Disputed Passages

Why should we think that the passage is meant with aforethought. Why can't what happened in Acts 28: 3-6 be the meaning?

Good article! And the external evidence does not convince me. But the internal evidence is overwhelming. First, charismatic doctrine not found elsewhere in Mark. Whole denominations (The Shakers) formed on the issue of snake handling, found nowhere else in the gospels. And aside from Paul shaking off a viper in Acts, found nowhere else in the entire Bible. The syntax issues were not dealt with at all!

For me, the longer reading is jarringly incongruous with the rest of Mark. And just because some different language is used in Mark 15-16, that is authentic, the words used in the longer ending, are simply so different that adding the syntax, you have a different writer.

No matter how early on the longer ending was added, the fact is, to me, anyway, it was added! But, I appreciate the article. Good to read someone passionate about its authenticity!

I believe that some are thinking that the commandments here are talking about the ten commandments and no one can keep the ten commandments In their own strength.If someone decides to reply contrary to my post,before replying read the next group of scripture after John.

1 John 5:1-4
King James Version(KJV)

1.) Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2.) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3.)For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4.)For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:and this is the victory that overcometh the world,[even] our faith.
+++
Luke 18:18-27
King James Version(KJV)

18.)And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19.)And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

20.)Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

21.)And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

22.) Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

23.)And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

24.)And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

25.)For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

26.) And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?

27.) And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

You missed his intent for the thread. He wanted to discuss passages or verses that scholars think should maybe not even BE in our bible because there is evidence they were added later. His intent wasn't to discuss different interpretations of verses that aren't in dispute as to authenticity. You aren't the only one who misunderstood what he wanted the topic to be, so you aren't stupid or anything, don't worry.

The fact remains....Charismatics will stand and blah, blah, blah about speaking in tongues, prophetic utterences and NOT ONE OF THEM boasts of the third on the list.....I have family, friends and have had co-workers that are charismatic....and the story is always the same....the embrace and push a few scriptures and base their whole theology on Acts 2:38 while ignoring the rest of the bible....especially the words CEASE, VANISH and FAIL.....the ONLY church that had an issue with these things was filled with SPIRITUALLY IMMATURE people and there were some 15 ERRORS in that congregation....THIS SPEAKS multitudes to those who PUSH and or have an ISSUE with the truth concerning the gifts.......the truth is the truth.....and the funny thing...THE ONLY PEOPLE that stand against any and ALL truths that contradict the modern practices are those that embrace and push the modern practices to the exclusion of any and all truth that contradicts the modern practices.....NOW WATCH who disagrees and gives me a thumb down.....could care less!

Thanks. So it's fourth century upwards, then.

1. Which scholars?

2. What timeline from earliest to latest date should be included or remain in the Bible (Ex. 4th century to 1959)?

How about this one
John 12:32
King James Version(KJV)

32.)And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
+++
I see the word men Is In Italics.
I was wondering If the Interpretation should be If I am lifted up I will draw all punishment unto me?

Did a blog on this, one can find it Here

"all punishment unto me" if you don't believe that Christ bore the sins of mankind in himself while on the cross, as stated by 1 Peter 2:24.

Biblical scholars, Greek scholars, people who have studied all of the mss personally and wondered why there are passages in our bibles that aren't found in the earliest and most complete and reliable mss in our possession but are found in much later mss. Only.

and where do you come by your belief that the word is mistranslated as men when it should be punishment? Not that we are on the it's desired topic with this.

Well, this is not really a disputed verse but, the reason 'men' is in italics is because it is not represented by either ανδρες or ἄνθρωποι, both of which are masculine plural - men. John simply uses the word πάντας which means 'all' however, it is masculine plural spelling. This is why the English translates it as "all men" and correctly so.

I'm kinda confused since handeling snakes and drinking poison don't have anything to do with the gifts or are you saying that it is a kinda gift?

Are you referring to Textual Variants? If so, I have a list of known Textual Variants that are disputed. One is Acts 8:37. The early MS's exclude this altogether and the possible reason given to it's inclusion is a scribal redaction.

Regarding the longer ending Mark (not arguing for, just playing devils advocate) could easily have been there but ripped just before the scribe got his hands on it to copy. It also could be a later addition because of scribal redaction who wanted to clarify the short ending of Mark. The way I look at this particular issue is that with the knowledge we have, there's no way for us to have a firm conclusion.

I also have a list of common Textual Variants in the Gospels:

1) Matthew

a) 5:22- "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court."

i) Is it "angry with his brother" or "angry without a cause"?

b) 6:13- "For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."

i) This verse isn't included in any of the earliest MS's

2) Mark

a) 1:41- "Jesus, seeing the leper, was moved with compassion."

i) Was it "compassion" or "indignation"?

3) Luke

a) 22:43-44 "An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood."

i) Not included in early MS's

4) John

a) 3:8- "The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear it's sound, but don't know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born with the Spirit."

i) Some MS's read, "Of the water" before "the Spirit", others just have "the Spirit" as above.

Well, I really was not talking about textual variants of this type, though some of them are in dispute. Textual variants are not always easy to decide. All we can do is weigh the evidence in favor or against. So much of the time, the evidence is equally divided.

We have how many different denominations? There are lots. Most have a slightly, at least, different doctrine or interpretation of scripture but there is only one God and one way. God is very particular about people adding to or taking away from what He has established as truth. If we go to churches, to such as Catholics, Luther, Calvin, Mormons, or Tom Dick or Harry down the street (or me!!) for answers you know some are going to be wrong.

I seems to me that it is a matter of setting up some rules about learning from scripture. To go back and rewrite scripture, saying what should be included or not has already been done and it seems silly to reinvent the wheel.

God is the inspiration of scripture, there are places that give us scripture from the actual words given to the writers and scripture that is how the author understood what God was saying. This scripture needs to be read with a understanding of what the words meant to them in the times the author lived.

Scripture must be read knowing God is eternal. What God was and spoke of at creation and what John told us of God in Revelation is the same. If we find something that seems to disagree with this, it is not God who is disagreeing, it in something wrong with your understanding. One case as an example is sorting out just what Paul is telling us of God about law obedience. If we see a change in what God says then it takes searching until we find out why we see disagreements. No human is more intelligent than God.

Another example is Mark saying we could pick up snakes and Jesus showing us we should not tempt the Lord.

Another rule to understanding is to realize that God repeats Himself so you must find more than one scripture that gives a principle of God to be sure it is true as you understand it. We are reading translations of the word and the original is written at times different from ours. Can you imagine a person of another age reading what is written today by authors knowing of the net, the iron curtain, speaking of gays, and all the words our culture has given us. They spoke, also, with understanding shaped by the world they lived in.

To read scripture this way means getting all we have learned about it from our church and training out of our minds and keep strictly to the word and history of the times to understand the meaning of the words used.

I definitely think we are not meant to tempt God in that way. Although there are people who go to church with a Bible in one hand and a Rattlesnake in the other!

In bible 101 we look for other passages confirming this, we find it in Matthew 4 when Jesus was tempted. Jesus quoted Deut. 6:4 Do not put the Lord to a test.

We must look deeper in the message these scriptures have for us, it is not telling us to test the Lord's care for us. It would not agree with other scriptures.