Am Convinced! (Login AmConvinced) Editor Posted Nov 18, 2009 11:23 AM
Was you around back then to see that the Westcott and Hort manuscripts were completely intact yet?
Seems to me there was quite a bit missing from them. You need to get better informed about this somewhat at least, before you get into that crap. Because you cannot prove they were not in the originals anymore than I can prove they were in there.
But the reason I say they were is by comparing other scripture with that one, saying thusly it was lost. Just as a few of the other writings were lost it seems too.
That was not the only thing that was.
Which is why I use the Bibles as my study Bible taken from the Textus Receptus manuscripts instead. Doing so because of those manuscripts when found most likely were not completely intact at all.
Just because they were older could also mean there were parts missting because it was not intact to begin with. Rather than someone adding to it instead. There are other areas that were also missing from that manuscript too. And not just that at all.
Besides there are other scriptures in Mark and matthew that prove what is told in the Textus Receptus be true entirely concerning what is written in that chapter. So nope, that should not fly for anybody whatsoever, if they do rightly divide considering the others were there after all.
Luv In Christ
EXCEPT THE LORD BUILD THE HOUSE, THEY LABOUR IN VAIN THAT BUILD IT, EXCEPT THE LORD KEEP THE CITY, THE WATCHMAN WALKETH BUT IN VAIN. (Ps. 127:1)