MUST we have only one text?

[Mexdeaf]

On another thread someone made this statement,

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

I think this statement is a fallacy and should be examined more thoroughly.


Perhaps I am wrong and the statement above is correct, but if so, on what basis?

 

[mandym]

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

I cannot even fathom the ill conceived logic that would lead someone to such a fallacy. Just because the wording is different in no way proves one or the other is wrong. If that were the case then the gospels are in question.

 

[preacher4truth]

On another thread someone made this statement,

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

I think this statement is a fallacy and should be examined more thoroughly.


Perhaps I am wrong and the statement above is correct, but if so, on what basis?

I'm so glad we don't have only one text.

It sounds to me from the quote that this has come from a KJVOnlyist man made doctrine. All versions have issues and errors, including the KJV.

Celebrating and propagating and preaching sermons about a version is central to KJVOnlyists. It is Bibleolatry.

No person at salvation believed this nonsense, but simply were saved, believing in Christ for salvation. Down the road someone has indoctrinated such to believe the "KJVOnlyisms."

I know, spare me, there are some that were chosen out of some billions on earth via special revelation, on to a special chosen journey, out of billions and billions of others, and shown that the KJV is the only true version.

 

[InTheLight]

On another thread someone made this statement,

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

This argument reminds me of atheists that attempt to discredit the gospels because they don't 100% harmonize.

 

[preacher4truth]

This argument reminds me of atheists that attempt to discredit the gospels because they don't 100% harmonize.

Good point!!!

 

[Winman]

This argument reminds me of atheists that attempt to discredit the gospels because they don't 100% harmonize.

What a ridiculous argument. We shouldn't expect different witnesses to agree perfectly. Any policeman who has interviewed persons who witnessed a crime knows each testimony will be slightly different. One witness may have seen a gun in the robber's hand, while another may have not seen the gun from another perspective.

However, when a witness changes his own story, then he is seen as unreliable and not credible.

Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

Boy, you folks sure will go to extremes.

The TR and CT are not the same. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. But two different texts cannot both be true.

It is not possible that Mark 16 should both contain and
omit the last 12 verses!

Where do you guys get your logic?

 

[InTheLight]

Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

Boy, you folks sure will go to extremes.

The TR and CT are not the same. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. But two different texts cannot both be true.

It is not possible that Mark 16 should both contain and
omit the last 12 verses!

Maybe those last verses in Mark were supposed to be in the CT but they were lost or ripped out of the original writings.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Maybe those last verses in Mark were supposed to be in the CT but they were lost or ripped out of the original writings.

Huh? The text that is in the CT is in (and text that is out of the CT is out). Sorry, but there is no point in speculating of material with "supposed to be in" status.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What a ridiculous argument. We shouldn't expect different witnesses to agree perfectly. Any policeman who has interviewed persons who witnessed a crime knows each testimony will be slightly different. One witness may have seen a gun in the robber's hand, while another may have not seen the gun from another perspective.

However, when a witness changes his own story, then he is seen as unreliable and not credible.

Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

Boy, you folks sure will go to extremes.

The TR and CT are not the same. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. But two different texts cannot both be true.

It is not possible that Mark 16 should both contain and
omit the last 12 verses!

Where do you guys get your logic?

Your own words argue against you here.

 

[Winman]

Your own words argue against you here.

Baloney, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 should either be there, or they shouldn't, there are no other options.

If folks would stop depending on egghead "intellectuals" and use their God-given common sense they would see through false arguments.

 

[Rippon]

Baloney, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 should either be there, or they shouldn't, there are no other options.

Aside from stopping at verse 8 or going to verse 20 there have been several other endings in the history of this section. It's not an either/or situation.

 

[jaigner]

"There comes a time when you must either believe one text is preserved and the other corrupt, or that both are corrupt. They are not the same, both cannot be the true text. If you can not settle on one, then you have none."

I think this statement is a fallacy and should be examined more thoroughly.

You're right. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard a Christian say.

 

[JesusFan]

What a ridiculous argument. We shouldn't expect different witnesses to agree perfectly. Any policeman who has interviewed persons who witnessed a crime knows each testimony will be slightly different. One witness may have seen a gun in the robber's hand, while another may have not seen the gun from another perspective.

However, when a witness changes his own story, then he is seen as unreliable and not credible.

Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

Boy, you folks sure will go to extremes.

The TR and CT are not the same. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. But two different texts cannot both be true.

It is not possible that Mark 16 should both contain and
omit the last 12 verses!

Where do you guys get your logic?

Since the greek texts would essentially agree on high 90 % of the time, and since NO version was preserved/perfect by God...

Since NO major doctrines are altered/modified regardless which Greek text basing tranlation off from/of...

What real difference would it matter in the "scheme of things?"

 

[Mexdeaf]

Baloney, the last 12 verses of Mark 16 should either be there, or they shouldn't, there are no other options.

If folks would stop depending on egghead "intellectuals" and use their God-given common sense they would see through false arguments.

God-given common sense tells me that two different things CAN be the same.

Seriously, I have no problem using a Bible that has the last 12 verses of Mark in it or not. I can still prove every doctrine regarding Christ and salvation without those verses. Plus, I don't have to answer silly questions about snake-handling, especially when I am in Tennessee.

