what do you think about this.?

[smellycat]

the oldest versions are missing the end of mark,so they say.is this true?

[iamowen]

the oldest versions are missing the end of mark,so they say.is this true?

If you delve deep enough you will find that some if not all of the older versions are some of the worst and most innacurate, better to ignore ! It is the translaters of some of the modern day versions of the Bible that want to discredit the KJV so they can sell more of their versions that are copyrited and thus make more mony !

[Chuckt]

No one has seen an "original" manuscript so he is false by saying that it isn't part of the original bible. Only if he saw an original bible could he make that conclusion.

Dr. Davis Otis Fuller wrote a book called "Counterfeit or Genuine?" There are really only two manuscripts that call into question these chapters as there are probably 600 manuscripts that have it. Vaticanus calls into question Matthew chapter 16 and Vaticanus is missing a lot of chapters and Vaticanus left space for it. Siniaticus was found in a trash heap where manuscripts were discarded and it is missing verses so to say that it isn't in the Bible is dishonest but Tiffendorf says it is changed in 15,000 places which is your most 'efficient and modern manuscript' that some of these so called scholars quote.


mms://media.ccphilly.org/Teaching/Audio/B41_Mark/SPM55224.mp3

[streetsinger]

I was invited to attend a breakfast of fellowship leaders to hear one of the translators of the NIV talking and explaining how they went about their task. The team chosen, consisted of representatives from all major denominations, along with experts in every language and historic field used in translating previous versions. Every day was started in prayer and before anything was considered, it had to be accepted by the whole team. None of the writings, in any language, that had originally been used in translating any of the the previous bibles were omitted. I came away convinced of the prayerful outcome of their endeavours. They must have considered Mark 16 in their deliberations in the knowledge that it is a contentious passage, and yet they came to the conclusion that they prayerfully believe is genuine and acceptable.