Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Do you obey the WHOLE Gospel?

[victoryword]

I see this more and more victoryword now days. If someone don't agree with something in the Bible they say it was added. This is done with 1 John 5:7 and many others as well. The NIV and other new translations try to discredited this verse by saying it was added or is not in any old manuscripts, oh they put it in there, but this is said in the footnotes, so the seed of doubt can be sown about this passage in Mark 16. Some scriptures are even completely taken out of some new translations. I am really starting to get aggravated with some of the new Bible translations that are out there, this is the kind of stuff that it creates.

The funny thing is that even John MacArthur, with all of his demonic cessationist ideas, affirms the longer ending of Mark (in contrast to his predecessor, Banjamin B. Warfield who used the idea that Mark 16 was not authentic to promote his cessationist baloney). But yes, I have read some translations (I think the NIV was one) that puts a footnote quiestioning the authenticity of the passage or leaving it out altogether. I have also heard the arguments against 1 John 5:7 though I have not looked thoroughly into this dispute. Perhaps if I am ever led to write a book defending the Trinity I will look further into the dispute.

[Justaned]

Ed

I am afraid that for all your desire to correct it is YOU that don't know what you are talking about. I am going to do you a favor and cite some of the sources from my own research that I quoted in my book (linked above in case you want to purchase a copy and get YOUR theology straight).

• “The remaining unmutilated Greek manuscripts, versions, and fathers overwhelmingly support the LE. It is present in all Greek MSS save two.” (Maurice A. Robinson, Senior Professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, "The Long Ending of Mark as Canonical Verity" in Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, Edited by David Alan Black (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2008), p. 77
  
  "….discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, the yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses." (John W. Burgon, Dean of the Church of England, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Mark, p. 156)

So thanks for your "Catholic" sources, seeing how credible this organization has been, but I will believe those who actually dug into this matter without bias and prejudice, and found the "longer ending" of Mark 16 to be authentic.

Let us get unbiased information. Check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Most modern translations NASB, Amplified, NLT, ESV, RSV, NIV, BBE, Century or Montgomery Translation, Holman, Lexham English Bible, Moffat, The Message, Today's English Version, Weymouth all include citations that state that the more reliable manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-18.

However the Catholic Vulgate does include the full passage as does the KJV which was copied from the Vulgate to some extent.

Again whether the passage is there or not is not really that important unless you read it as an admonishmen to test God. The truth contained in the passage is found elsewhere in scripture but pertains to people in God's service, not as a blanket covering for Christians that want to test God by handling snakes.

[victoryword]

Ed, while I am sure that you are one of 12 people out of a couple of million that finds Wikipedia to be an "unbias" and "credible" source of information but I personally prefer to get my answers from scholars who actually looked into the matter:

http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

And don't forget chapter 5 of my book, MIracles are for Today"

[Justaned]

Ed, while I am sure that you are one of 12 people out of a couple of million that finds Wikipedia to be an "unbias" and "credible" source of information but I personally prefer to get my answers from scholars who actually looked into the matter:

http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/PDF/snappmark.pdf

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

And don't forget chapter 5 of my book, MIracles are for Today"

I have found most Christian websites are self promotions. I don't consider Wikipedia as a source but it is a great depository of highly researched info obtained from the list of their sources at the end of the article.
In this case the list is fairly impressive.

However my comments were not based on Wikipedia info but rather a fairly extensive reading of articles, books and other material on the matter over a period of 30 years. Again whether the exact words as they appear in Mark 16 were intended or not the truth they convey is expressed else where in scripture.

