PDA

View Full Version : Disputed Scripture Passages



PneumaPsucheSoma
Dec 29th 2010, 04:43 AM
Beginning with the most universal passages, which scriptures are considered spurious additions within canon? Why? Discuss...

1 John 5:7-8
Mark 16:9-20

Others?

RabbiKnife
Dec 29th 2010, 02:47 PM
Some doubt the inclusion of the story of the "woman caught in adultery" in John 7-8. Missing in a bunch of manuscripts.

RollTide21
Dec 29th 2010, 03:05 PM
I think it's because these certain passages were found to have not been included in the earliest verifiable manuscripts. Therefore, they were added later and are questionable.

markedward
Dec 30th 2010, 05:54 AM
As far as I know, Mark 16.9-20 is dubious to most because there was never a universal agreement to its authenticity early on. It's attested to pretty early, if I remember correctly, but there just wasn't any agreement.

1 John 5.7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) is absolutely not Scriptural. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts before 1200 (or so), and the only reason it came to be included in a formal collection of Scripture is because the guy gathering it all, Erasmus, said he would only put it in if an original Greek manuscript containing it could be found; his detractors literally produced one from thin air, and Erasmus included it to keep to his word. It's a forgery at worst, and a reader's notation that mistakenly got mixed into the actual letter at best.

The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 7-8) is, I don't believe, original to Scripture either. The story never had a universally agreed upon placement; it is found in varying placements within the gospel of John (indicating that many thought it belonged to John, but no one knew where it fit in), and even in copies of the gospel of Luke (the language of the account allegedly fits Luke's style better than John's). It's most common location is in John 7-8; but the account is abrupt when read with the surrounding context, and if removed, the surrounding passages flow together seamlessly. Maybe it is based on some oral tradition of something Jesus did, but the fact that it was constantly shifting around before being pushed into John 7-8 tells me that it isn't supposed to be there.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Dec 30th 2010, 06:15 AM
These are the only 3 passages I'm aware of beyond scattered words. I was hoping to fish out an idea of who believed they were and weren't authentic.

All kinds of spurious practices have come out of latter Mark. That's certainly a further hint at the need for an ejector seat.

The Comma Johanneum was in then out then in, so that gets a giant asterisk, too.

Is the John 7-8 adulteress the only other questionable passage?

markedward
Dec 30th 2010, 06:23 AM
These are the big three for the New Testament, although several minor things can be found here and there, many of which are usually accounted for by Bible translations as I have noticed.

For example, the "Lord's Prayer" seems to have been embellished in the gospel of Matthew over the course of a few centuries. John 5.4 seems to be an addition to some, and I would lean in agreement since the concept it presents does not (I think) mesh with Scripture. There are dozens and dozens of minor, single-word changes to the text, many of which can be determined as to when they came to be, and yet even some of these have snuck their way into several English translations.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Dec 30th 2010, 06:47 AM
I'm thinking a comprehensive list of all spurious words/phrases/verses doesn't exist all in one place.

I won't even address punctuation. :-O

Firefighter
Dec 30th 2010, 07:10 AM
The long ending to the Lord's prayer is in dispute by many as well.

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 07:52 PM
1 John 5:8 of the KJV is wrong. Let us see what it says: "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood (1 John 5:8 KJV)..."
The lord is the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). Is the spirit in earth? No, because the spirit is in heaven (Daniel 2:28).

divaD
Jan 2nd 2011, 08:17 PM
1 John 5:8 of the KJV is wrong. Let us see what it says: "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood (1 John 5:8 KJV)..."
The lord is the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17). Is the spirit in earth? No, because the spirit is in heaven (Daniel 2:28).

I guess you didn't read verse 6 then.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Don't you think the earth would be the logical location?

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 08:19 PM
I guess you didn't read verse 6 then.

1 John 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Don't you think the earth would be the logical location?

does 1 John 5:8 say that the spirit is in earth, yes or no?

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 08:30 PM
I am sorry, I was incorrect: the spirit is also in earth. This is because: "Christ is all, and in all (Col 3:11 ESV)." So 1 John 5:8 of the King James Version could be true.

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 08:37 PM
But 1 John 5:7 of the King James Version is wrong: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (1 John 5:7 KJV)." How can three be one?

"the Lord is one (Mark 12:29 ESV)."

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 09:30 PM
You can say, "they are one," but you cannot say, "these three are one." that's blasphemy.

edit: i made another error again, sorry: "these three are one in God" is also blasphemy.

markedward
Jan 2nd 2011, 09:35 PM
To clarify, your meaning is that "these three are one in God" leads to trinity, whereas "these three are one" leads to oneness-modalism?

davidtriune
Jan 2nd 2011, 09:37 PM
To clarify, your meaning is that "these three are one in God" leads to trinity, whereas "these three are one" leads to oneness-modalism?

