Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The "Original" Manuscripts.
#11

In the Name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit - One God now & forever. Amen.


May the peace of Christ be with you!




Quote:I remember that I told you on the other threads that if you get emotional while discussing this topic then I guess I have to drop is as I dropped 'trinity' subject.

Nah, let's keep going, Mate ;)


My only request is that you please try to respect (not accept) the integrity of the Holy Bible & the Christian faith. No absurd claims that your assumptions are facts. Ask questions. Express your opinions. Challenge me. But please don't pretend to be a biblical scholar :lol:


Okay, so where shall I start??? I'm assuming you're not actually going to read any documents, therefore, I'll have to post a lot of information (I'll try to keep it to a minimum).


Today's Bibles match the ancient manuscripts, no question. There are over 5000 fragments of Scripture which date back to the 1st Century AD. Nothing has been added or removed. Because they were continually translated in different languages, there are slight variations, e.g. one version says "Jesus Christ" & another says "Christ Jesus". That's how minor the alterations (if you can even call them that) are. The original expression can be deduced beyond any reasonable doubt. The essential message was never distorted.


I know this is far fetched, you don't have to believe it... but it's actually 100% true :D The adultery passage (St John 8) was temporary concealed only by the Alexandrians because they feared their women might consider it a licence to adultery. When the Church canonised the books of Scripture in the 4th Century AD, every copy was identical & remains so.


As for St Mark's Gospel, to cut a long story short (pun), the longer ending is canonical. It appears in all the ancient manuscripts except for two Greek ones (B & Aleph), however, the scribes who wrote these two unicals left a blank column at the end of verse 8 indicating that a conclusion exists but they chose to omit it. It was most certainly included in the Latin Vulgate - the official translation produced by St Jerome.


Ummm... I think that pretty much covers everything. Yalla, I'm anticipating round two :thumb: Please be humble, Wael.


I'm off to read the Bible now :)


God bless.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-25-2007, 03:57 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-26-2007, 03:01 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-26-2007, 03:02 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-26-2007, 03:49 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-27-2007, 05:09 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by Faith Hope Charity - 02-27-2007, 01:51 PM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by Dan - 02-27-2007, 11:14 PM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 02-28-2007, 03:58 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-01-2007, 02:28 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-03-2007, 03:55 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-04-2007, 02:28 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-04-2007, 04:09 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-05-2007, 02:29 AM
The "Original" Manuscripts. - by wel_mel_2 - 03-05-2007, 02:34 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)