--- (I thought it best to separate ourselves from that busy topic, and deal with the subject of mutuel interest. I took the liberty of adding your response at the bottom.)
It is not necessary to ‘defend’ the Scriptures, as though God has not preserved His word, but rather it is important to expose the evidence of its preservation and accuracy.
These were the portions of Scripture you mentioned in Post 5 that were not in some manuscripts:
Mark 16:9-20 Someone should really tell the snake-handlers about this.
John 7:53-8:11 Everyone's favorite Jesus story.
John 5:7-8 Only explicit statement about the Trinity, and it was a fabrication.
--- The footnote in my New King James Bible says:
The verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not original.
They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.
--- The verses are bracketed in NU, that means that in --- N, the eelectic Greek text in the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, ---and in U, the third edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek NT.
--- This means that they are included, but put in brackets and identified as not original.
The Codex Siniaticus is considered to be one of the most important books in the world. It is from the fourth century and was hand written in Coine Greek, and is a complete writing of the Bible, which proves that it was there in Codex form in AD 400.
--- (Does this not prove that the Bible was approved by the best scholars and translators, of their time? If they left out certain portions like Mark 16:9-20 because they hadn’t found it in the Gospel of Mark that it had been copied from, it doesn’t make the Codex inaccurate, does it? --- So, here is your proof that this Codex was authentic, it
is online in Greek, which contains the whole Bible. You can check it out.)
Quote: The Codex Vaticanus, so called because it is the most famous manuscript in the possession of the Vatican library, is generally believed to be from the fourth century, and is thought to be the oldest (nearly) complete copy of the Greek Bible in existence. Lacking from it are most of the book of Genesis, Hebrews 9:14 to the end, the Pastoral Epistles, and the book of Revelation; these parts were lost by damage to the front and back of the volume, which is common in ancient manuscripts. --- End of quote.
--- (Another proof that the Bible was compiled and approved as authentic. This should be evidence that nobody changed it after it was compiled. You can check it out too.)
In the late 300’s the Scholar Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin, which he completed about 400, and it was called the Latin Vulgate. This was used by the Church from then till the 1500’s when it was translated into English in the Douay Version. (Of which I have a copy.)
--- (The verses 16:9-20 are in the Douay Version, which proves they would have been in the Latin Vulgate in order for them to translate it into English, does it not?)
--- About that time King James of England commissioned 47 scholars and linguists to translate the Bible from the early Greek manuscripts to English. The result was the King James Version. It too contains 16:9-20, so it would have been in the Greek manuscripts that they translated from.)
Notice this, --- after it mentions that 16:9-20 is not in the Codex Siniaticus, or the Codex Vaticanus, it says, --- although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.
In checking the various Bible versions I have, --- it is in them all.
In the NAS, New American Standard the verses are bracketed, and say, ‘some manuscripts omit these verses.’
The NIV, New International Version says, ‘The most reliable Manuscripts omit 9-29.’ --- The ‘most reliable’ would be Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus.
The Amplified Bible says, ‘Not in the two earliest manuscripts.’
The RSV, Revised Standard Version says, ‘Other versions add 9-20,’ --- and then it includes them..
NEB New English Bible includes them, then mentions that some don’t include them.
The NKJV, New King James Version, is what I quoted from above where I said Codex Siniaticus and Codex Vaticanus do not contain them, ‘although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them.’
So the Bibles we have in the different versions are translated from the Greek and Latin Bibles which were compiled in Codex, or book form for the first time in the fourth century.
--- So they were preserved from before Muhammad’s time, and the OT and NT are the accurate translation of the Greek manuscripts. --- Any questions of critics about authorship are futile, because what was written was "locked in" the Greek manuscripts. --- If one person decides to write a distorted version, it doesn't change what is "locked in" to History, does it?
--- And we are the most privileged people because that which is "locked in" is online for us to examine.
--- No generation before had the online resourses that we have, did they?
--- So, I say, --- be learners, not critics.
Now, a question? Was it not accurate to include this Scripture in Mark 16 in all the versions, which was in most manuscripts, --- and make a notation that it was not in all manuscripts?
#38 Haider Husayn
Hi Placid, I will let you respond to the other points, and then I will answer. I just wanted to point out that I made a mistake in my post. It should be 1 John 5:7-8, not the Gospel of John of course.
Edited by placid, 05 October 2010 - 02:54 PM.