Is this the one you are talking about? http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/12/walid-shoebat-youtube-video-on-the-mark-of-the-beast/

I have a question as to a “proof” from a teacher quoting from this codex on Revelation 13:18 in that this clarifies the true translation as being a series of Arabic words misunderstood until now and that they clearly proove the antichrist and beast to be Islam. Can you verify this. I wasen’t able to read the codex itself. Thanks.
William Brown

I agree with what Angel Diaz said above me, “I think we are all very fortunate to be able to see all these ancient documents regardless of our religious affiliation.” This type of perspective, is incredibly valuable on a spiritual and intellectual level.

[...] the coverage is as bad as ever. Thankfully Dan Wallace has compiled a very helpful list of media misconceptions: “You might suppose it [the virtual reunification of Sinaticus] would upset those who believe the [...]

[...] the coverage is as bad as ever. Thankfully Dan Wallace has compiled a very helpful list of media misconceptions: “You might suppose it [the virtual reunification of Sinaticus] would upset those who believe the [...]

I think we are all very fortunate to be able to see all these ancient documents regardless of our religious afiliation. Its great to have a chance to examine(from a distance)each one.

[...] the coverage is as bad as ever. Thankfully Dan Wallace has compiled a very helpful list of media misconceptions: “You might suppose it [the virtual reunification of Sinaticus] would upset those who believe the [...]

Sorry! Correction to above post!

Read 2nd paragraph, lines 2-3 as follows:

“…from those whom already seem denominationally/doctrinally predisposed AGAINST charimata/glossolalia…”

Thanks,
Joe

I know I’m a bit late to the party, and forgive me in somewhat hijacking this thread, but in regard to the mention of the long ending of Mark, I have a question…

I have read over the years the standard argumentation from textual scholars (especially, frankly, from those whom already seem denominationally/doctrinally predisposed to charismata/glossolalia, e.g., various DTS scholars, Western Seminary scholars like Dr. Radmacher, etc.), in which they pooh-pooh reference to Mk. 16:9-20 as a proof-text, inasmuch as its genuineness is suspect due to its exclusion from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

But I have also read counterpoint to that, specifically that — aside from other Greek MSS evidence, e.g., Majority Text, etc.,:

1) it is referred to/quoted from by church fathers in some cases several hundred years earlier than S & V, viz., Papias, Irenaeus, et al.

2) it is evidenced/present in other Near Eastern versions (the Old Latin, Ethiopic, Coptic, etc.) which also pre-date S & V.

I was wondering how this would be responded to.

Thanks!
Joe

[...] and Pen” has an excellent entry on the codex and the rampant misreporting in the popular media.  Is it any wonder evangelicals get [...]