Disputed Passages

Yes, there are some.

My question is....how can you take any verse or chapter of the Bible and check for its existence in ancient manuscripts. Do we have 1st century manuscripts?

No wait...think the earliest is 2nd century...

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

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

The point I am making which seems to allude you is that we should consider the preponderance of textual evidence for accepting the validity of a text and not personal convictions.

- the note about "Israelite kings" in Genesis proves that parts of Genesis were written during the times of Israel or at least edited with later insertions and commentaries

Sorry I am so late to the thread. A busy day for me! Outside, family visiting, and so forth.

The reason that it is important to decide which texts are original and inspired and which are spurious, is because it is very dangerous to make doctrine on a text which is not in the originals. Witness the discussion between OH and HRFTD! Not sure where I stand with that scripture either.

My two big spurious texts are the longer ending of Mark 16, and the woman caught in adultery, in John 8. But, the longer ending of Mark bothers me more, because the doctrine is just so wrong!

So, here are the reasons I do not think the longer ending Mark is original, inspired Scripture.

The 2 oldest and most important manuscripts for the NT, Codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א) omit 16:9-20 as do several early translations or versions, including Old Latin, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about 100 Armenian manuscripts, and the 2 oldest Georgian manuscripts.

Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Origen shows any awareness of the existence of the longer ending and Eusebius and Jerome attest that vv 9-20 were absent from the majority of Greek copies of Mark known to them.

Although a majority of ancient witnesses, including Greek uncial and minuscule manuscripts, church fathers, this does not compensate for the textual evidence against them. The inclusion of vv 9-20 in many manuscripts is accounted for by the fact that the longer ending, which must have been added quite early, was naturally included in subsequent copies of the gospel. Many of ancient manuscripts that do contain the longer ending, however, indicate by scribal notes or various markings that the ending is regarded as a spurious addition to the Gospel. External evidence (manuscript evidence) thus argues strongly against the originality of the longer ending.

The secondary nature of the longer ending is further corroborated by the application the techniques of literary criticism. This is apparent from the first verse of the longer ending, which is a conspicuous non-sequitur; whereas the subjects of v 8 is the frightened and fleeing women, v 9 begins by supposing the resurrected Jesus, who appears to Mary Magdalene. The latter, is introduced as a newcomer "out of whom [Jesus] had driven 7 demons" although Mark has mentioned her 3 times immediately before (15:40, 47; 16:1). In vv 9-20. Jesus is for the first time in Mark referred to as "Lord Jesus" (v 19) or simply "the Lord" (v 20) rather than Mark's custom of calling Jesus by his given name. Such reverential nomenclature likely derives from later Christian worship.

Particularly noticeable is the number of new words that appear nowhere else in Mark. In the so-called shorter ending of Mark, 9 of the 34 words are new. In the longer ending there are an additional 18 words that do not appear in Mark, plus several unique word forms and syntactical constructions. Several of Mark's signature stylistic features are likewise absent from the longer ending. The longer ending also includes themes peculiar to itself, some of which contradict Markian themes. The repeated chastisement of the disciples for their "disbelief" is unique to the longer ending, and the prominence given to charismatic signs in vv 17-18 stands in stark contrast to the reserve of Jesus in Mark, with regard to signs and sensation. (8:11-13)

External and internal evidence thus necessitates the conclusion that 16:9-20 is not the original ending of Mark, but rather a later addition to the gospel. The longer ending is a patchwork of resurrection appearances (or summaries) taken from the other three gospels, the chief theme of which was the disbelieve of the disciples (vv 11, 13, 14, and 16). Although the longer ending is clearly secondary, it is nevertheless very old.

Excerpted from The Gospel According to Mark (The Pillar NT Commentary) by James R.Edwards Pgs 497-499. A list of added words is available if requested.

So, in my opinion, God for some reason, allowed the real ending, written by Mark to be lost. However, it was various scribes who added this longer ending. It is simply not wise to make any doctrine or draw any conclusions from this spurious portion of Scripture.

We are talking about the New Testament, because it can be critically researched.

The Old Testament is a black box. Its too old for knowing with certainity what is and what is not original.

"These were the kings who reigned in Edom before any Israelite king reigned"
Gen 36:31

- the note about "Israelite kings" in Genesis proves that parts of Genesis were written during the times of Israel or at least edited with later insertions and commentaries

Also it can't have any other portions of the post like signatures or part of the page,tried highlighting nearly entire page and "reply" didn't show up....

Masoretic finalized around 900 AD. Septuagint finalized around 270 BC.
Compare the two. Catholic Bible favors the Septuagint. Protestant Bible favors Masoretic.

Compare Deut. 32:8-9, the world divided according to the number of the sons of God (Catholic) vs. sons of Jacob (Protestant).
Sons of God is a problem for the Creeds which state God has a one and only Son.

Does NT Jude call other princes (sons of God) as archangels? yes he does.
Ezekiel 28, Lucifer is walked out of the garden of God by the anointed cherub vs. Lucifer is the anointed cherub who is walked out of the garden of God.
Lucifer as one of the sons of God is a problem for the Creeds but Lucifer as anointed cherub is not a problem.

Amos 7:2 Septuagint vs. all modern bibles , In the Septuagint, Locusts have a king (Missler says this refers to the locusts that come from the abyss of Revelation 9) vs. all modern bibles, the first cutting of the hay crop goes to the king and the locusts ate the second crop.

Isaiah 7, Seputagint reads a virgin will conceive. Masoretic, a young maiden (premenstrual) will conceive.
Mary, the mother of Jesus was both.

The biggest is Luke 9:35, Jesus is the beloved Son of God vs. Jesus is the chosen Son of God.
If Jesus was chosen literally before 'In the beginning' this is a problem for the Creeds but not a problem for how Genesis portrays the firstborn (the chosen) son of Noah (Shem was born third), Terah (Abram was born third) , Abraham (Isaac) , Isaac (Jacob the second twin), Joseph (grandson of Jacob, Ephraim is born second).

Mark says ANYONE (ALL THESE SIGNS WILL FOLLOW THEM WHO BELIEVE, the words ALL and WILL is all inclusive, it means everyone)

I just realized that we don't have signatures anymore.... NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Reread my post......and be consistent with the word for once in your life and actually be open to it.....