Which Bible is the true Bible?

[Bob Carabbio]

Bob,

So, do you accept all of the teaching of Mark 16:9-20 as breathed out by God? Is there no false teaching here?

Of Course, Why wouldn't I?? What do YOU think is "False Teaching"?

 

[jaybo]

Bob,

I found this to be an excellent overview of the Apocrypha: 'What Has Been the Historical View of Christians Toward the Old Testament Apocrypha?' (Don Stewart, Blue Letter Bible)


The Wycliffe Bible contained the Apocrypha.The Geneva Bible was used for the foundation of the American colonies. It included the Apocrypha but separated it from the OT and NT. John Bunyan, William Shakespeare, and John Milton used this Bible. As you've indicated, the earliest KJV of 1611 contained the Apocrypha. There is an ESV edition that contains the Apocrypha as well as an NLT version.

Luther accepted the Apocrypha in his German Bible, but not as inspired Scripture. John & Charles Wesley quoted the Apocrypha.

These RCC translations contained the Apocrypha: Douay-Rheims American Version (DRA), King James Apocrypha (KJA), Brenton LXX with Apocrypha (LXA), New American Bible (NAB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV).

As for my reading of the Apocrypha, I took it in a course in a Christian college. I found the most historical help in the 4 books of Maccabees. However, I do not go to the Apocrypha for spiritual refreshment.

Oz

Small point: my copy of the 1599 Geneva Bible doesn't have the Apocrypha.

 

[jaybo]

The first bible written in koine Greek by GOD.

And yes it's still available, and it only tells one version, not many ?.
You just have to study a little harder.

My name is OLIGOS

I don't understand what you're saying. The Bible of Jesus' time was the Septuagint, written in Koine Greek. It wasn't the first Bible and (obviously) it wasn't the last translation. The Septuagint was written (translated) because very few people understood the ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic); it was a translation into the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world at that time.

Where can you find a copy of the Septuagint, and more importantly, can you read it?

 

[jaybo]

Bob,

So, do you accept all of the teaching of Mark 16:9-20 as breathed out by God? Is there no false teaching here?

Oz

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses Mark 16:9–20. They are considered by the great majority of Bible scholars to be added at a later time.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses Mark 16:9–20. They are considered by the great majority of Bible scholars to be added at a later time.

So what is the FALSE TEACHING you're obsessing about?

 

[jaybo]

So what is the FALSE TEACHING you're obsessing about?

I'm not obsessing about anything. I'm simply pointing out that the so-called "false ending of Mark" is absent from the earliest manuscripts. Since it is a later addition to one of the Gospels it cannot be considered to have been written by Mark but by a scribe at a later time.

If you consider later additions to the Bible to be valid, which other additions do you accept?

 

[jaybo]

Herer is the footnote from the NET about the addition to the gospel...

FOOTNOTE​

tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B sys sams armmss geomss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (א B). This is known as the “short ending.” The following “intermediate” ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This intermediate ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Ψ 083 099 579 pc); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the “long ending” (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has unique material between vv. 14 and 15] Θ ƒ13 33 M lat syc,p,h bo); however, Eusebius (and presumably Jerome) knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses. Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the intermediate and the long endings. Their vocabulary, syntax, and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence indicates that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the likelihood that early scribes had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded today as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.” For further discussion and viewpoints, see Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, ed. D. A. Black (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008); Nicholas P. Lunn, The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 (London: Pickwick, 2014); Gregory P. Sapaugh, “An Appraisal of the Intrinsic Probability of the Longer Endings of the Gospel of Mark” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012).sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

(Emphases mine)

 

[humble soul]

The one with Purgatory in it. Book of Macabees I think it is.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm not obsessing about anything. I'm simply pointing out that the so-called "false ending of Mark" is absent from the earliest manuscripts. Since it is a later addition to one of the Gospels it cannot be considered to have been written by Mark but by a scribe at a later time.

If you consider later additions to the Bible to be valid, which other additions do you accept?

SO nothing, then.

 

[Quantrill]

I don't understand what you're saying. The Bible of Jesus' time was the Septuagint, written in Koine Greek. It wasn't the first Bible and (obviously) it wasn't the last translation. The Septuagint was written (translated) because very few people understood the ancient Hebrew (or Aramaic); it was a translation into the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world at that time.

Where can you find a copy of the Septuagint, and more importantly, can you read it?

No such Septuagint exists. It is based on a lie. It wasn't the Bible in Jesus day.

Good luck finding a copy. Where is the oldest so called Septuagint today?

The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses Mark 16:9–20. They are considered by the great majority of Bible scholars to be added at a later time.

The age of a certain manuscript is only one factor involved in determining what is Scripture. And 'Bible Scholars' can be wrong also. Those who included (Mark 16:9-20) were Bible scholars also.

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

No such Septuagint exists. It is based on a lie. It wasn't the Bible in Jesus day.

Good luck finding a copy. Where is the oldest so called Septuagint today?



The age of a certain manuscript is only one factor involved in determining what is Scripture. And 'Bible Scholars' can be wrong also. Those who included (Mark 16:9-20) were Bible scholars also.

