> General Discussions
Rightly dividing the word of God.
rick:
I got this from the forum index & info part of this website.
Spurious
Mark 14:72
the second time*
twice*
Mark 14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
Words omitted ( the second time and twice )
Mark 14: 72 And straightway the cock crew and Peter called to mind the word how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
I understand that ( the second time and twice ) are not in the original transcripts but I don’t see how these added words alter the meaning of this scripture however I always did believe the cock crow twice and see that’s not so.
I don’t understand what these copyist were trying to achieve or deceive by adding to the word of God ? Its not like they rendered the verse with a total different meaning but then again, I’m not all that bright either.
All I have to study with is E Sword but am now looking at buying a Rotherham bible.
My question is what books or online bibles should I be using ? The reason I ask this is because of all the bible translations I have on E sword not one have omitted ( the second time or twice )
I need a good and honest rending of the Hebrew and Greek translation, its obvious to me now. :o
Thank you Dave and John from K.
God bless
lilitalienboi16:
--- Quote from: Rick on July 26, 2015, 04:44:35 PM ---Concordant and Rotherham I don’t have but I looked up the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and found it to be very powerful and most helpful with ones understanding. So I’ll be getting the Rotherham,
Do you have the hard book copy or are you using an online Rotherham.
Thank you Alex.
--- End quote ---
Hi Rick,
John and Dave have both contributed significantly to this thread and I believe there is great wisdom in both their responces.
As for hard copy bibles, the only trully unique ones I posses are the 1950 and 1961 World Translations of the New testatement (1950) and Hebrew scriptures (1961). I purchased these for certain reasons. For the new testament they maintain more readily the aoristic tense of the greek allowing for a more accurate understanding of certain writtings. For example:
Eph. 5:2 "go on walking in love"
Eph. 5:10, "Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord;"
Eph. 5:17, "but go on perceiving what the will of Jehovah is;"
The King James fails to get across this active process that is to continually occur within or with the believer. So I purchased it because ray too often talked about how in the greek many verbs and passages should not be translated in the past tense as if they happened done deal but rather as active processes that are still on going. He also talked about how salvation is a process and not a done deal. It is by no means a perfect translation though as is the case with all translations. For example, it fails to translate God's love for the world as on going and present but rather puts it in the past like the King James does (John 3:16). Personally I also am more in favor of how the King James uses "grace" as opposed to this versions translation of "underserved kindness" but that's why I check many translations when I do study.
As for Rotherham's, I use the Esword module of it and I believe it is the Emphasized edition as you have yourself. I think its good to have all the literals including the Diaglot, Youngs, Concordant literal. I mean.. there are many. I know ray would check several and mentions in the audio's which ones those are. I have those as well.
I will stress though that all this means absolutely nothing if God does not reveal the truth of a matter to you.
To your original thread, here are more on the witnesses and the necessesity of God's spirit:
Zech 4: 12-14
12 And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?
13 And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be? And I said, No, my lord.
14 Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.
Rev 11:3-5
3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
Zechariah 4:6 Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.
1 Samuel 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.
God bless,
Alex
rick:
--- Quote from: lilitalienboi16 on July 26, 2015, 06:30:43 PM ---
--- Quote from: Rick on July 26, 2015, 04:44:35 PM ---Concordant and Rotherham I don’t have but I looked up the Rotherham's Emphasized Bible and found it to be very powerful and most helpful with ones understanding. So I’ll be getting the Rotherham,
Do you have the hard book copy or are you using an online Rotherham.
Thank you Alex.
--- End quote ---
Hi Rick,
John and Dave have both contributed significantly to this thread and I believe there is great wisdom in both their responces.
--- End quote ---
I agree Alex
Dave and John gave some great insight, also Dave”s example was very helpful.
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.
Dave in Tenn:
Mark 14:72 is not the only account of this incident. And Mark 14:72 is the 'culmination' of what Jesus said earlier in the chapter. Are those words 'spurious'? edit: apparently, they are.
Here's another warning. The list of Spurious passages should not be taken as some kind of 'proof' that the omitted words are not true! I've found more than one example where the 'spurious passage' is a repeat of another passage elsewhere. Use it, but don't automatically assume that that it changes something else. Study.
I have several translations on esword which (at least as far as I can tell) use the Sinaitic Manuscript as their basis. The Darby translation puts the pieces not in the Sianatic in italics, as best as I've been able to tell. Read the note at the bottom of the list that explains the asterisks.
John from Kentucky:
Rick,
Dave is absolutely right.
That list of "spurious Scripture Passages" is not absolute truth. It is not Scriptural proof. It is largely based on the studies of a nineteenth century German professor.
The reason we do not know what Scripture passages are spurious or not is because we do not have the original writings of the books of the Bible.
I repeat, the original writings of the Scriptures do not exist. What we have are copies of copies. Some scribal errors have been inserted in the manuscripts either intentionally or by accident.
For example, the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament were copied some three hundred years after the time of Jesus. Three hundred years! To put that time period in context, the current government of the United States has not been in existence for three hundred years.
The list of spurious scriptures is based largely on two of the oldest manuscripts. Are those two early manuscripts free from any error? Maybe. Maybe not. If they were copied with absolute accuracy from the original writings of the Scriptures, then they are correct. However, if they were copied from inaccurate copies, then they are in error.
Without the original writings in existence, then only God knows the original words.
Where does that leave us? Well, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. By putting them all together, biblical scholars have produced amazingly accurate versions of the New Testament.
We have more manuscripts of the Greek New Testament than any other original ancient writing.
Where there are differences among the manuscripts, they are minor. Like one manuscript may say, "Jesus said". Another manuscript may read, "He said".
The differences among the manuscripts do not affect any major doctrine.
Some minor differences exist. Some early manuscripts do not have the story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John. The vast majority of the manuscripts do include that story. What is the truth? I believe that the story is true and should be included in the New Testament. My explanation would be too lengthy to discuss here.
However, some of the early manuscripts do not have that story and call it a " spurious scripture", which I do not believe.
The history and understanding of how we have the Bible we have is a vast body of knowledge and has been accumulated over centuries. One reason for the necessity of study.
However, the basic truth is that God knows what His true Word is. And He sees that it is is made known to those who are His, by the power of His Spirit.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version