Disputed Passages

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,007
506
113
66
Texas
#1
I am interested to hear what some of you may have to say about some of the disputed passages in the Bible. What I mean by dispute passages are those passages that have varying degrees of week manuscript evidence in their support. Please list the text and give your reasons why you think the evidence is either lacking or in its favor.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,027
2,508
113
#2
The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,364
113
#3
The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
#4
The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Is it not found in any early manuscripts? This is interesting...if it's found in any early manuscript but not in later ones, it could be that it was removed. If it's not found in any earliest ones, it was probably added...interesting.
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,007
506
113
66
Texas
#5
The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
I think that of all the disputed texts, the longer ending of Mark 16 has better evidence than most. The majority of ancient manuscripts do contain the longer ending.
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#6
I think that of all the disputed texts, the longer ending of Mark 16 has better evidence than most. The majority of ancient manuscripts do contain the longer ending.

that's what I have come to understand also

I don't think it means to deliberatly go out of your way to drink poison to prove something though

that would be ridiculous since we are not to tempt God as Jesus illustrated during His temptation in the wilderness
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,027
2,508
113
#7
I think that of all the disputed texts, the longer ending of Mark 16 has better evidence than most. The majority of ancient manuscripts do contain the longer ending.
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have it. Others have it but with parts omitted and with variations. The real problem deals with the drinking poisons and taking up deadly vipers.

Taking a doctrinal position on verses 9-20 without additional scriptural support is risky at best.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#8
The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....

ok that's baloney

why would someone who actually understands the concept deliberatly tempt God to 'prove' Himself?

besides that, we do have the illustration of Paul being bitten by the serpent and not suffering ill effects

protection is one thing and provocation is another

surely you must be aware there actually are sects that do handl poisonous snakes...that is cult behavior...and people die

so I find it interesting to discredit people who believe in the gifts while you do not...at least not 'tongues'...but I guess teaching is acceptable?
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,364
113
#9
The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....
HAHAHAHHAHA another proof....the only people that do not like my statement probably believe in the long ending and in some form or fashion reject the truth of my statament.....
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
#10
I'm looking forward to this thread because I don't even know what the disputed passages are. Am hoping angela will help us in here too. She probably knows all of the verses that are disputed or questioned. :poop: (The only reason I used this smiley is because I was surprised they gave us a poop emoji...)
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,364
113
#11
ok that's baloney

why would someone who actually understands the concept deliberatly tempt God to 'prove' Himself?

besides that, we do have the illustration of Paul being bitten by the serpent and not suffering ill effects

protection is one thing and provocation is another

surely you must be aware there actually are sects that do handl poisonous snakes...that is cult behavior...and people die

so I find it interesting to discredit people who believe in the gifts while you do not...at least not 'tongues'...but I guess teaching is acceptable?
Like I said.....the proof is in the pudding and PAUL was bitten....he did not drink the poison and if people stand up in a worship service and utter some nonsense to "prove" their SPIRITUALITY....what is the difference in standing up and having a glass of bleach? <--see the complete and utter hypocrisy......
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#12
HAHAHAHHAHA another proof....the only people that do not like my statement probably believe in the long ending and in some form or fashion reject the truth of my statament.....

while the scoffing is typical for you, many people have testimonies of how God has protected them from different things

your statement is simply your own experience that you have concluded should be everyone's truth

you could not be more wrong
 
7

7seasrekeyed

Guest
#14
Like I said.....the proof is in the pudding and PAUL was bitten....he did not drink the poison and if people stand up in a worship service and utter some nonsense to "prove" their SPIRITUALITY....what is the difference in standing up and having a glass of bleach? <--see the complete and utter hypocrisy......
well I agree with the above

but I already stated that there is a difference between PROTECTION and PROVOCATION

one is God intervening and the other is what we are told in scripture NOT to do

perhaps you did not see what I wrote?
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
#15
Doesn't the verse say bitten by vipers and then lists drinking poison as a separate thing? I'll have to go find it.
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
15,027
2,508
113
#16
There is always 1 John 5:7 &13

Is it possible that some early scribe was translating and changing words to make the bible then in scroll form easier to read?

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,007
506
113
66
Texas
#17
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have it. Others have it but with parts omitted and with variations. The real problem deals with the drinking poisons and taking up deadly vipers.

Taking a doctrinal position on verses 9-20 without additional scriptural support is risky at best.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
That is true. These to ancient text do not contain the longer ending. He is a list of ancient MSS that do contain the longer ending and a list of others that do not.

Those that contain the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20
  • Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
  • Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
  • K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
  • W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
  • X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
  • Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
  • f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
  • 28 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 33 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
  • 565 (9th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 700 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 892 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
  • 1010 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • The Byzantine textual set
  • Some of the Greek lectionaries
Those that omit the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20
  • Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • 304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • 2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • Most of the Greek lectionaries (see discussion below)
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
18,272
4,604
113
#18
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Most who have seen my posting know, or at least think they know, my stand on the passage above. I will not be discussing it further, rather it is here to suit the OP.
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
#19
The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not have it. Others have it but with parts omitted and with variations. The real problem deals with the drinking poisons and taking up deadly vipers.

Taking a doctrinal position on verses 9-20 without additional scriptural support is risky at best.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I think...the fact that it is at the very end of the book would be argument for it possibly having been added...
Do the OLDEST manuscripts have it, roger?
 

Stunnedbygrace

Senior Member
Nov 12, 2015
9,112
821
113
#20
That is true. These to ancient text do not contain the longer ending. He is a list of ancient MSS that do contain the longer ending and a list of others that do not.

Those that contain the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20
  • Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
  • Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
  • K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
  • W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
  • X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
  • Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
  • f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
  • 28 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 33 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
  • 565 (9th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 700 (11th c. minuscule, Caesarean)
  • 892 (9th c. minuscule, Alexandrian)
  • 1010 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • The Byzantine textual set
  • Some of the Greek lectionaries
Those that omit the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20
  • Codex Sinaiticus (À) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
  • 304 (12th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • 2386 (11th c. minuscule, Byzantine)
  • Most of the Greek lectionaries (see discussion below)

Oh, thank you for this!!
So there are 4th century manuscripts that do not have it and 5th century manuscripts that do have it. A century is a pretty long time. To me, this is evidence for it being added.