FireDragon76 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 (edited) While textual criticism can be helpful, it's good not to get stuck on its conclusions as the final word. It's possible the "older" manuscripts we have, simply have missing endings, and the original manuscript was similar to the one we now have. In Acts there is the story of Paul and his companion picking up a snake, being bitten, and not being harmed. Then the natives worship him as a god. Edited July 16, 2017 by FireDragon76 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadworm Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 The ending of Mark in the KJV (16-9-20) is a later fabrication that is missing in the 2 most important early manuscripts of the NT, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, 2 manuscripts that ever not available in the early 1600s and thus could not be considered in determining the original NT text for the KJV. In one manuscript containing Mark 16:9-20 the forger is identified as Aristo of Pella who wrote around 165 AD.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burl Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 45 minutes ago, Deadworm said: The ending of Mark in the KJV (16-9-20) is a later fabrication that is missing in the 2 most important early manuscripts of the NT, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, 2 manuscripts that ever not available in the early 1600s and thus could not be considered in determining the original NT text for the KJV. In one manuscript containing Mark 16:9-20 the forger is identified as Aristo of Pella who wrote around 165 AD.. You mean I gotta take all these rattlesnakes back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.