazy sounding names LoL. Actually I find that when Scorby reads the KJV of the Bible where he pauses at all the right places, it makes more sense... listening tends to be easier to grasp what's being said rather than struggling reading with all the old words and gammer that is not common reading. Especially Paul's writing where he uses several run on sentences that make up a half a chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/14/2017 at 3:22 PM, Fran C said: Great!! But will he stop doing it is the question!! We love him anyway... Lol yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/13/2017 at 5:12 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said: What makes you certain that modern translation are missing verses? How do you know that the KJV does not contain added verses?" Go try to find 1John 5:7 in the NIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted January 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.93 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2017 I think that instead of people picking apart the NIV version of the Bible or the KJV version of the Bible; saying this version cut stuff out and this version added stuff ect ect. We need to educate ourselves on how the different versions came to be. I have an older NIV Bible that has an introduction explaining how the translation came about. The Bible I prefer to use is the Holman Student Bible, which also explains in the introduction in great detail how this translation came about. While I can see that some words are changed in certain verses, for me the over all meaning of the verse is the same. Now I am not taking either side here on this. But I do not think that we will get anywhere pulling random verses out and saying "look at this!" We need to have an understanding of how these translations were made. My old NIV Bible even says in the introduction that it falls short of its goals. (but basically they did their best to try to translate it into the language that is being understood at the time) Well that's my take on all of this. God Bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted January 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.93 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2017 On 1/12/2017 at 4:23 PM, worthy said: The NIV bible has removed the scripture and put it as a footnote My NIV has this verse and in the footnote it says that "Some manuscripts do not have verse 47." Hmm...interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindle Posted January 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 53 Topic Count: 88 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 4,064 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,748 Days Won: 8 Joined: 02/23/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, LadyKay said: My NIV has this verse and in the footnote it says that "Some manuscripts do not have verse 47." Is the verse displayed a footnote? Because my NIV dissent have the verse 17 minutes ago, LadyKay said: Hmm...interesting. Do I detect sarcasm lol Edited January 16, 2017 by worthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts