Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The strange disposal of Mark 16:9-20

[branham1965]

I was astounded that many modern Bible versions emit these verses.


What do you think about this ???

[branham1965]

The recent New World Translation removed them.

The recent New International Version does not remove them but has them in italics. like they are not Scripture.

I read the ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE and it affirms that they are true because

THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS SAY SO.

[Hill Top]

I was astounded that many modern Bible versions emit these verses.


What do you think about this ???

It is the devil's attempt to eliminate Godliness from Christianity.
Another item to check for authenticity of a version of a bible is 2 Tim 3:17..."That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
The versions that dilute Godliness translate "perfect" into "complete", which would make the rest of the verse redundant..."thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
So it looks like they are completely complete.
But not perfect.

[branham1965]

EVERY modern version includes the verses with QUESTIONS.

It cause the neophyte to question the Bible!!!

REVEREND DAKE himself believed Mark 16:9-20 ARE HOLY SCRIPTURE.

The Early Church Fathers accepted them as Holy Scripture.

[rstrats]

Is there any doctrinal information in them that is not found in other scriptures?

[Grandfather]

EVERY modern version includes the verses with QUESTIONS.

It cause the neophyte to question the Bible!!!

REVEREND DAKE himself believed Mark 16:9-20 ARE HOLY SCRIPTURE.

The Early Church Fathers accepted them as Holy Scripture.

If one studies the manuscripts, these verses are not included in the oldest of them but are found in the later manuscript copies.

So one needs to ask why they did not appear in the earlier copies and only in the later ones?

Now, another question to ask. What difference do these passages make? Now before anyone gets up in arms, the question I am asking is this. Do these passages give us any new information that cannot be found elsewhere in scripture? Do they reveal to us something that can only be proven by this passage? Or do they simply support ideas and concepts found elsewhere in scripture?

[rstrats]

Grandfather,
re: "Remember, the passages we are disputing here are not introducing new doctrine..."

Actually, Mark 16:9 kind of does. As it is translated in the KJV and similar translations - it is the only scripture which says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.

[Grandfather]

Grandfather,
re: "Remember, the passages we are disputing here are not introducing new doctrine..."

Actually, Mark 16:9 kind of does. As it is translated in the KJV and similar translations - it is the only scripture which says that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week.

Mat 28:1  Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

[rstrats]

Mat 28:1  Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

What is your point?

[Grandfather]

Mat 28:1  Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

What is your point?

Matt 28 depicts the resurrection on the first day of week. Which refutes your claim that the disputed passage in Mark was the only place that said that.

Also Luke 24 supports the idea of a “first day of the week” resurrection