No the textual differences have no effect on the meaning.
You can say that all you like, but it doesn’t make it true. There are doctrinal implications to the long ending of Mark. There are doctrinal implications to the “Johannine comma” (1 John 5:7, though the textual evidence for the traditional reading is so weak that perhaps this doesn’t count). There are doctrinal implications to 1 Timothy 3:16 (“God was made manifest in the flesh”). There are arguably doctrinal implications to the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8–at least plenty of sermons have been preached on it, and the story is often brought up in discussions of sin and repentance.
With regard to the ending of Mark the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts contain the last verses 16:9-20.
But the oldest manuscripts do not. You seem fixated on this issue of the number of manuscripts. Textual criticism does not work by majority vote. Few if any scholars in the field would say that the long ending is the original one.
So since you don’t know about it I guess that doesn’t mean it exists:shrug:
No. It means that I ask for more evidence than a completely unsupported claim by some random person on the Internet.
Well maybe you should go to Bible College before posting information that is incorrect.
For what it’s worth, I have a Ph.D. in religion and I am a professor of Bible and religion. I have not brought this up because the issues need to be discussed in terms of evidence, not in terms of credentials. If my information is incorrect, you are welcome to prove me wrong. I do not claim to be infallible.
You mean the translations known to us. That I would agree to. But the quotes match to the original Hebrew.
We don’t have any way of knowing that, because we don’t have the original Hebrew. They do not always match either the Masoretic text or the Septuagint.
How is the birth in Bethlehem a good example??
By the standards of normal historical scholarship, the evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is extremely weak. This is admitted by Catholic scholars such as Raymond Brown and John Meier (of course they get called “liberals” for their pains–but they’re simply being honest about the historical evidence). That doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. It simply means that in discussions with nonbelievers, we can’t assume the birth in Bethlehem as a given.
That’s like saying that since the prophesy states that Jesus would come from Bethlehem, as written in Micah, only happened because Mary knew about it and went to Bethlehem to purposely fulfill the prophesy??
No, that is not the argument. How do we know–leaving Christian faith out of it–that Matthew and Luke’s accounts are correct? They give very different details, and have completely different explanations of how Jesus came to be associated with both Bethlehem and Nazareth. Matthew simply asserts the birth in Bethlehem and then explains why Joseph chose to go back to Nazareth after returning from Egypt. Luke explains the trip to Bethlehem in terms of a census for which we have no other record, issued in the administration of a governor of Syria who did not hold that office during the reign of Herod the Great (though
Christian apologists have argued that since he held a military command in the area he may have been acting as governor).
We’re talking about the strict prophecies that are referenced to the Messiah from the Hebrew texts.
Well, we’d have to go through these one by one and run them through the different categories I mentioned above. The lists of such prophecies that I’ve seen are almost entirely unconvincing–i.e., almost none of the prophecies mentioned would seem at all convincing to me if the truth of Christianity was not my starting point. Isaiah 53 is, as I said, a major exception to this.
The second coming prophecies have nothing to do with the prophecies that have already happened.
But the OT never indicates that the Messiah will come in two completely distinct stages. This is a view adopted by Christians precisely because Jesus didn’t fulfill many of the most striking Messianic prophecies. You’re reading back into the prophecies a theological framework developed to deal with the problem whose existence you’re denying.
Those will further validate the Bible’s accuracy. Just as Jesus prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed.
Yes, and the Marcan prophecy is generally accepted as having been written before the fall of the Temple, which is an argument in favor of Christianity. On the other hand, a skeptic would say that anyone with some foresight could see in the 50s or 60s–arguably even in Jesus’ lifetime–that trouble was brewing. And the Synoptic Gospels seem at face value to be saying that the fall of Jerusalem is going to be immediately followed by the Second Coming, which it wasn’t.
Just as John wrote of the fall of the Roman Empire in Revelations. So according to your logic the Roman Empire fell on purpose because Revelations said it would.
No, I’m not saying anything of the sort. But I don’t think much weight can be placed on this (some, perhaps). All empires fall eventually, and Rome was not sacked by a foreign army until 410 (arguably the Roman Empire as an institution didn’t end until 1453, but that depends on how you define the “Roman Empire”–the conventional date is of course 476). Revelation 22 says that “the time is at hand” and that Jesus is coming “quickly.” Even if we apply this only to the fall of Rome, more than 300 years is not what most people would think of when they see that language.
Falls apart?? If you look at them one by one sure they seem insignificant. But combined only one person can fulfill them. Do you know the odds of 1 person fulfilling only say 4 of them?
I didn’t say they were insignificant. I said that most of them cannot be proven (from an unbeliever’s point of view) to be fulfilled prophecies at all. Once again, you’re making a statistical argument that simply doesn’t work. Hundreds of alleged prophecies only add up to something if they each count for something as individuals. 100 X 0 is till 0!
Maybe you need to study the Bible more if you don’t understand Isaiah 53. Clearly Jesus is referenced here. Who else bears all of our iniquities, which by the way means sin? Hmm I think only Jesus has done that.
I don’t know why you are arguing with me on one point where we basically agree. I think that this is a passage that supports the Christian interpretation of the Messiah. I think you’re too certain that there is no other way to interpret it, but that’s not a point I’m interested in arguing. If you want to see the arguments against your position, I suggest that you talk to a thoughtful, well-informed Jewish person (such as Valke who posts on this board). I’m only interested in correcting the arguments that I think are thoroughly unconvincing–there are enough of those that I don’t want to have to deal with the ones where I think you’re just overemphasizing a valid point.
In Christ,
Edwin
It’s not just Mark. Plenty of other manuscripts are dated within 50 years of the original. The books are less than 100. The entire new testament is less than 225 years from the originals. The quotes matching is not the astonishing point as you say. The prophecies fulfilled is what is astonishing. What’s the significance of not having a version in Arabaic? Ever hear of the term bi-lingual, or multi-lingual? This argument holds no water.