1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

#2 Missing Verses?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Jan 27, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 2 of 2
  1. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Mor(m)ons have a little prob with revising the BOM: SEVERAL ORIGINALS EXIST...and they're all in modern English, except where Smitty chose to use the Elizabethan style.
     
    #21 robycop3, Jan 31, 2005
  2. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    HankD: "True, but might I remind you that you yourself gave no documentation in response to the documentation I posted. You gave your opinion backed by an undocumented assertion yourself."

    Since this part was addressed to a quote from me: if you will reread my other post, I gave *precise* bibliographical documentation regarding the original form of Jerome's Vulgate (as established by leading Vulgate scholars) which directly counters Holland's claim.

    It is not like Holland suddenly becomes eminently reliable elsewhere, and that a point-by-point refutation has to occur. The claims of Carsten Thiede have been strongly refuted in various reviews available on the internet. E.g.,

    http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/theide.html

    http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/P64TB.htm

    http://www.kjvonly.org/jamesp/jdprice_magdalen.htm
     
    #22 Ziggy, Jan 31, 2005
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have yet to have a verse noted
    in this topic that is
    NOT in my MVs.

    I have the following paper Bibles:
    NASB(new), NIV, NLT,
    KJV1611, KJV1769, KJV1883
    Third Millennium Bible, 21st Century King James,
    ESV, nKJV, Amplified Bible,
    CEV = Contempory English Version.

    Stuff i have that have some things in them
    like a Bible: The Message (New Testament),
    The Reader's Digest Bible, NWT.
     
    #23 Ed Edwards, Jan 31, 2005
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon: "Ed, do you agree that the omission and the inclusion of a verse cannot both be original? "

    I don't have a problem with that.
    You know that some are obsessed with
    "The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs".
    This is highly impractical. I want the Written
    Word of God in my Hand. (Well, on-line would be
    even better, with a good search engine.)
    The original autographs are, alas, not available.

    God's written word is in my opinion the overall
    message of the Old Testament plus the New Testament.
    Thus the omission/inclusion of a verse (or a chapter,
    or a book) does not mess up the message
    in God's written word.
    God is bigger than His written word and preserves
    it without respect to KJVOnlyites.
     
    #24 Ed Edwards, Jan 31, 2005
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mark 11:26

    Mark 11:25-26 ;(Geneva Bible):
    But when ye shall stand, and pray, forgiue,
    if ye haue any thing against any man,
    that your Father also which is in heauen,
    may forgiue you your trespasses.
    26 For if you will not forgiue,
    your Father which is in heauen,
    will not pardon you your trespasses.

    As you can see. The meaning is clear IN CONTEXT
    whether or not verse 11:26 is present.
    Verse 11:26 is the obvious.

    Some say this is missing in some MVs.
    I'll check my favorite MV and see what happens.

    Mark 11:25-26 (HCSB):

    And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything
    against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father
    in heaven may also forgive you your wrongdoing.
    26 [But if you don't forgive, neither will
    your Father in heaven forgive your wrongdoing."]*

    * HCSB Translators footnote:
    11:26 Other mss omit bracketed text

    The Holman Christian Standard Bible of 2003
    seems to have the verse. I'd guess my other MVs
    have it also, unless of course someone points
    out one that doesn't have it.

    BTW, don't bother to mention to me that
    Mark 11:26 is missing, for most Bibles
    have the same message at:
    Matthew 6:15 (KJV1611):
    Mat 6:15 But, if yee forgiue not men
    their trespasses, neither will your
    father forgiue your trespasses.
     
    #25 Ed Edwards, Jan 31, 2005
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,401
    Likes Received:
    553
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Having read the parallel passage in another Gospel account (that HAD the verse) it would be pretty much a no-brainer for the scribe to look at the new passage and then add in the verse in the margin.

    Of course, 50 years later, another copyist is taking THAT document and sees the verse stuck in the margin and thinks, "What a dolt. He missed writing the verse and then had to add it later. I'll just put it in where it belongs".

    And copies of copies of copies later, we have a CONFLATED text.

    In most copying of this type, text OMISSIONS (accidentally dropped) will be far less than text ADDITIONS. Hence we have verses all over the synoptics where in one Gospel the exact same story says 'LORD Jesus Christ' and then later copies have this added in parallel parts where originally it said 'Jesus Christ'.
     
