Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe that is a good source at all, but a source that tells you what you prefer to believe.
For instance according to Bart Ehrman, Mark 16:9 to 16:20 did not even exist in early copies of the bible, but were added much later by scribes. The last verse of mark was 16:8 "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I don't believe that is a good source at all, but a source that tells you what you prefer to believe.quote]
Don't you think your source is doing just that?
Exactly, he doesn't want to read what you posted, which would go against what he believed, but wants you to read what he post, or believe. LOL, go figures of some people.
Of course some would say that is not a good source because it contradicts their thinking.
I don't believe that is a good source at all, but a source that tells you what you prefer to believe.
For instance according to Bart Ehrman, Mark 16:9 to 16:20 did not even exist in early copies of the bible, but were added much later by scribes. The last verse of mark was 16:8 "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."
Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar and textual critic of early Christianity. He is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
So Mark 16:9-20 was added? Ok. That's a discrepancy that we're all aware of. In fact, most modern translations today put a footnote in the text. In any event, this section of scripture hardly establishes any new doctrines. It's a non-sequitur.
Lets just start with the basics. The word "Lord" is NOT the correct word that was in the original manuscripts, it is supposed to be YHVH or Yahaveh transliterated from the Hebrew, which is God's NAME and the one HE asked us to call upon.
2nd the word GOD inreference to HIM is NOT the word in the original manuscripts, it is Elohim (Hebrew for Judge). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Consider the thousands of incorrect greek words replacing the Hebrew words and you've got quite a mess..........
Lets just start with the basics. The word "Lord" is NOT the correct word that was in the original manuscripts, it is supposed to be YHVH or Yahaveh transliterated from the Hebrew, which is God's NAME and the one HE asked us to call upon.
2nd the word GOD inreference to HIM is NOT the word in the original manuscripts, it is Elohim (Hebrew for Judge). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Consider the thousands of incorrect greek words replacing the Hebrew words and you've got quite a mess..........
Your getting a little over zealous in the wrong direction. The word Lord (Adonia) was used by the Priests instead of YHVH, because this name was holy and they were afraid of invoking it.
YHVH just means "I am that I am". It is the name of God given to Moses when he asked what shall I call you when I go to the people.
So to use Lord in English is consistant with the Torah.
Elohim, does not mean Judge, although this can be infered. EL means High, On high, or lifted up. The ending is plural. So this name could really be "Them on High", or "You on High" (with you plural). The one who is on high is also judge or ruler. So the English word God is sufficient for the translation.
I have studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew. It says what it says!
So Mark 16:9-20 was added? Ok. That's a discrepancy that we're all aware of. In fact, most modern translations today put a footnote in the text. In any event, this section of scripture hardly establishes any new doctrines. It's a non-sequitur.
How can it be unimportant? If the text actually ends at Mark 16:8, then the women told nobody about the resurrection, and the rest of the text about Jesus appearing to the apostles is the figment of some scribe's imagination....There go your witnesses.
Mark 16:14...Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
Not to mention this little tidbit.
Mark 16:16 ...Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Your getting a little over zealous in the wrong direction. The word Lord (Adonia) was used by the Priests instead of YHVH, because this name was holy and they were afraid of invoking it.
YHVH just means "I am that I am". It is the name of God given to Moses when he asked what shall I call you when I go to the people.
So to use Lord in English is consistant with the Torah.
Elohim, does not mean Judge, although this can be infered. EL means High, On high, or lifted up. The ending is plural. So this name could really be "Them on High", or "You on High" (with you plural). The one who is on high is also judge or ruler. So the English word God is sufficient for the translation.
I have studied the bible in Greek and Hebrew. It says what it says!
It doesn't matter if you read it in Klingon, the video explains how the errors occurred. Perhaps you should watch it, that is if you are not too afraid.
I don't believe that is a good source at all, but a source that tells you what you prefer to believe.quote]
Don't you think your source is doing just that?
Actually I don't have a dog in this race, and could care less, as the bible is just another book to me. I would think that those that live and breath the bible as the accurate word of God would be more than a bit upset with the tampering. I'm certain that an apologetics site twisting the truth....In my experience that's what they do best.
How can it be unimportant? If the text actually ends at Mark 16:8, then the women told nobody about the resurrection, and the rest of the text about Jesus appearing to the apostles is the figment of some scribe's imagination....There go your witnesses.
Mark 16:14...Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
Not to mention this little tidbit.
Mark 16:16 ...Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
We have 3 other Gospels. And a bunch of witnesses and disciples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