 

[Logos1560]

If folks would stop depending on egghead "intellectuals" and use their God-given common sense they would see through false arguments.

Why don't KJV-only advocates use their common sense and see through the false arguments or fallacies on which modern KJV-onlyism rests?

It is the fallacy of false dilemma or the fallacy of bifurcation to assert that there are only two options when there are in reality more.

There are more options than just the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. There are said to be twenty or more varying editions of the Textus Receptus, not one. There are varying editions of the Critical Text. There are least two editions of the Majority Text. The majority of the text of the Textus Receptus, the Critical Text, and the Majority Text is the same. To label any one as completely or entirely false or corrupt is to attack all three where they are the same.

It is the use of the fallacy of composition to assert that if a certain reading or readings may be incorrect or wrong in a printed edition of the original language texts that the entire text can be labelled as "corrupt" or "false."

It is the use of the fallacy of division to assert that if an edition of the original language text or a certain translation is overall good or reliable that every individual reading or rendering in it must be correct or pure.

 

[Logos1560]

What a ridiculous argument.

However, when a witness changes his own story, then he is seen as unreliable and not credible.

Where do you guys get your logic?

Where do you get your logic since you ignore the logical implications of your own assertions?

Are you suggesting that because the editions of the Textus Receptus were changed and revised from the first edition edited by Erasmus until the 1598 edition edited by Beza that they are unreliable and not credible?

Are you suggesting that because the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV has been changed and revised in many places that its entire English text is unreliable and not credible?

 

[Phillip]

What a ridiculous argument. We shouldn't expect different witnesses to agree perfectly. Any policeman who has interviewed persons who witnessed a crime knows each testimony will be slightly different. One witness may have seen a gun in the robber's hand, while another may have not seen the gun from another perspective.

However, when a witness changes his own story, then he is seen as unreliable and not credible.

Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

Boy, you folks sure will go to extremes.

The TR and CT are not the same. Either one is true and the other false, or they are both false. But two different texts cannot both be true.

It is not possible that Mark 16 should both contain and
omit the last 12 verses!

Where do you guys get your logic?

You have some truth here regarding the last 12 verses. Would YOU like to be the person who makes the decision of whether it was added or removed from the original manuscript?

I certainly don't see theology that is usually repeated somewhere else in the Bible discuss snake handling and drinking poisons. Plus, it does not make a lot of sense as an ending for Mark. I personally think we may have lost a true ending of Mark, but if we did it was God's will.

 

[InTheLight]

Huh? The text that is in the CT is in (and text that is out of the CT is out). Sorry, but there is no point in speculating of material with "supposed to be in" status.

Winman asked: Why would Mark include the last 12 verses in one text, but omit these verses in another?

I gave a possible scenario explaining how it could be so. Asked and answered. If you object to the "supposed to be in" phrase, so be it. Would you prefer "was originally in" to explain the possible scenario?

 

[Winman]

You have some truth here regarding the last 12 verses. Would YOU like to be the person who makes the decision of whether it was added or removed from the original manuscript?

I certainly don't see theology that is usually repeated somewhere else in the Bible discuss snake handling and drinking poisons. Plus, it does not make a lot of sense as an ending for Mark. I personally think we may have lost a true ending of Mark, but if we did it was God's will.

It's not "some" truth, it is THE TRUTH. It is impossible that Mark 16 should both contain and omit the last 12 verses. Either the TR has added to God's word, or the CT has diminished from God's word. While this does not prove either text is true (both could be corrupt and false), it does prove that BOTH texts cannot be true and accurate.

And I have made my stand. By faith I believe the TR is the preserved and accurate text. I can't prove it, nor can I begin to explain how God preserved it, but I believe he did.

This was a decision I made as a young boy. If Jesus expects us to live by EVERY word that proceedeth from the mouth of God, I fully believe a good and just God would provide every word.

If we cannot know every word is true, how can we have faith? How can you believe scripture you suspect should not be there? And, if one passage should not be there, how do we know many other passages should not be there?

Faith is important. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God (Heb 11:6). The devil also knows this, and he is determined to destroy faith. His first act ever in the world was to make man doubt God's word when he said;

Yea, hath God said?

You tell me, did God say the last 12 verses of Mark or not?

Think about it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It's not "some" truth, it is THE TRUTH. It is impossible that Mark 16 should both contain and omit the last 12 verses. Either the TR has added to God's word, or the CT has diminished from God's word. While this does not prove either text is true (both could be corrupt and false), it does prove that BOTH texts cannot be true and accurate.

And I have made my stand. By faith I believe the TR is the preserved and accurate text. I can't prove it, nor can I begin to explain how God preserved it, but I believe he did.

This was a decision I made as a young boy. If Jesus expects us to live by EVERY word that proceedeth from the mouth of God, I fully believe a good and just God would provide every word.

If we cannot know every word is true, how can we have faith? How can you believe scripture you suspect should not be there? And, if one passage should not be there, how do we know many other passages should not be there?

You tell me, did God say the last 12 verses of Mark or not?

Think about it.

Question for you: Was every word that God spoke written down for us?