/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't see why we should assume those earliest manuscripts represent a reliable tradition when the church fathers quoted Mark 16:9-20 long before they were created.

>>714006

Man, thats an absolute brainlet understanding of speciation. Yes, most SPECIES evolved very recently, but not most clades (related groups, brainlet). Most higher clades, like genus, family, and order, are much older than modern species.

Anyways….

The "older" manuscripts are not part of the manuscript tradition. God promised to preserve his word, not hide his "true" word away for centuries only for it to be rediscovered in modern times.

>>714006

>knowing the precise text of scripture is a useless discipline

>>714062

That's a complete strawman and very idiotic. The older manuscripts aren't contradictory to the later manuscript traditions, they're emblematic of them. Nobody is looking at older manuscripts searching for the true text that was hidden away for centuries, they're looking to see which textual tradition that was passed down to this day is the oldest (and therefore, the original).

>>714067

>They're not looking for the true text

>Just the original

hmmmmm hrmmmm

>>714071

Oh, so you're not arguing in good faith

>>714067

>knowing the precise text of scripture is a useless discipline

Interpreting scripture as the inerrant word of God is very different to deconstructing it with the historical critical method which has as one of its axioms that the Biblical texts are simply historical writings no different to the Odyssey or Shakespeare. One is useful to Christians, one is at best useless and at worst damaging to the faith.

>>714074

Textual criticism =/= redaction criticism

>>714076

Textual criticism usually refers to secular methods of interpretations. The correct term to use if you're talking about Christian interpretation of scripture is hermeneutics

>>714082

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism

>>713984

I don't think the two passages you're asking about are original, and I think they take away from the message of Messiah. Especially the one about the adulterous woman which many weak Christians would latch unto in a heartbeat out of repressed sexual desire. (The flesh is weak, even if the spirit is willing.) But also the ending of Mark, which has led to what many consider a cult of snake handling, which is testing Yahweh to say the least. Two false passages which encourage harm.

>>713984

I think the first one was in the original but was censored in some manuscripts. I think the second one was a marginal note that was added to the text proper by accident.

>>714006

That seems more of a way to dodge the issue to me.

>>714062

>>714082

I suppose i could have named it slightly differently to get rid of the connotation. I mainly meant the ontology how a person knows the scriptures have been transmitted through. Not the atheistic, secular view, but the true and proper view of christians handling the text would have.

>>714101

>>714148

I also take some issue with them, but I'm not quite sure seeing how much evidence there is for both sides on Mark 16. The context does not flow for the longer ending.

Comma Johanneum is really indefensible in my eyes.

>>714010

> church fathers quoted Mark 16:9-20 long before they were created.

Uuuuuu…source?

Alexandrian texts are cool. They help provide the most original and rawest forms of biblical texts without later embellishment and edits from monks and scribes.

>>714331

More than what you'll ever needed.

http://truediscipleship.com/early-evidence-for-mark-169-20/