• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

A question regarding scripture, Located within the Gospel of Mark.

Do you feel that the word wives was omitted from mark 10 verse 30 against what it originally said?

  • Yes, it was probably omitted to promote values contrary to what was originally stated.

    Votes: 1 16.7%

  • No, it is as it was written and the word was never there.

    Votes: 5 83.3%
  • Total voters
    6
Phillip said:
And the flip side of the coin? For what purpose would they ‘add’ it to the other version? I see the question being, did the y it or take it away?

And an even bigger question, by adding or omitting the word wife, does it change the meaning that Jesus is trying to get across?
Click to expand...
to further enforce the lie that a man can only have one wife. yes it does change the meaning.
 
who knows what lies we have been told without orignal texts before constantine being available. Its clear the doctrines taught and the philosophies mandated in the churches are false. I have already begun abandoning the pauline doctrines. How many more destroyed families, and abominations brought forth upon the earth must take place before we turn from that which made it possible?
 
Herbie said:
to further enforce the lie that a man can only have one wife. yes it does change the meaning.
Click to expand...
In the KJV, verse 30 leaves out the word Father as well.

I’m not understanding you. In what way does it change the meaning?

I have no doubt that people today are trying to ignore truths of the Bible. As far as plural marriage goes, there are plenty of references in the Bible to enforce its validity. If you could emlighten me how it changes the meaning, I’d appreciate it.
 
Slumberfreeze said:
@Herbie I have a feeling that you've just dropped one shoe, now I'm waiting for the other one. What's a pauline doctrine?
Click to expand...
Pauline Christianity or Pauline theology is the Christianity or theology associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle through his writings. Traditional Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Yeshua.

In other words he dosent believe half of the "new" covenant writings
 
Here we go down the rabbit hole.

"But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here."
 
Herbie said:
who knows what lies we have been told without orignal texts before constantine being available. Its clear the doctrines taught and the philosophies mandated in the churches are false. I have already begun abandoning the pauline doctrines. How many more destroyed families, and abominations brought forth upon the earth must take place before we turn from that which made it possible?
Click to expand...
Whoa there cowboy....

Paul was spot on. How the church fathers misunderstood him and twisted what he said into lawlessness is another story. Peter warned us it would happen. Don't jettison Paul, rather, study Torah, the foundation of everything he taught.
 
@Herbie , fwiw, I have a several hours long youtube series unraveling some of the errors taught in Paul's name that he didn't teach.... if you want a link, let me know, I'll post it.
 
Ancient Paths said:
@Herbie , fwiw, I have a several hours long youtube series unraveling some of the errors taught in Paul's name that he didn't teach.... if you want a link, let me know, I'll post it.
Click to expand...

I’m interested!
 
@Herbie I think more of us than are willing to admit have question the teachings of Paul at one time or another. Expecially those of us who perceived contradictions in scripture or ran up against the misinterpretations of His writings used as a dagger in an attempt to hamstring us during our pursuit of truth. Please don't throw away the baby with the bathwater. Take another look at what the Rauch Hakodesh revealled to Paul without the blinders of misinterpretation on.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
Here we go down the rabbit hole.

"But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here."
Click to expand...

I love you.

Kevin said:
Pauline Christianity or Pauline theology is the Christianity or theology associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul the Apostle through his writings. Traditional Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Yeshua.
Click to expand...

Well, this is probably my stop, then. I'm sure that means that I have a lot of reading to do before I can communicate effectively here.
 
Herbie said:
for what purpose would they omit it from 29 in other versions?
Click to expand...
There are two different compilations of the Greek text used by Bible translators. To simplify it, these are:
  1. The Textus Receptus / Received Text / Byzantine Majority Text. This is the text that has traditionally been used by most of the Church for most of the last two millenia up until about 150 years ago - hence it is the "majority" text. It generally includes more words.
    Key English translations using this text: KJV, Geneva, WEB. You can also expect other old Bibles like the Latin Vulgate and Kevin's 6th century Aramaic version to align more with this.

