Book of Eli

[RAMCLAP]

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-16 NET

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Matthew 16:15-16 KJV

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Matthew 16:15-16 ESV

He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? Then Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art that Christ, the son of the living God.

Matthew 16:15-16 GNV

The meaning doesn't change. If two letters were swapped from two seperate parchments, the meaning stays the same. No one believes the Bible we read now in infallible or inerrent. We believe the original texts that the Apostle's wrote were inerrent and infalible.

[Arrieta578]

Ramclap,

Wow, when we talk about variations I wish it was that simple. If it were, we would not be having this discussion.

Unfortunately, the situation is much more complicated.

Please see below:

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.
(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.
(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).
(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated?

[Wordupmybrotha]

No one believes the Bible we read now in infallible or inerrent.

I do

[ACfixer]

Sorry friend. The more manuscripts we find the more it is clear that there is no variation. We have enough first and second century scripts to make an entire new testament that translated to exactly what we have now.

Thank you.

You either believe in a creator, one with more wisdom and strength and love than anything we can even imagine.... or you don't. Yes, man wrote the Bible down on paper, just as God told him to and the same has protected the integrity throughout history.

Don't believe it? Fine, this is American and I will take up arms to protect your right to believe as you choose... but it doesn't change anything. And certainly a Hollywood movie made by rabid liberals will never affect my faith in any way.

I do

I do as well. RAMCLAP, if you believe as your say the the Bible is complete and unaltered... I am not sure why you would question it's contents. If God can create the heavens and earth, he can certainly part one of the smaller bodies of water to allow his chosen people to escape captivity and fulfill his promise.

[RAMCLAP]

I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.

[ACfixer]

I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.

My apologies, I was going off of Wordup's quote of you (post 48)... Maybe was out of context.

[RAMCLAP]

My apologies, I was going off of Wordup's quote of you (post 48)... Maybe was out of context.

Ok. No worries.

[Arrieta578]

Thank you.

You either believe in a creator, one with more wisdom and strength and love than anything we can even imagine.... or you don't....Don't believe it? Fine, this is American and I will take up arms to protect your right to believe as you choose...

I was thinking this very same thing last night...

Perhaps one of Jesus’ and Christianity’s lesser recognized greatest gifts to humanity is “animus liber" —“free will,” which of course is tied directly to salvation.

Ironically, it is through Jesus’ wisdom, strength and love for us that we are even able to have this discussion amicably, to look at the historical Gospels, to come to a deeper understanding of Faith and to fully realize both the Spendor and Glory of Christianity.

Could you imagine even attempting to have this discussion in almost any other culture or religion? I have a strong suspicion that many, starting with myself, would have had their heads on a pole!

I want to thank Wordup for an interesting topic to discuss and to all the other people who posted for their refreshing civility —something unfortunately rarely encountered today.

May God bless all of you!

Philippians 3:2 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourself.



Best,

Arrieta578

[Wordupmybrotha]

I dont know what made you think I question the contents of the Scriptures.

Because of your post#46. You said no one believed that the current bible was infallible and inerrant.

[NapaPlinker]

It was a good movie. Did you not understand the ending??? Jesus dude

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Wordupmybrotha]

It was a good movie. Did you not understand the ending??? Jesus dude

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Yes, the ending befuddled me. Was he blind? Not blind? Blind, but temporarily given sight? Perfect memory or God dictating the scripture through him? Was he paraphrasing? I don't know.

Were the movie makers subtlety casting doubt on the integrity of the current Bible? I don't know. But it seems like it.

Those are the topics on hand.

[RAMCLAP]

Because of your post#46. You said no one believed that the current bible was infallible and inerrant.

Probably not well stated on my part.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was formulated in 1978 by approximately 300 evangelical scholars at a conference sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, held in Chicago. The statement was designed to defend the position of Biblical inerrancy against trends toward liberal conceptions of Scripture and higher biblical criticism. The undersigners came from a variety of evangelical denominations, and include James Montgomery Boice, Carl F. H. Henry, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul.

On inerrancy. 1978 Chicago Statement.
"Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrines or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences.

[NapaPlinker]

Yes, the ending befuddled me. Was he blind? Not blind? Blind, but temporarily given sight? Perfect memory or God dictating the scripture through him? Was he paraphrasing? I don't know.



Were the movie makers subtlety casting doubt on the integrity of the current Bible? I don't know. But it seems like it.



Those are the topics on hand.

He was born blind.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Wordupmybrotha]

He was born blind.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

You're quite an analyzer.

[CVShooter]

Arrieta578 - good work here.

The only thing I'll ad is something a fellow student pointed out years ago: that "infallible" and "inerrant" aren't the same thing. Infallibility, as she defined it, meant that the Bible's truths would not fail you -- you can count on them as a guide. Inerrant, on the other hand, suggested that it could not have occasional contradictions or textual errors. She dealt with her faith vs reason by simply accepting that the Bible could be, on occasion, in error. Yet, on the whole, it's still a reliable text for faith. Seemed reasonable to me.