SITE NOTICE | MORE..SermonAudio Live Webcast Event! We are proud to be partnering with the Reforming Families Conference held this year at the Creation Museum! We are on-location webcasting the event and we hope you'll join us each session! .. click for more info!
A New Testament professor is setting the world of Bible scholarship on fire with his claim that newly discovered fragments of early Christian writings could include a first-century version of the Gospel of Mark, from the same century in which Jesus and the apostles lived.
Daniel B. Wallace of the Dallas Theological Seminary made the stunning announcement during a Feb. 1 debate with Bart Ehrman at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill on whether we have the wording of the original New Testament today....
Thus, modern versions spring from heretics and the old Standard, the AV, not only contains errors but also the Apocrypha by definition. What version is left which is truly "appointed to be read in churches"?
"But please remember that the Nasb and modern versions contain contributions from the Anglican Liberals Westcott and Hort, who were a couple of heretics. In the 1880's Westcott and Hort wrote their own version of the Bible. When it was sent to America they rejected it as inaccurate and badly translated."
Jim Lincoln wrote: Your KJV is incomplete and more than complete at the same time. The Authorized King James Version will contain the Apocrypha, between the Old and New Testaments. If your copy doesn't have that then it isn't an authorized version. At the same time there will be added Scripture in the AV which doesn't belong there, which might be considered the Apocrypha of the New Testament. I would suggest you read the articles, Errors in the King James Version? and The Preservation of Scripture by Dr. William Combs.
John, you really should like what Wikipedia said, it is very tame, q.v.,Authorized King James Version. I see that Thomas Nelson's and Sons are publishing, The Holy Bible : 1611 Edition - King James Version with the preface, marginal notes, and apocrypha! You can get it from Amazon.
To those who really want an AUTHORIZED version can get it from them. Now, see how helpful I can be!
John of UK, I would suggest you read that Wikipedia article, and see what it said about the original AV. The original AV not only had the Apocrypha in it, but also the preface and the marginal notes, (Remember 1611 marginal notes devastating!!!? ) King James Onlyism points out that the AV also contains too much.
Your KJV is incomplete and more than complete at the same time. The Authorized King James Version will contain the Apocrypha, between the Old and New Testaments. If your copy doesn't have that then it isn't an authorized version. At the same time there will be added Scripture in the AV which doesn't belong there, which might be considered the Apocrypha of the New Testament. I would suggest you read the articles, Errors in the King James Version? and The Preservation of Scripture by Dr. William Combs.
Fragments hurray ! More reason to criticize and doubt the Bible. God promised to preserve His Word unto every generation and he has. Let the so called scholars wrangle about fragments and textual criticism my KJV is complete and authoritative and I don't need a scholar to agree.
Strange indeed. FYI: CSTM News (headline may get superseded)
Since the manuscript's date hasn't been ‚Äúconfirmed‚ÄĚ yet (i.e., accepted by 4 out of 5 scholars ☺ ), why is he offering this as evidence in a debate?? All his opponent has to reply is, ‚ÄúThat's speculation.‚ÄĚ And of course no skeptic will be convinced by any evidence that does not align with his presuppositions.
I think a healthy skepticism about this is warranted. We've seen time and time again how sensationalist claims are made about some find like this, shrouded in secrecy, before a book is launched. By the time the claim is debunked, the book has sold a lot of copies. While I hope this is not another pump-and-dump book, there have been so many blatant attempts to make money off of sensationalist claims that I think the burden of proof these days is on whoever makes the claims to back them up.
A fragment of a Christian gospel, the word of God, should not be withheld from Christians in order to make money for someone writing a book. This fragment should be shared as widely as possible so that all Christians can benefit from it. There is nothing stopping a scholar from writing a book about the fragment, but keeping part of the word of God secret in order to make money from it is not right.