Do you know that the King James Bible uses an altered version of "Mark"?

Question

There are passages at the end that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts, which indicates that somebody tacked them on years later. Most modern Bibles acknowledge this with a footnote or parenthesis. This kind of thing is why it's impossible to be a fundamentalist. You don't even know what the Bible IS.

Answer 1

Mark is only the biggest change that was made. Mark was always a problematic gospel for the early church because it was the earliest but it had none of the birth or resurrection narratives of the later gospels. The church added to it to make it seem more consistent with the other gospels.

Theology played a role in some changes. 1 John 5:8 which is the only clear trinitarian statement in the bible does not exist in any manuscript prior to the sixteenth century. It was purposely added to give added weight to the theology the church was advocating.

Politics also came into play in the bible. Later manuscripts change the names of some of the people that Paul wrote to from females to males to lessen the role of women in the early church.

Answer 2

The ending verses of the book of Mark are missing from TWO of the currently known over 5,300 manuscripts of the New Testament. The two manuscripts, each found in the early 1900's, caused a stir when a scholar who examined both declared that they were the earliest manuscripts ever found of the Bible, and thus the original reading. So it was footnoted in some Bibles produced between 1950 and 1990.

Since then, futher test have shown that the two manuscripts were produced in the late 8th century. This is based on the method by which the pages of the codex (a kind of pre-book) were sewed together (a process not invented until the early 8th century), but the content of the ink (traced to a monstery in Egypt), the type of vellum used (not invented until the 6th century, but abandoned in the 9th), and the style of alphabet used. Scholars also agree that the two handwritten manuscripts were produced by the same script, using the same paper, ink, etc. They handwritting in them is identical.

What is not often mentioned is that Mark ends in mid- sentence at the bottom of a left-hand page. When you go up to the top of the right hand page, you are in the middle of the 18th verse of the first chapter of Luke. (Yet I have never heard a scholar saying that the first chapter of Luke should be dropped from the Bible) The missing text from the end of Mark and the missing text from the beginning of Luke would perfectly fill both sides of a single page.

It appears that this scholar was copying from a Bible that was missing a page. So he was unable to include that page in his manuscript.

Plus, the two text in question come from the 8th century. Yet the ending of Mark is present in all known manuscripts from the 1st to the 7th century. So it appears that those verse were dropped 700 years AFTER the book of Mark was written. So it does not affect the accuratey of the King James Bible.

Answer 3

There are three manuscripts that are considered the most reliable.

Two of these manuscripts do not have Mark 16:8-20, but the Alexandrian does. In addition to the Alexandrian, these verses are forund in nearly every other manuscript.

Secondly, even though these two manuscripts do not contain these verses, there is a blank space that was left on these documents at the end of Mark.

In the first century, writing materials were not as easily to come by as they are now. It is odd to waste space on a page. This seems to indicate that the scribes that copied this passage knew there was more. (Perhaps the text they were copying from was damaged and they could not read the ending.)

Third, if Mark 16 ends with verse 8, this would be a very abrupt ending to that book. This would leave out the great commission, which is included as part of the other gospels. In Matthew 28, Jesus said "go... teaching". In Luke 24, he instructed that repentance and remission of sins should be preached. In the last chapter of John, Jesus said "Feed my sheep." It would be odd if Mark left out the great commission.

Even odder, if Mark ended with verse 8, it would end with the phrase "for they were afraid." This is the greatest time in the history of God's people! Jesus had risen from the dead! In this time of great hope, it is odd to end the Gospel with an expression of being afraid! The word "gospel" means "good news". Would the good news of Mark end with "they were afraid"?

Forth, the two manuscripts that do not have the ending of Mark also have other sections that are missing. Most of these other sections are accepted without question and without the footnotes you mentioned in most English translations.

If you are going to throw verses out of the Bible because these two manuscripts don't have them, in spite of nearly every other manuscript containing them, then there are many verses and even whole chapters that must be discarded! Many teach things some denominations heavily lean on for some of their doctrine.

Fifth, the early translations into the Latan language contain these verses.

Everything in Mark 16:9-20 is true, and can be shown in other places of the New Testament. People who want to get rid of these verses do so because they don't like what it teaches about baptism or they don't like what it teaches about snake handling.

