Search Results
7/15/2025, 4:38:29 AM
>>17842945
>The idea that 1 Cor. 14:34 is an interpolation is, if memory serves, a relatively fringe view that I don't agree with—but it doesn't arise out of nothing.
There are people who think that by undermining one particular part of Scripture, they can undermine the whole thing. Or simply turn the Bible into a playground where they pick and choose what parts they want to keep, which is what the critical text essentially represents. Notice how they want to remove the ending of Mark really badly because of just two manuscripts that don't have it, out of thousands of others that all have the ending. Yet, the same people reject many interpolations that are unique to, but shared by, those same two manuscripts in other places. It's not a science, it's just arbitrary preference. There are even worse examples of this arbitrary decision-making in other passages.
The basic temptation behind this is, essentially, not that different from what motivated cult leaders in the past to make up ripped off versions of Scripture historically. As such, it is extremely bad faith.
Especially bad is when I see people pretend that these highly altered forms of Scripture are merely using "updated language." This is done as what seems to be a marketing ploy - as if these more modern translations were only making minor changes to a few archaic words and changing them to the modern equivalents, when that's absolutely not even remotely close to what they're really doing at all.
>There are good, legitimate criticisms of this view, particularly of the anathematisation of dissenters from the paradigm that we see.
I'm always willing to talk because I have the truth on my side, so there's never anything to hide. It's not always the same for the other side. Sleight of hand and trickery are their mainstays. For instance, they present the evidence misleadingly to give the false impression that there are many more than two ancient Greek manuscripts missing the ending of Mark, when there are not.
>The idea that 1 Cor. 14:34 is an interpolation is, if memory serves, a relatively fringe view that I don't agree with—but it doesn't arise out of nothing.
There are people who think that by undermining one particular part of Scripture, they can undermine the whole thing. Or simply turn the Bible into a playground where they pick and choose what parts they want to keep, which is what the critical text essentially represents. Notice how they want to remove the ending of Mark really badly because of just two manuscripts that don't have it, out of thousands of others that all have the ending. Yet, the same people reject many interpolations that are unique to, but shared by, those same two manuscripts in other places. It's not a science, it's just arbitrary preference. There are even worse examples of this arbitrary decision-making in other passages.
The basic temptation behind this is, essentially, not that different from what motivated cult leaders in the past to make up ripped off versions of Scripture historically. As such, it is extremely bad faith.
Especially bad is when I see people pretend that these highly altered forms of Scripture are merely using "updated language." This is done as what seems to be a marketing ploy - as if these more modern translations were only making minor changes to a few archaic words and changing them to the modern equivalents, when that's absolutely not even remotely close to what they're really doing at all.
>There are good, legitimate criticisms of this view, particularly of the anathematisation of dissenters from the paradigm that we see.
I'm always willing to talk because I have the truth on my side, so there's never anything to hide. It's not always the same for the other side. Sleight of hand and trickery are their mainstays. For instance, they present the evidence misleadingly to give the false impression that there are many more than two ancient Greek manuscripts missing the ending of Mark, when there are not.
Page 1