How Should We Read the Church Fathers?

[Truther]

Sometimes I have the audacity to even question the validity of these so called fathers. I wonder if they are forgeries.

Why not?...scholars think our Bible has forgeries

 

[Stan B]

Sometimes I have the audacity to even question the validity of these so called fathers. I wonder if they are forgeries.

Why not?...scholars think our Bible has forgeries

Mark 16:17 on the end is a known forgery about picking up poisonous snakes. These verses were added later.

 

[reformed1689]

Mark 16:17 on the end is a known forgery about picking up poisonous snakes. These verses were added later.

I wouldn't say it is a known forgery. The only thing we can definitively say, since we do not have the originals, is that some manuscripts do not include those verses.

 

[Willie T]

I wouldn't say it is a known forgery. The only thing we can definitively say, since we do not have the originals, is that some manuscripts do not include those verses.

I do like most of your thinking! (Sadly, some of us seem to realish in being a bit overly Legalistic. LOL)

 

[Stan B]

I wouldn't say it is a known forgery. The only thing we can definitively say, since we do not have the originals, is that some manuscripts do not include those verses.

It goes contrary to the rest of Scripture.

 

[Willie T]

It goes contrary to the rest of Scripture.

So does Luke14:26... unless you accept an external explanation from someone.

 

[Nondenom40]

To correctly rebuke the false teaching of anyone, a person must know absolutely that the teaching is in error. Only God and anyone to whom He has revealed it knows that. Probably many true followers of Christ have been martyred because someone was sure in his own mind that another was in error. Believe what you will, but insisting you are right and the other guy is wrong, on any point where God has not confirmed it to you personally will often put you where you don't want to be:

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

The bible is full of verses regarding defending the faith, exposing false doctrine and correcting those in error;
2 Tim 3:16
Jude 3
Eph 5:11....for starters. It is absolutely the job of the believer to defend the faith. And no offense but i think the verses you cited are out of context. I love the verse in Jeremiah which is speaking of our personal walk with God, not whether to correct someone or not.

Not hearing God and following Him always is a common source of error among believers. Thus we have how many different groups/churches/denominations often based on even the same Bible versions?

Apples and oranges. Paul told Timothy to 'study...' to accurately handle Gods word. Believers not hearing God are believers not in His will. And not all denoms are that far apart doctrinally and other churches are planted by a parent church. So while there are some denoms that are out there in terms of the truth many are not and can be considered brothers and sisters in Christ. We all have a judgement before God at the bema seat so i leave many 'in house' things to God. I don't loose any sleep wondering why there are so many denominations when there is so much work yet to be done for the kingdom.

 

[Giuliano]

Mark 16:17 on the end is a known forgery about picking up poisonous snakes. These verses were added later.

I figure it probably is a forgery -- but I love it. I think someone probably wrote a note in the margin of their copy; and then other people copied it, thinking it was part of the original.

There's another passage that involves a snake that makes me wonder.

Acts 28:1 And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.
2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

We know it as Malta today. There are no poisonous snakes on Malta and never has been in recorded history. No snake skeletons have been found as fossils. I guess it's possible that one snake could have gotten onto the island if hidden in cargo or something; but it seems unlikely to me.

 

[Truther]

Mark 16:17 on the end is a known forgery about picking up poisonous snakes. These verses were added later.

Who told us that?

 

[Truther]

I figure it probably is a forgery -- but I love it. I think someone probably wrote a note in the margin of their copy; and then other people copied it, thinking it was part of the original.

There's another passage that involves a snake that makes me wonder.

Acts 28:1 And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.
2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

We know it as Malta today. There are no poisonous snakes on Malta and never has been in recorded history. No snake skeletons have been found as fossils. I guess it's possible that one snake could have gotten onto the island if hidden in cargo or something; but it seems unlikely to me.

These anti-baptism "scholars" insist verse 16 is forged too.

 

[Truther]

All I need is a PHD at John Brown university and I can legally alter the word of God.


What a powerful thought.

 

[Stan B]

Who told us that?

Those who have studied the ancient manuscripts agree that from Mark 16:9-20 do not exist in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican. They did not appear until the second and third century, being quoted by the Early Church Fathers Ireneaus and Hippolytus. It tends to be footnoted in most Bibles I have used.

 

[Truther]

Those who have studied the ancient manuscripts agree that from Mark 16:9-20 do not exist in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican. They did not appear until the second and third century, being quoted by the Early Church Fathers Ireneaus and Hippolytus. It tends to be footnoted in most Bibles I have used.

Who is "those"?

Name "them"....because they are very powerful people to be able to alter the Holy Bible.

Did you know the oldest copy found is horrendously copied from something else, full of errors and omissions?

Did you know this is the source for all modern translations?

Did you know that the KJV was made with around 2000 manuscripts?

2 old ones you mentioned are rookie copies.

 

[Stan B]

I wouldn't say it is a known forgery. The only thing we can definitively say, since we do not have the originals, is that some manuscripts do not include those verses.

Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican.

 

[Truther]

Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican.

No originals exist.

The originals are our EVIDENCE.

the EVIDENCE does not exist.

Therefore, we need as many matching copies to verify scripture as possible....AKA the KJV.

 

[Stan B]

Who is "those"?

Name "them"....because they are very powerful people to be able to alter the Holy Bible.

Did you know the oldest copy found is horrendously copied from something else, full of errors and omissions?

Did you know this is the source for all modern translations?

Did you know that the KJV was made with around 2000 manuscripts?

2 old ones you mentioned are rookie copies.

They were not notable. They were just the scribes who made copies of the Bible.

 

[amadeus]

I think you totally missed what I was saying.

Perhaps I did. If so I would appreciate your clarification.

 

[amadeus]

This is absurd. Even an Atheist can know Scripture teaches that Jesus is God. It's plainly there. That doesn't mean they believe it.

Even with access to the written scripture cam we can really know anything about God without the Holy Spirit? That was my point. Without the Holy Spirit, a person may believe it but not know it. It is the difference between believe and know. The road to knowledge according to scriptures is by faith believing. Consider also:

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2

When our faith is finished, will not knowledge, if we have any, remain? Would this perhaps be the essence of what Apostle Paul names the "new man"? Perhaps it is also what John the Baptist means with these words:

"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

Faith is the ladder on which we climb to knowledge, not man's knowledge, but God's!

 

[Truther]

They were not notable. They were just the scribes who made copies of the Bible.

Their was no scribe certification test or process in the last 20
centuries.

Anyone could make a copy.

Our best bet is having a translation with the MOST agreeing copies.......


The translators of the KJV had access to, and all the known readings were at their disposal, even if they did not have all manuscripts. Also the vast and overwhelming majority of these newly discovered manuscripts actually support the text of the TR.

There are over 5300 manuscripts available today and the vast majority of these, at least 95%, agree with and support the textus Receptus.


What manuscripts did the KJV translators use? - Follow In Truth

 

[Stan B]

Their was no scribe certification test or process in the last 20 centuries.

Anyone could make a copy.

Our best bet is having a translation with the MOST agreeing copies.......

I agree. I find Bible Gateway the best tool for this. One click and it will give you all 50+ different available translations.

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.