Re: prayer and healing

Erasmus, who is responsible for editing the textus receptus on which KJV
is based, knew that it was a poor text. He knew he had only inferior
minuscule Greek texts available, but was in a hurry to get an edition
out. It was what we call quick and dirty. Of course, it is possible to
specify that the KJV is correct, as the Catholics once specified that the
Vulgate is authoritative. But a better option is to have a vision of the
end of Mark with flaming text. However, those who can handle it go to
critically edited Greek texts, which reveal that there is a great deal of
trash in the entire corpus.

As to snake handling, try Acts 28:3-6. Can the notion of venom be
transferred to other poisonous materials?
Dave

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:09:56 -0600 Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net>
writes:
> Yes -- we (I) tend to get a little excited about that footnote at
> the
> end of the NIV giving this 'warning' about the spurious origins of
> that
> passage. And as a friend of mine says -- "there's nothing in that
> passage of importance that can't be backed up with other scriptures
>
> except the snake handling and poison drinking". So we should
> hardly
> build snake handling doctrines on one such passage. Point sound and
>
> well-taken. It's just that we have to be cognizant (even
> sympathetic)
> with the finger-waving warnings from our traditional "don't mess
> with
> scripture" past. So maybe I can consign the end of Mark to a
> "lesser"
> level of consideration than other scriptures without undue loss.
> But
> where does this stop. I bet scholars (especially the "enlightened"
>
> ones) can point a whole lot more passages for which they have
> evidence
> that they too weren't in some ancient manuscript and therefore added
> by
> a later redactor. And perhaps my NIV doesn't even give me the
> benefit
> of a footnote warning. By the time everyone has worn out their
> scissors
> we end up with a few shreds like a Jeffersonian or a Jesus seminar
> Bible. It seems to me that this "slippery slope" danger is more
> real
> for the literalists than for those who don't feel compelled down
> that
> road as a matter of principle.
>
> --merv
>
> gordon brown wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Mervin Bitikofer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Or at the end of Mark (I've been
> >>reading Mark lately) -- the signs that WILL accompany those who
> >>believe: they will handle snakes and drink deadly poison
> without
> >>harm. How many sermons have you heard preached on that passage?
> I
> >>view all scripture as authoritative from God, but I can sure
> understand
> >>the eye-rolling delight agnostics get from passages like this and
> from
> >>us in our "bend-over-backward" antics to explain why certain
> passages
> >>"don't apply." Probably, I'll get a half dozen well polished
> reasons
> >>from some of you about why snake-handling, etc. can be dismissed
> as a
> >>cultural difference or some other thing. And I can guarantee you
> that
> >>all such explanations (some of which may be entirely correct IMO)
> will
> >>still elicit only condescending smiles from hostile challengers
> who will
> >>only see the "convenience" of our dismissal.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Mark 16:9-20 (the longer ending of Mark) is not contained in the
> oldest
> >known manuscripts, and it is highly doubtful that Mark included it
> in his
> >gospel.
> >
> >Gordon Brown
> >Department of Mathematics
> >University of Colorado
> >Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 1 18:36:33 2006