What is trinity? Don't think about trinity, just think that God is one. Period.!

Is he God? is he the first and the last? is he the beginning and the end? then how can he be trinity? there's no such thing.

davidtriune
Jan 3rd 2011, 12:54 AM
Sorry, i made another error again: "these three are one in God" is also blasphemy. Why oh why does the english language have words that mean multiple things?!

davidtriune
Jan 3rd 2011, 01:02 AM
"we are one in God" is not the same thing as "we are like one in god," which is why there is so much confusion! We sometimes say one thing when it is not that thing! This is why we are like tongues-speakers, we english speakers.

Reynolds357
Jan 3rd 2011, 02:02 AM
Beginning with the most universal passages, which scriptures are considered spurious additions within canon? Why? Discuss...

1 John 5:7-8
Mark 16:9-20

Others?

As an old black preacher I know said "Its all inspired, from the index to maps."
I literally do not believe the index and maps are, but I agree with him that all the rest is.

losthorizon
Jan 3rd 2011, 02:45 AM
As an old black preacher I know said "Its all inspired, from the index to maps."
I literally do not believe the index and maps are, but I agree with him that all the rest is.

I tend to agree with your 'old black preacher' – I do not know of one reputable scholar who disputes the truth taught in “disputed passages” such as the “long ending” of Mark. The long ending is found in 95% of the Greek manuscripts.

notuptome
Jan 3rd 2011, 12:53 PM
What is inspired? The translations into modern languages or the original manuscripts?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

RabbiKnife
Jan 3rd 2011, 01:39 PM
I tend to agree with your 'old black preacher' – I do not know of one reputable scholar who disputes the truth taught in “disputed passages” such as the “long ending” of Mark. The long ending is found in 95% of the Greek manuscripts.

I know lots of not only "reputable scholars" but also reputable normal believers that dispute the "truth" taught in the disputed passages. If they aren't authentic, then they aren't truth.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 3rd 2011, 04:09 PM
What is inspired? The translations into modern languages or the original manuscripts?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Well... the question is simple enough.

I suppose it depends on whether God inspires typos and scribal insertions, doesn't it?

What say you?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 3rd 2011, 04:18 PM
I know lots of not only "reputable scholars" but also reputable normal believers that dispute the "truth" taught in the disputed passages. If they aren't authentic, then they aren't truth.

The number of spurious doctrines arising from these passages would also be a potential consideration as to their status. Yes?

Cyanide-Slurping... Rattler-Wranglin'... and The Scorpion Two-Step.

Scrutiny over Naivete, I say.

notuptome
Jan 3rd 2011, 06:01 PM
Well... the question is simple enough.

I suppose it depends on whether God inspires typos and scribal insertions, doesn't it?

What say you?
Seems that God would not be interested in sowing tares into His word. Any student of the bible must account for linguistic difficulties. If Gods word is inspired and it is then God ought to be able to preserve it and He has for us today.

Generally speaking men do not have a problem knowing what God has said they have a problem believing what God has said.

It has been observed that an apostate knows what he ought to believe in Gods word but his heart is so cold toward the things of God he will not believe it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

losthorizon
Jan 3rd 2011, 06:10 PM
I know lots of not only "reputable scholars" but also reputable normal believers that dispute the "truth" taught in the disputed passages. If they aren't authentic, then they aren't truth.

What part of the truth taught in the disputed passages do you not find truthful?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 3rd 2011, 06:25 PM
Seems that God would not be interested in sowing tares into His word. Any student of the bible must account for linguistic difficulties. If Gods word is inspired and it is then God ought to be able to preserve it and He has for us today.

Generally speaking men do not have a problem knowing what God has said they have a problem believing what God has said.

It has been observed that an apostate knows what he ought to believe in Gods word but his heart is so cold toward the things of God he will not believe it.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The bolded is a HUGE false dichotomy, as attested by the menagerie of denominational beliefs and some orthodox fallacies. If anything, everyone "believes" when they don't even "know". Modern Protestantism is primarily an indoctrination-fest that determines what people "know" and thus "believe". Even learned seminarians are essentially just more thoroughly indoctrinated.

Legalistic indoctrination isn't knowing OR believing.

Kneeology over Theology.

losthorizon
Jan 3rd 2011, 10:58 PM
The bolded is a HUGE false dichotomy, as attested by the menagerie of denominational beliefs and some orthodox fallacies. If anything, everyone "believes" when they don't even "know". Modern Protestantism is primarily an indoctrination-fest that determines what people "know" and thus "believe". Even learned seminarians are essentially just more thoroughly indoctrinated.