Quantrill

So there was no Septuagint and Bible scholars can be wrong? Also, did you know that the original Hebrew Bible was written in Japanese and that there are actually 66 undiscovered books of the Bible?

Why should anybody believe you and not the consensus of virtually ALL Bible scholars??

 

[Quantrill]

So there was no Septuagint and Bible scholars can be wrong? Also, did you know that the original Hebrew Bible was written in Japanese and that there are actually 66 undiscovered books of the Bible?

Why should anybody believe you and not the consensus of virtually ALL Bible scholars??

That's correct. There is no Septuagint and Bible scholars can be wrong. Again, where is the oldest copy of the so called 'Septuagint'?

What nonsense. Original Hebrew Bible was written in Japanese? If it is a Hebrew Bible, it is not Japanese. Oxymoron. All the books of the Bible are present in the 66 books that we have.

You don't have to believe me. Just answer my questions. Bible scholars are prone to believe and perpetuate a lie just like anyone else. Do you do your homework, or do you just believe 'bible scholars'?

The Letter of Aristeas...was it real or was it a fraud?

Quantrill

 

[jaybo]

That's correct. There is no Septuagint and Bible scholars can be wrong. Again, where is the oldest copy of the so called 'Septuagint'?

What nonsense. Original Hebrew Bible was written in Japanese? If it is a Hebrew Bible, it is not Japanese. Oxymoron. All the books of the Bible are present in the 66 books that we have.

You don't have to believe me. Just answer my questions. Bible scholars are prone to believe and perpetuate a lie just like anyone else. Do you do your homework, or do you just believe 'bible scholars'?

The Letter of Aristeas...was it real or was it a fraud?

Quantrill

I'm not the one posting nonsense. Here are the facts...

The Septuagint is the Old Greek version of the Bible. It includes translations of all the books found in the Hebrew (Old Testament) canon, and as such it is the first known Bible translation. It also includes the so-called Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, some translated from Hebrew originals and others originally composed in Greek.

It's called the Septuagint after the Latin word for "seventy" (septuaginta). According to an old tradition (recounted in the Letter of Aristeas), the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, were translated into Greek by about seventy elders sent to Egypt by the high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem at the request of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, who wanted to add the Jewish Scriptures to his library. Although the story originally applied only to the Pentateuch, the tradition expanded to include the other books as well. In time, the entire Greek version came to be known as the Septuagint, or the version of "the Seventy," and is abbreviated with the Roman numeral LXX (70).

Since you have no interest in the facts I will not discuss this with you further.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm not the one posting nonsense. Here are the facts...

The Septuagint is the Old Greek version of the Bible. It includes translations of all the books found in the Hebrew (Old Testament) canon, and as such it is the first known Bible translation. It also includes the so-called Apocryphal or deuterocanonical books, some translated from Hebrew originals and others originally composed in Greek.

It's called the Septuagint after the Latin word for "seventy" (septuaginta). According to an old tradition (recounted in the Letter of Aristeas), the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, were translated into Greek by about seventy elders sent to Egypt by the high priest Eleazar in Jerusalem at the request of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, who wanted to add the Jewish Scriptures to his library. Although the story originally applied only to the Pentateuch, the tradition expanded to include the other books as well. In time, the entire Greek version came to be known as the Septuagint, or the version of "the Seventy," and is abbreviated with the Roman numeral LXX (70).

Since you have no interest in the facts I will not discuss this with you further.

You won't discuss it further because you won't answer my questions.

Where is the oldest copy of the so called Septuagint?

Was the Letter of Aristeas real or a fraud?

They can't even get the Roman number right. The myth is that it was 72 translators. So why is LXX the designation for the Septuagint?

Quantrill

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The one with Purgatory in it. Book of Macabees I think it is.

2 Maccabees 12 : 41-46

 

[jaybo]

You won't discuss it further because you won't answer my questions.

Where is the oldest copy of the so called Septuagint?

Was the Letter of Aristeas real or a fraud?

They can't even get the Roman number right. The myth is that it was 72 translators. So why is LXX the designation for the Septuagint?

Quantrill

I won't discuss it further because you are a) wrong and b) won't consider facts. See below.

 

[jaybo]

You won't discuss it further because you won't answer my questions.

Where is the oldest copy of the so called Septuagint?

Was the Letter of Aristeas real or a fraud?

They can't even get the Roman number right. The myth is that it was 72 translators. So why is LXX the designation for the Septuagint?

Quantrill

I am under no obligation to answer your questions. I am not your student or your servant.

The reasons I won't engage with you is because I want discussions to be of value not a contest to prove who is right, based on made-up "facts".

 

[Quantrill]

I won't discuss it further because you are a) wrong and b) won't consider facts. See below.

I am under no obligation to answer your questions. I am not your student or your servant.

The reasons I won't engage with you is because I want discussions to be of value not a contest to prove who is right, based on made-up "facts".

Ok.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

There is no church in all of Christian history which ever used a 66-book canon.

 

[Quantrill]

There is no church in all of Christian history which ever used a 66-book canon.

That's funny. My Bible has 66 books in it. When did Church history end?

Quantrill