Sentences with phrase «many early manuscripts»

I'd watched his videos and read the early manuscripts.

Yes, the earliest manuscripts we have are after His resurrection, but there were earlier writings that were not on durable material, and writings that were destroyed by the Romans and Jewish leaders, but the surviving record captures all the necessary Truths, even though the Gospels cover only a small fragment of Jesus» activities during His time on earth.

3) the KJV is not as accurate as it does not rely on the earliest manuscripts available.

According to The Times, Michael Phelps from the Early Manuscripts Electronic Library in California and his colleagues took numerous pictures across the spectrum, «then used algorithms to remove the most recent text and highlight what was previously there».

They discredit what Jesus said in Mark 16:16 ``... and is baptized will be saved,» by saying that because some of the earliest manuscripts did not have Mark 16:9 - 20, therefore Mark 16:16 should not be included in the Bible.

Luther's theology was a reappropriation of the earlier manuscript theology of Augustine - one could speculate it was a practical appropriation of manuscript theology into the new paradigm of print.

We all know this passage was not in John's gospel in our earliest manuscripts which leaves the entire encounter suspect.

I'm certain that this is the original version, confirmed by the earliest manuscripts.

It was translated from texts finalized in the 16th century, which have long since been superseded by superior Hebrew and Greek texts based on much earlier manuscripts.

Or perhaps some of Paul's supposed «lost letters» could be there, or an even earlier manuscript of some NT writing which omits some cherished doctrine or includes a new passage with some startling info (What if it says «Jesus and his wife......»?)

Many of the books of the Bible, including the Synoptic Gospels — Matthew, Mark and Luke, from which much of our knowledge of the words and deeds of Jesus is derived — are compilations from earlier manuscripts and fragments.

I believe that many say it is 24 hours based on the words used in the earliest manuscripts.

An instructive way of understanding the play's hard - earned aesthetic complexity which so plagued the reviewers is to compare an earlier manuscript version (held by the Lilly Library, Indiana University) with the later published play (Houghton Muffin, 1958).

In addition, we can be very comfortable in trusting our current translations (NIV, ESV, NKJV, etc.) that have made use of the wonderful wealth of early manuscripts and textual criticism to bring us texts that provide God's Word in a way that is sufficient and clear for His intended purposes of communication to us.

That the earliest manuscript we have is a fragment of the Gospel of John in the John Rylands University dated no later than 150 by anyone.

This passage was not originally part of the Gospel according to John, being absent from early manuscripts; but there is no reason to doubt that it was a genuine piece of tradition.

I am indebted to all the students who have encouraged me by their interest, but especially to those on whom I inflicted the reading of some of the early manuscript material.

Or they just plain don't want to read the Bible, or our history, or perhaps not even the Big Book and its earlier manuscripts (Compare the facts in: Turning Point: A History of Early AA.

-- The existence of many early manuscripts allows us to be confident that the New Testament was accurately copied.

Excellent support exist for it not being included, i.e. the earliest manuscripts.

Furthermore, if the earliest manuscripts are wrong then how what do you base current canon on, but if earliest manuscripts are correct the how can current canon be?

While «a few manuscripts» include the verses in question, they are not the earliest manuscripts, so there was in fact changes since the earliest manuscripts.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:53-8:11&version=NIV) And Mark 16 NIV parenthetically state, «The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9 — 20.»

So, if you want to define «adaptation» as «changes that we don't agree with», then you may be correct, but even your pro-pericope site admits, «It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception); in those manuscripts where we do find it, it is not found in one place.»

You claimed there were no changes in the NT, I provided evidence, earliest manuscripts, that are not the same as what is current canon, i.e. it changed.

Either the earliest manuscripts are wrong or the current canon is.

[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 — 8:11.

Most bibles have an asterix on this passage saying it doesn't appear in the earlier manuscripts.

The earliest manuscript of the New Testament is St. John's fragment, a 2.5 x 3.5 inch scrap of parchment which contains parts of two verses.

If you check interlinear translations where the original koine greek word used in the earliest manuscripts are side ny side with modrn words used to represent them, and research what the original word used actually means, you will find many obvious corruptions of God's word.

As I understand it, the passage in question is not in the earliest manuscripts... and in the manuscripts that have it, it is placed in different locations — even in different gospels (Luke instead of John).

@Chad «Mark 16 19 - 20 MAY indeed have been added later, or not and we merely await finding an earlier manuscript.

In the earliest manuscripts words were not separated and «sacred names» were abbreviated.

The author, a Stanford University mathematician, talks his way into Italian research libraries in search of early manuscripts, photographs all 11 street signs on Via Leonardo Fibonacci in Florence and strives to cultivate a love for numbers in his readers.

But several months ago I read an early manuscript of «Don't Diet!»

We thank Johannes Bouchal (Stockholm) for assistance with SEM analyses; Else Marie Friis (Stockholm) and Federica Marone and Marco Stampanoni (Villigen) for assistance in SRXTM analysis; Lena Gustavsson (Stockholm) and Roberto Marotta (Genoa) for helpful discussion; and Renate Matzke - Karasz (Munich) and an anonymous referee for constructive criticism on earlier manuscript versions.

Literary agencies and publishers rejected those early manuscripts due to the usual bouquet of amateur issues: Point of view head hopping, passive voice overused, weak verbiage, and other problems that are familiar to career - minded writers.

E.g., one early manuscript I found refers to meta - stable hydrates at 20m depth; the final paper was raised to 60m.

Marie is generous, given that my kick start consisted only of reviewing an early manuscript draft and introducing Marie to the then - chair of the Law Practice Management Section's publishing board.

These collections are massive: more than 200,000 printed materials in the library's rare books and early manuscripts collection; more than 250 collections within the modern manuscripts collection; and one of the world's largest collections of law - related art and visual materials.

Without Cappelli's Lexicon, it would be impossible for modern readers of early manuscripts to understand what is written or referred to, even if we can read the letters.

Not exact matches

Realizing early on that the Catholic Church would be ill - served in the coming battles with secularism without an ability to draw on her own best treasures, Migne devised the scheme of publishing, in uniform format, the entire extant corpus of early Christian literature, much of which was still in manuscript.

the manuscript tradition was God's perfect way of preserving His word early on amongst imperfect men.

Second, the earliest extant manuscripts date from the 11th century and are not 6000 + years old.

We know the Bible we have now matches the same as those the early church had because of the number of manuscripts we have.

Then, by looking at the existing manuscripts today, and piecing together what we have and comparing it to a modern Bible such as the NASB, it is not hard at all to see that the Bible that we hold in our hands today is the same doc.ument quoted by the early church fathers who researched and verified all that they could.

In this passage, as in others, the Greek Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament, begun in Alexandria around 285 B.C., apparently goes back to an earlier Hebrew manuscript than our English Versions represent.

During the early part of the year she kept saying I must read her manuscript, and I kept avoiding it because I knew the problem we would get into if I did.

Today attempts to arrive at the text of the New Testament center on three sorts of materials: ancient Greek manuscripts, ancient versions in languages other than Greek (e.g., Latin, Syriac and Coptic), and early quotations said to come from the New Testament.

The notion of a Textus Receptus was shattered as early as 1707, when John Mill listed over 30,000 variants in some 80 of the manuscripts or portions of manuscript of the New Testament available at that time.