Legalistic indoctrination isn't knowing OR believing.

Kneeology over Theology.

From the sideline it appears your many posts are your own brand of 'legalistic indoctrination' as you push a brand of “orthodoxy” that only you subscribe to. Just a thought. :)

notuptome
Jan 4th 2011, 12:50 AM
The bolded is a HUGE false dichotomy, as attested by the menagerie of denominational beliefs and some orthodox fallacies. If anything, everyone "believes" when they don't even "know". Modern Protestantism is primarily an indoctrination-fest that determines what people "know" and thus "believe". Even learned seminarians are essentially just more thoroughly indoctrinated.

Legalistic indoctrination isn't knowing OR believing.

Kneeology over Theology.
Yet God remains true. All men are sinners, there is none righteous no not one. There is none that seeketh after righteousness. All have gone out of the way and become unprofitable.

Gods word is declared. Gods word goes forth and accomplishes what God intends for it to do. Gods word does not return to Him void. Men believe they know a way to be righteous but that way can only lead to destruction. Men do not like Gods righteousness and prefer to return to their darkness because their deeds are evil.

Christ has made full atonement for sin. Whosoever will may come and He will freely give.

I'll take that legalistic indoctrination even if a menagerie of denominations have rejected it. It's my kind of orthodox fallicy. The cross is foolishness to those who perish.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 4th 2011, 04:15 AM
Yet God remains true. All men are sinners, there is none righteous no not one. There is none that seeketh after righteousness. All have gone out of the way and become unprofitable.

Gods word is declared. Gods word goes forth and accomplishes what God intends for it to do. Gods word does not return to Him void. Men believe they know a way to be righteous but that way can only lead to destruction. Men do not like Gods righteousness and prefer to return to their darkness because their deeds are evil.

Christ has made full atonement for sin. Whosoever will may come and He will freely give.

I'll take that legalistic indoctrination even if a menagerie of denominations have rejected it. It's my kind of orthodox fallicy. The cross is foolishness to those who perish.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I'll have to say a hearty "Amen" to this.

One caveat: Commentary and curriculum, etc. don't enjoy the Word's surety of not returning void.

You do seem quite content with the current status quo.

RabbiKnife
Jan 4th 2011, 03:44 PM
What part of the truth taught in the disputed passages do you not find truthful?

If I said that I am a billionaire because God blessed me, the fact that God does indeed bless me would be made of none effect because of the lie that says "I am a billionaire." If a passage is not original to the autographs, then I don't care if it says "Jesus died for my sins" in the false text. I simply will not build any doctrine on a false text, regardless of what the text says.

Whether the 1 John text supports the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that Trinity is a true doctrine...that's circular reasoning. The text simply cannot be considered, regardless of what it says.

My point is that I don't believe ANYTHING said in the disputed texts, because from my research, they are not authentic, regardless of what they say.

To say otherwise leads to all sorts of error, not the least of which is baptismal regeneration.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 4th 2011, 04:00 PM
If I said that I am a billionaire because God blessed me, the fact that God does indeed bless me would be made of none effect because of the lie that says "I am a billionaire." If a passage is not original to the autographs, then I don't care if it says "Jesus died for my sins" in the false text. I simply will not build any doctrine on a false text, regardless of what the text says.

Whether the 1 John text supports the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that Trinity is a true doctrine...that's circular reasoning. The text simply cannot be considered, regardless of what it says.

My point is that I don't believe ANYTHING said in the disputed texts, because from my research, they are not authentic, regardless of what they say.

To say otherwise leads to all sorts of error, not the least of which is baptismal regeneration.

Agreed. It's not about doctrinal content, it's about validity. A perfect echo of the inspired Word still isn't inspiration itself. The tangential doctrines/practices are just a result of that.

This in no way impugns the inerrancy or inspiration of the autographs and the overall preservation of God's Word. It doesn't diminish His sovereignty in maintaining integrity of the written record of His Word.

The inclusion/exclusion of the Apocrypha should be a much greater concern for those who contend against these passages being "asterisked".

notuptome
Jan 4th 2011, 04:08 PM
I'll have to say a hearty "Amen" to this.

One caveat: Commentary and curriculum, etc. don't enjoy the Word's surety of not returning void.

You do seem quite content with the current status quo.
Godliness with contentment is great gain. 1 Tim 6:6

For the cause of Christ
Roger

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 4th 2011, 04:34 PM
Godliness with contentment is great gain. 1 Tim 6:6

For the cause of Christ
Roger

True. ...and totally out of context with what we are talking about.

losthorizon
Jan 4th 2011, 11:02 PM
I
My point is that I don't believe ANYTHING said in the disputed texts, because from my research, they are not authentic, regardless of what they say.

