First off let me say this to all thatwill answer this thread if you are not strong enough in you're faith to answer this lika a man and talk calmly please keep youre snide remarks to youre self they are not wanted or needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The book of Mark
In the book of Mark I have read 4 diff translation and have found some thing that does not make sence to me . In one tranlation Mark ends chapter 16 verse 8. Now here is the strange thing the next translation I found that Mark end at chapter 16 verse 20. can someone tell me why ?
I'm checking my translations ,I've never caught that in mine .
what translation's were you using???
__________________
"God grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change, the courage to change the ONE I can change, and the wisdmon to know that it's ME"
In one tranlation Mark ends chapter 16 verse 8. Now here is the strange thing the next translation I found that Mark end at chapter 16 verse 20. can someone tell me why ?
We possess today some 4,000 ancient Greek copies of the New Testament, and about 10,000 copies in other ancient languages. Latin and Coptic copies go back to the second century; fragments of papyrus documents go back to AD 130. Complete versions of the Gospels, Acts, Paul"™s letters and Hebrews date to the early part of the Third Century; and Revelation to the latter half. Complete volumes of the entire New Testament date to the 4th Century.
In those 14,000 copies, there are about 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 actual places in the New Testament. Because if a word was misspelled in 3,000 copies, that is 3,000 variations.
Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining 400 variations, only 50 are of significance. Such as two copies that leave out Acts 2:37!
"˘ Of the 50 remaining variations, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages!
"˘ Some copies date as early as 130 AD at the completion of the N.T. These are identical to copies made in 900 AD, so this verifies the accuracy of the scribes.
"˘ "śAll scripture is given by inspiration of God"¦that the man of God may be perfect"¦ 2 Timothy 3:16-17
"˘ You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."ť John 8:32
"˘ "śHeaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away!"ť Matthew 24:35
The fact is thatof allthe "originals" we have the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus do not include verses 9-20. And in the "NU-Text" which is the modern greek New Testament this portion of scripture is bracketed as not original.
BUT, IN ALL OTHER"ORIGINAL" COPIES IT IS INCLUDED!!!
In my humble opinion it doesn't matter either way. That portion of Scripture does not include any significant doctrine or teaching that cannot be taught from somewhere else.
First off let me say this to all thatwill answer this thread if you are not strong enough in you're faith to answer this lika a man and talk calmly please keep youre snide remarks to youre self they are not wanted or needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The book of Mark
In the book of Mark I have read 4 diff translation and have found some thing that does not make sence to me . In one tranlation Mark ends chapter 16 verse 8. Now here is the strange thing the next translation I found that Mark end at chapter 16 verse 20. can someone tell me why ?
thanks for the help
Simply because the earliest known manuscripts didn't contain these verses.
Happens in the OT also, The Hebrew version of the book of Daniels has and extra chapter and several extra verses ,not found in any English translation.
__________________
"Blessed is He who Comes in The Name of The Lord"
I was just wondering. From you're post it sounded a little selfrightess but if you have read them you know what they say and mean. I just cannot see why you don't ? why they were removed from the King james Bible. It was not God who removed them it was man. It is like a lot of people sitting in a cicile you tell the first one something and time it goes around to the last person and it is not even close to what it started with. thanks for the reply and I will respect you"re opinion even if I do ? it.
sorry I forgot you and you're family have a merry christmas
The various Gospels of Mark:
The following is based on the assumption that a letter which claims to have been written by Clement of Alexandria (circa 150-213 CE), is valid and accurate. No total consensus has been reached by theologians on the letter's legitimacy: religious conservatives tend to reject the letter as a forgery; religious liberals tend to accept it as real.
In his letter, Clement claims that there were three versions of the Gospel of Mark which were being circulated among different Christian groups in the vicinity of what is now Alexandria in Egypt. They were:
An abbreviated Gospel, written by Mark, intended to be read by those newly converted to Christianity. It was "an account of the Lord's doings" that Mark had learned from the apostle Peter while both were in Rome. The Gospel contains material that Mark felt was most suited for beginners in the faith. 1
The Secret Gospel -- a "second 'more spiritual Gospel' for those who were more spiritually advanced." This was also written by Mark. He added material to the shorter Gospel, after having moved to Alexandria in what is now Egypt.