  2. The Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies text. This is a selection of the oldest documents that is generally accepted by the majority of scholars to represent the original text (whether that's correct is debatable but beside the point). This text is shorter and omits many words and even entire passages that appear in the Textus Receptus / Majority Text.
    The United Bible Societies publishes a Greek text for translators based on this textual variant (including the majority text as alternative notes), and most translators work from that by default. As a result, almost all modern translations come from this text.
    Key translations: NIV, NKJV, and almost every other translation from the last 100 years.
Almost every single difference between the KJV and any other translation come down to this choice of different Greek text. Almost every argument a KJV-only believer makes as to why the KJV is better comes down to this difference in text.

And this issue of "wife" comes back to it also. It isn't that the bible translators of a whole lot of versions have independently decided to delete a word. It's that the men who compiled the Greek text they are using decided to choose a text that omitted that word, and all the translators are working from that text.

Which is right? Well on this matter it really doesn't make any theological difference so it doesn't really matter. I'm just pointing out that it's not an anti-polygamy conspiracy, just a symptom of something else.
 
It does not really matter to you FollowingHim. If you truly believe that there has not been an open agenda ongoing for the past 1600 years to rid the world of polygyny by the christian church and this is not just another low ball tactic they used your free to believe it, but as for me it was left out against the authors original text. I have no doubt in my mind.

as for paul "shivers" Jesus never mentioned him coming. I do not have to believe a word that man said.jesus said : "26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." and i don't he never saw him on any road to damascus. He probably saw satan. paul even said his self:13For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. then had serpent scales come out of his eyes lol.
I dont take my eyes off of Him Jesus is my savior and I don't care how badly they adulterate his teachings I know Him and will serve Him till my death. even if it means focusing on torah to better understand his teachings.

and yes this is in the correct thread if I wanted it elsewhere Id have placed it there.
 
FollowingHim said:
There are two different compilations of the Greek text used by Bible translators. To simplify it, these are:
  1. The Textus Receptus / Received Text / Byzantine Majority Text. This is the text that has traditionally been used by most of the Church for most of the last two millenia up until about 150 years ago - hence it is the "majority" text. It generally includes more words.
    Key English translations using this text: KJV, Geneva, WEB. You can also expect other old Bibles like the Latin Vulgate and Kevin's 6th century Aramaic version to align more with this.

  2. The Westcott-Hort / Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies text. This is a selection of the oldest documents that is generally accepted by the majority of scholars to represent the original text (whether that's correct is debatable but beside the point). This text is shorter and omits many words and even entire passages that appear in the Textus Receptus / Majority Text.
    The United Bible Societies publishes a Greek text for translators based on this textual variant (including the majority text as alternative notes), and most translators work from that by default. As a result, almost all modern translations come from this text.
    Key translations: NIV, NKJV, and almost every other translation from the last 100 years.
Almost every single difference between the KJV and any other translation come down to this choice of different Greek text. Almost every argument a KJV-only believer makes as to why the KJV is better comes down to this difference in text.

And this issue of "wife" comes back to it also. It isn't that the bible translators of a whole lot of versions have independently decided to delete a word. It's that the men who compiled the Greek text they are using decided to choose a text that omitted that word, and all the translators are working from that text.

Which is right? Well on this matter it really doesn't make any theological difference so it doesn't really matter. I'm just pointing out that it's not an anti-polygamy conspiracy, just a symptom of something else.
Click to expand...
Well stated, and thank you for explaining. I previously alluded to this, but have not had time to go back and brush up my understanding to clearly and rightly explain.

To follow what @FollowingHim said, and note @Herbie 's Constantine remark, both texts have roots into the 200s, though the volume of older fragments and pieces date into the 3-500s. What is particularly interesting is that at least in the UBS I have, translator notes often identify the exact fragment where a variant occurred and what later ancient manuscripts inherited the error.

Key is, there are a few blips in a human process of transmission, however the ancient manuscripts agree in more than 99% of characters and most differences are inconsequential. Those that are have been heavily researched and are fairly well documented. What is important to understand is that you CAN trust the Scriptures you hold in your hand.
 
@Herbie , I too question Paul's purpose, but I would not go as far as removing him or his writings. There is truth there, but like most revelations men try to describe spiritual things, some things get lost. I believe something happened to him, at least enough to have his works included for us to learn from today. But I do not agree that he is to be elevated to the level of an Apostle in the sense of having a personal relationship with the Savior beyond what we each individually can today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top