(The truth about baptism can be shown from other scriptures in addition to Mark 16. Also, the fact that we no longer have ability to handle snakes and drink poison without harm can be shown elsewhere.)

There is more evidence that Mark 16:9-20 should be part of the Bible! You can be assured that it is inspired word of God!

Answer 4

The finishing verses of the booklet of Mark are lacking from 2 of the presently recognized over five,three hundred manuscripts of the New Testament. The 2 manuscripts, each and every located within the early 1900's, prompted a stir whilst a pupil who tested each declared that they have been the earliest manuscripts ever located of the Bible, and therefore the usual studying. So it used to be footnoted in a few Bibles produced among 1950 and 1990. Since then, futher scan have proven that the 2 manuscripts have been produced within the overdue eighth century. This is centered at the approach during which the pages of the codex (a style of pre-booklet) have been sewed in combination (a system no longer invented till the early eighth century), however the content material of the ink (traced to a monstery in Egypt), the kind of vellum used (no longer invented till the sixth century, however deserted within the ninth), and the kind of alphabet used. Scholars additionally agree that the 2 handwritten manuscripts have been produced by means of the identical script, making use of the identical paper, ink, and so on. They handwritting in them is equal. What isn't in most cases stated is that Mark leads to mid- sentence on the backside of a left-hand web page. When you cross as much as the highest of the proper hand web page, you're within the center of the 18th verse of the primary bankruptcy of Luke. (Yet I have by no means heard a pupil pronouncing that the primary bankruptcy of Luke will have to be dropped from the Bible) The lacking textual content from the top of Mark and the lacking textual content from the starting of Luke could flawlessly fill all sides of a unmarried web page. It looks that this pupil used to be copying from a Bible that used to be lacking a web page. So he used to be not able to comprise that web page in his manuscript. Plus, the 2 textual content in query come from the eighth century. Yet the finishing of Mark is reward in all recognized manuscripts from the first to the seventh century. So it looks that the ones verse have been dropped seven hundred years AFTER the booklet of Mark used to be written. So it does no longer impact the accuratey of the King James Bible.

Answer 5

How long have you known that? --maybe 2 days? You would not have known that if a "fundamentalist" hadn't told you in a question you ask just 2 days ago. As a matter of fact-the person that told you was me! The King James scholars had limited material to work with. They did not have the thousands of manuscripts we have today. BTW, fyi. the original King James also contained the Apocryphal books. But due to the uproar form the fundamentalist, they were removed in the second edition around 1618.

You are trolling-

Answer 6

Did you also know the "Original" King James in the actual year of 1611 contained all 73 Books that the Catholic Douay English translation carried but the "7" "Extra" Books in the Old Testament were later removed in the "Authorized" KJV by Protestants who didn't like their content, and thus we have the 66 Book Bible Protestants use.

Catholics did not "ADD EXTRA BOOKS"... the books were removed by Protestants.

Answer 7

God had his way of getting the word out in the minds of scullers writers of the his word when it happen like today reporters transcript what is there and was to happen he used alot tools to help him get truth out in old testament burning bush, and stone tablets for ten commandments
something that could stand the length of time. scrolls found and this man king James where did he get what happen may of mis read the original scrolls then other found what he mis-read revised the original findings made the reading more understanding to man language of today's dialect

Answer 8

To learn how the books of the bible came to be assembled as such see: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing.
See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level use the NASB or ESV translations.

If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the two sites' content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.

http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Accuracy of bible:
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm

Answer 9

Did you know that ANY version of the "bible" is full of CRAP! and to think that some people believe that what some other people has written is the word of God! lmao @ all the stupid people who think that the "bible" IS the word of God! lol

Here's how anyone can prevail OVER the "bible" and religions ignorance:

Create a private, personal, direct, divine Relationship with Our Creator and save your Soul from religion.

Only with Our Creator's Love and Peace will we be Truly Free!

Without God, there is No Love; Without religion, there are No Wars!

"religion is Spiritual fraud"; "religion is the Worse invention of humanity" - Jesus Christ, Buddha and any one else with Spiritual intelligence.

Answer 10

Did you know that the Bible was completely altered? Er...edited. The first page probably read "One Thousand and One Hebrew Nights: Tales to Control the Masses".