The Carpocratian Mark. After Mark's death, Carpocrates, the founder of the Carpocratian faith group, added his own fictional material to the Secret Gospel. He distributed the forged "gospel," claiming it to be the true Gospel of Mark. The Carpocratians were one of many faith groups that comprised the early Christian movement during the second century CE. 2
It is the abbreviated public version which we see in modern translations of the Bible. Both the secret version, and the Carpocratian Mark have been lost.
The letter was from Clement to an unknown person named Theodore. If it is accurate then it clarifies two confusing passages in Mark that have puzzled many students of the Bible:
Mark 14:51-52: These verses describe an unusual event associated with Jesus' arrest by the Temple guard in the Garden of Gethsemane. This passage describes an almost-naked young man who had been following Jesus. The passage has an almost cartoon-like theme. The guards grab at the man, but he runs away naked, leaving the men holding only the man's linen cloth. The text reads: "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." 1718 Author Bart Ehrman writes: "Interpreters have propounded a host of possible solutions to these questions over the centuries, but there has never been any consensus." 1920
Mark 10:46: This describes the arrival and departure of Jesus and his followers at Jericho. The text reads: And they came to Jericho; and as he went out of Jericho..." 4 Scholars have recognized for centuries that there is obviously some text missing from the middle of this verse.
The letter of Clement quotes two passages from the secret version that are missing in the public version:
Fragment 1: This was located in "secret Mark" immediately after Mark 10:34. It describes an event very similar to the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Secret Mark relates that a man in Bethany had died. His sister begged Jesus to have mercy on her. At this instant, a voice was heard inside the tomb. Jesus rolled away the stone blocking the tomb's entrance, went in and raised up the brother.
Following this is an unusual passage: "The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him....Six days later. Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent the night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain." 4(Others translate the last two words as "the kingdom of God"). The fragment continues, saying that Jesus later returned to the other side of the Jordan.
Fragment 2: Clement's letter also includes the words from Secret Mark which were inserted into the middle of Mark 10:46: "The sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus refused to see them."
This essay continues below.
Interpretations of the Fragments:
The text about the young man's clothing in the first fragment reads literally: "a linen cloth having been draped over the naked body." The young man in both fragments, and the man who escaped naked in the Garden of Gethsemane appear to refer to the same individual. He may also have been the young man encountered by the two Marys and Salome when they visited Jesus' tomb in Mark 16:5.
Interpretations of these fragments vary:
Some scholars suspect that naked young man covered only in a linen cloth might have been prepared for an initiation ritual. In the early Christian church, both the presbyter and the person to be baptized stood in the water together, naked. 6 Ritual nudity is no longer a common practice in the world with the exception of Wicca, some other Neopagan religions, and a few sects in India. But it was very common in the early Christian movement.
Morton Smith (1915-1991) wrote two books about the secret gospel of Mark.7 They raised a firestorm of attacks from some theologians who were disturbed at some of the possible interpretations of his work. Author Shawn Eyer commented: "The possibility that the initiation could have included elements of eroticism was unthinkable to many scholars, whose reaction was to project onto Smith's entire interpretive work an imaginary emphasis on Jesus being a homosexual." 43[/color]44 Eyer compiled a list of brief quotes from theologians' negative reviews:
Patrick Skehan: "...a morbid concatenation of fancies..."
Joseph Fitzmyer: "...venal popularization..." "...replete with innuendos and eisegesis..."
Paul J. Achtemeier: "Characteristically, his arguments are awash in speculation." "...an a priori principle of selective credulity..."
William Beardslee: "...ill-founded..."
Pierson Parker: "...the alleged parallels are far-fetched..."
Hans Conzelmann: "...science fiction..." "...does not belong to scholarly, nor even...discussable, literature..."
Raymond Brown: "...debunking attitude towards Christianity..."
Frederick Danker: "...in the same niche with Allegro's mushroom fantasies and Eisler's salmagundi."
Helmut Merkel: "Once again total warfare has been declared on New Testament scholarship." 63[/color]64
[font="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica"]A more radical interpretation of these fragments was available online. The author suggested that Jesus and the unnamed young man engaged in sexual behavior on the night mentioned in the first fragment. The implication was that Jesus was had either a homosexual or bisexual orientation. 6970
__________________
"Blessed is He who Comes in The Name of The Lord"
I have a ?