    #26 Dr. Bob, Jan 31, 2005
  7. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,537
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thanks Ziggy,

    I'm not sure what you are denying or affirming concerning your documentation because you have now supply exactly what I asked for.

    After reading the pieces on the two websites (I couldn't reach the second one) I agree that Dr. Thiede early dates of p64/p67 is unlikely (though I am far from a papyrii expert but an avid fan) and Holland should have mentioned his minority view.

    HankD
     
    #27 HankD, Jan 31, 2005
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    And this opinion of yours is contrary to all the facts and studies of MSS from the "early period" (3rd century & earlier), by E. C. Colwell, P. H. Head, etc., who say that errors of omission were far more common than errors of addition. These MSS of the early period are nearly 100% Egyptian, and so are the ancestors of the later Egyptian text such as that found in Aleph, B, L, etc. Many of the errors of this early period are preserved for us in the later Egyptian texts.

    One perfect example is the omission of Mk. 11:26, where the facts show that scribal error is almost certainly to blame. Skipping text due to similarities of endings of words is perhaps the most common error in history of scribal transmission, and occurs here, as a scribe skipped from "your trespasses" (TA PARAPTWMATA UMWN of Mk. 11:25) to "your trespasses" (TA PARAPTWMATA UMWN of Mk. 11:26), and the result was the omission of the whole text.

    So the text was omitted, and thus a scribe most certainly did not copy the text from Mt. 6:15 and insert it here at Mk. 11:26, or else the text in question in Mark (11:26) would exhibit more similarities to the text of Matthew (6:15).

    Instead, Mark has:

    1) EI DE for Matthew's EAN DE
    2) UMEIS OUK AFIETE for Matthew's MH AFHTE
    3) [nothing] for Matthew's TOIS ANQRWPOIS (TA PARAPTWMATA AUTWN)
    4) O EN TOIS OURANOIS for Matthew's [nothing]

    And so the question of a scribe harmonizing Mk. 11:26 to Mt. 6:15 becomes ludicrous on the face of it, especially since simple scribal error of omitting the original Mk. 11:26 caused by homoioteleuton explains everything. It also explains why basically only MSS from one region out of the whole world have omitted Mk. 11:26, because errors that occurred "late" (even 2nd or 3rd century is "late" in comparison to the original) are less likely to propagate themselves more than the "earliest" or original text.

    Yours,

    Bluefalcon
     
    #28 Bluefalcon, Feb 4, 2005
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bluefalcon: "One perfect example ... "

    Ed notes that one perfect example does not
    negate the majority of the cases being the
    other direction.

    Anyway, whether or not the verse went missing
    early hardly applies to the question, is it
    missing in todays English Versions.

    I'm using the Holman Christian Standard Bible = HCSB,
    since i got a full copy of it in March 2004.
    There it is, right where it belongs after
    Mark 11:25 and before Mark 11:27:

    Mark 11:26 (HCSB):
    [But if you don't forgive, neither will
    your Father in heaven forgive your wrongdoing."]

    Of course the square brackets show there is a
    textual variance there, and there is: some manuscripts
    have the verse, some dont' have the verse.

    BUT, even if the verse is omitted in Mark 11:27,
    look at Matthew 6:15:

    Matthew 6:15 (HCSB):
    But if you don't forgive people, your
    Father will not forgive your wrongdoing

    Isn't it wonderful how God preserves elements of
    His Written Word despite the additions of later copist!
     
    #29 Ed Edwards, Feb 4, 2005
  10. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
     
    #30 Bluefalcon, Feb 5, 2005
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    You misconstrue what i said. Fortunately you cut and pasted what
    I said so the clues are all there.
    Note the quotations around "missing verses".
    Those quotations mean that i do not have
    the definition that we usually use for the
    same phrase. I did that because others thing
    the verses are missing but I DON'T THINK THE
    VERSES are missing.

    BTW, I have spaken of 3 of the 7 verses that
    i have which appear to be ADDED to
    the KJVs TR sources from other
    scriptures. I have yet to speak of my list
    of 7 verses that are NOT apparently ADDED
    to the KJV's TR sources. BTW, i added another
    clue that i don't want anybody to miss.
    The KJV used multiple sources collectively
    called Textus Receptus (TR).
     
    #31 Ed Edwards, Feb 5, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2
Loading...