To say otherwise leads to all sorts of error, not the least of which is baptismal regeneration.

But the long ending of Mark is canonical scripture and you have provided nothing to dispute that fact except a vague reference to your “research” which proves nothing. As I have noted before, you completely misunderstand the meaning of “baptismal regeneration” and the words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 are as true today as when they were first spoken by the Lord – the one who believes and is baptized is the one who “shall be saved”. This truth is complemented and confirmed by Peter in Acts 2:38 – the one who believes, repents and is baptized in water is the one who will then have his sins forgiven.
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38, ESV)

MaddJack
Jan 5th 2011, 03:20 AM
In regards to whether Mark 16:9-20 are inspired by God, the verses do appear in the Alexandinus Codex, one of the 'big three' of the ancient Biblical manuscripts.
Futhermore, in the Vaticanus Codex, there is empty columns left at the end of Mark 16, this occurance of empty space occurs no where else in the Vaticanus Codex, strongly suggesting that the scribe was going to 'think about it'.

Very prominent second & third century historians acknowledge Mark 16:9-20 in their various commentaries.
*Tertullian(160-220 AD) mentions these scriptures
*Tatian(110-180 AD), protege of Justin Martyr, mentions said scriptures in his Greek writing 'Diatessaron'
*Irenaeus(ca 115-202 AD) mentions said scriptures in 'Against heresies'

So from the above examples, there is very strong evidence to support that Mark 16-9-20 is Divinely inspired.

nzyr
Jan 6th 2011, 01:10 AM
I believe 1 John 5:7-8 and Mark 16:9-20 to be authentic scripture. I don't consider them spurious.

kay-gee
Jan 6th 2011, 12:12 PM
To say otherwise leads to all sorts of error, not the least of which is baptismal regeneration.

Yeah, we in the CofC sent a guy back in a time machine to insert Mark 16:16 into the canon, just so that we would have a "proof" text for baptism, and confound the issue for everyone.

C'mon...get real!

all the best...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 6th 2011, 02:02 PM
Yeah, we in the CofC sent a guy back in a time machine to insert Mark 16:16 into the canon, just so that we would have a "proof" text for baptism, and confound the issue for everyone.

C'mon...get real!

all the best...

That is patently untrue. He was sent back to observe San Hedrin methods and practices... we ALL know THAT.;):lol:

RabbiKnife
Jan 6th 2011, 02:03 PM
I wasn't aware of the requirement in this thread to "prove" anything. I thought the OP was to list the passages that were considered by some/many to be additions to the autographs.

We've beaten the dead horse on the long ending of Mark on numerous occasions. Scholars line up, with good support, on both sides of the issue for Mark. No need to beat the horse again.

As to baptismal regeneration, we've drowned that dead horse after we beat him on numerous times as well.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jan 6th 2011, 02:34 PM
I wasn't aware of the requirement in this thread to "prove" anything. I thought the OP was to list the passages that were considered by some/many to be additions to the autographs.

We've beaten the dead horse on the long ending of Mark on numerous occasions. Scholars line up, with good support, on both sides of the issue for Mark. No need to beat the horse again.

As to baptismal regeneration, we've drowned that dead horse after we beat him on numerous times as well.

Yes, that was the OP purpose. The past is indeed littered with carcasses of such battered necrotic equine.

Some believe the punctuation and chapter/verse divisions were also directly inspired, though originally non-existent.

szinger
Nov 4th 2014, 02:55 PM
1 John 5.7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) is absolutely not Scriptural. It is not found in any Greek manuscripts before 1200 (or so), and the only reason it came to be included in a formal collection of Scripture is because the guy gathering it all, Erasmus, said he would only put it in if an original Greek manuscript containing it could be found; his detractors literally produced one from thin air, and Erasmus included it to keep to his word. It's a forgery at worst, and a reader's notation that mistakenly got mixed into the actual letter at best.

I've often heard this view on the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7, namely that 1 Jn 5:7 isn't part of the Bible because it is a minority text, but in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7gqG4pCShI) on YouTube an altogether different view is proposed, namely that
1) 1 John 5:7 isn't the only passage in support of the trinity, just think of John 1:1;
2) God promised to preserve his words: "12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalms 12:6-7) It can very well be that the very reason why the Comma Johanneum is found in tje KJV and other Bibles is because it is actually God's Word which God promised to preserve.
3) The modern Bible translations are basically only translated from only 2 manuscripts, namely the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitcus, which differ quite a lot. So saying that 1 John 5:7 shouldn't be in the Bible because it is based on few manuscripts is really a fallacy.

See the vid, quite interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7gqG4pCShI