Links to recent news stories from various sources.

Nonpartisan and nonprofit e-zine covering development of major issues as they appear on the public agenda. Issues include welfare and social policy, taxes/budget, land use, environment, growth management, transportation, healthcare, crime and courts, education and campaign finance.

Media Guide published for more than 30 years by Bell Atlantic. Contains names, addresses, web sites, email addresses, and key personnel for West Virginia newspapers, weeklies, radio stations and televisions stations, as well as college media and associations.

Provides information on the states newspapers.

On Sat, 7 May 2005 15:04:59 +0000 (UTC), gpatton@bayou.com wrote:

>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> In article <125.27.17.05.596300000@srcbs.org>, gpatton@bayou.com
>says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gary McNees wrote:
>> >> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > No. The warning in Revelation applies ONLY to the Book of
>> >Revelation. There is
>> >> > no sound reason for claiming that it applies to the whole Bible,
>> >since it was an
>> >> > independent volume at the time.
>> >>
>> >> But Matthew, you would agree, would you not, that one should
>> >> Not change any book of the Bible?
>> >
>> >I wish people had not, but what is done is done. We have to work to
>> >find what the original text was. The addition of verses to Mark's
>> >gospel after 16:8 was an error, but those who study Mark's gospel
>can
>> >figure that out and ignore them.
>>
>> No, George, that is not true. Not only is it not an 'error', but only
>SOME of
>> "those who study Mark's gospel" take this cavalier attitude to the
>Canonical
>> text of Scripture.
>
>There are many old manuscripts, of the Gospel of Mark, that end at Mark
>16:8. There are many that have the long ending found in the KJV and
>other versions. There are some old "copies" of the gospel that had
>verses after 16:8 that are not found in the KJV. There are others that
>contain other variations. When the church established the canon of the
>NT, they did not state which of the many endings of Mark should be
>used. I assume they were canonizing the original Gospel of Mark. Your
>study leads you to think certain old manuscripts illustrate the
>original, where I think other ancient manuscripts (examples: Alpha and
>B) reflect the original ending of the Gospel of Mark. I understand
>that many fine Christians are like you and think the long ending was a
>part of the original Gospel of Mark. That is quite OK with me. My
>study leads me to think the several endings after Mark 16:8 were added
>by an author other than the one who wrote the original gospel.
>
>Mark wrote it. Of course, I am not stupid, so it is quite OK with me
>if others accept any of the other endings as a part of the original

But I think it is stupid for me to think its ok just 'cause you or
someone else thinks it's ok. This seems to be the inference of your
sentence—or you're inferring that the whole matter isn't all that
important—or you would prefer that the whole matter doesn't really
matter at all. You seem to be the one with the ego.

>gospel. One would have to be a real egomaniacal bone-head to think he
>could historically prove which endings were in the minds of the various
>Christia