Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48
#9
Thanks for the correction Will, it was fixed above.

The reason I'm doing it this way right now, is for some people I know who think that the ESV, NASB, and NIV (Modern English translations from the critical Greek text) believe, and have been lead to believe that their English translations reflect the oldest and best readings, and that the missing verses were not really part of the NT from the start. They even honor if above any source text that you show them, sort of like the KJV only guys. But I wanted to give the witnesses anyway, so that they might consider them.

So I've been going through and searching for the witnesses to them, were I can find them and it's tedious. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

But, I understand what you say there and if you are led to, feel free to use anything I have shown here to compile a list along those lines. I think it would be a good resource. I don't think I could find the time to make a thorough analysis of all the variants, but you might.

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not agree with themselves over 3,000 times, just in the 4 Gospels alone...

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by DrawCloser - 06-22-2012, 06:00 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-23-2012, 02:25 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-25-2012, 05:15 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 06-26-2012, 03:09 AM
[No subject] - by DrawCloser - 07-01-2012, 04:21 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-04-2012, 02:40 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-04-2012, 06:54 PM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-05-2012, 12:36 AM
Re: Verse omission on Mark 9:43-48 - by Thirdwoe - 07-05-2012, 05:06 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)