References[edit]Beavis, M. A., Mark's Audience, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. ISBN 1-85075-215-X.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday, 1997. ISBN 0-385-24767-2
Brown, Raymond E. et al. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall, 1990 ISBN 0-13-614934-0
Elliott, J. K., The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. An Edition of C. H. Turner's "Notes on Markan Usage" together with Other Comparable Studies, Leiden, Brill, 1993. ISBN 90-04-09767-8.
Epp, Eldon Jay. "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission". In Epp, Eldon Jay; Fee, Gordon D. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Eerdmans, 1993. ISBN 0-8028-2773-X.
Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9–16, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992. ISBN 0-8028-2911-2.
Kilgallen, John J. A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. Paulist Press, 1989. ISBN 0-8091-3059-9
Mark 16 NIV Accessed May 8, 2007
Miller, Robert J. Editor, The Complete Gospels. Polebridge Press, 1994. ISBN 0-06-065587-9
External links[edit]Mark 16 in Manuscript Comparator — allows two or more New Testament manuscript editions' readings of the passage to be compared in side-by-side and unified views (similar to diff output)
The various endings of Mark Detailed text-critical description of the evidence, the manuscripts, and the variants of the Greek text (PDF, 17 pages)
Extracts from authors arguing for the authenticity of Mark 16:9–20
Aichele, G., "Fantasy and Myth in the Death of Jesus" A literary-critical affirmation of Mark's Gospel ending at 16:8.
Catholic Encyclopedia: Gospel of Saint Mark: Section IV. STATE OF TEXT AND INTEGRITY
Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established A Book written by Burgon, John William
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9–20 A detailed defense of Mark 16:9–20, featuring replicas of portions of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and a list of early patristic evidence.
Mark 16:9-20 as Forgery or Fabrication A detailed case against Mark 16:9–20, including all relevant stylistic, textual, manuscript, and patristic evidence, and an extensive bibliography

Plus they list these citations

1.^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Empty Tomb, Appearances & Ascension" p. 449-495.
2.^ May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.
3. ^ Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 50 n. 43.
4.^ Kilgallen, p. 297
5. ^ Mark 16:6–7
6.^ : a b Kilgallen, p. 300
7.^ Brown et al., p. 629
8.^ Mark 14:28
9.^ "God raised him [Jesus] from the dead" Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Cor 15:15; also Acts 2:31–32, 3:15, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40–41, 13:30, 13:34, 13:37, 17:30–31, 1 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 4:14, Gal 1:1, Eph 1:20, Col 2:12, 1 Thess 1:10, Heb 13:20, 1 Pet 1:3, 1:21
10.^ See for example Mark 16:6 in the NRSV) and in the creeds. Brown et al., p. 629 (Greek distinguished passive from middle voice in the aorist tense used here.)
11.^ Brown et al., p. 628
12.^ Brown, p. 148
13. ^ Kilgallen, p. 303
14.^ Kilgallen, p. 148
15. ^ Miller, p. 52
16.^ Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 64.
17.^ Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading (2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 64-65.
18.^ Kilgallen, p. 309
19. ^ Brown, p. 149
20.^ Kilgallen, p. 308
21.^ Maurice Robinson, after examining a microfilm of 304, states that the commentary on the text ended abruptly as well. It is suggested by some that this reflects damage to 304. Two other minuscules (1420 and 2386), formerly cited as witnesses to the ending at 16:8, have been shown to be merely damaged copies.
22.^ Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 104
23.^ Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I/2, p. 720.
24.^ Most textual critics are skeptical of the weight of the bulk of minuscules, since most were produced in the Middle Ages, and possess a high degree of similarity.
25.^ Mark 16:8
26.^ Mark 16:9-20
27.^ New American Bible
28.^ or, "does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God"
29.Jump up ^ UBS Greek New Testament p147 Παντα δε τα παρηγγελμενα τοις περι τον Πετρον συντομως εξηγγειλαν. μετα δε ταυτα και αυτος ο Ι{ησου}ς εφανη αυτοις, και απο ανατολης και αχρι δυσεως εξαπεστειλεν δι αυτων το ιερον και αφθαρτον κηρυγμα της αιωνιου σωτηριας. αμην.
30. ^ E. P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (New York: Charles Scribner's Press, 1896), p. 303.
31.^ "The Style of the Long Ending of Mark" by Dr. Bruce Terry at http://bterry.com/articles/mkendsty.htm
32. ^ Grundy, Robert. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9–16
33.^ Kilgallen, p. 306.
34.^ T. C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine", in Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999), 583-625.
35.^ T. C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and Constantine", in Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1999), 604-609.
36.^ Section 217, Column 6
37.^ Epp 1993, p. 289
38. ^ BBC Radio 4 programme on 05/Oct/2008 "The Oldest Bible"
39.^ R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition pp. 284-286.
40.^ Bruchstücke des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus, 1893, p. 33
41.^ Side-Lights on New Testament Research, p. 88
42. ^ page 126

[victoryword]

Thanks for the copying and pasting of the citations. However, numerous books by unbelieving scholars is insufficient for discounting the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark when we have evidence that Mark was quoted and referenced by church fathers and others during the period of time that these scholars dispute that the original manuscripts have this portion of Mark missing.

But here is the most important thing for me: I have personally tried some its promises, personally know of others who have tried these promises, or have read testimonies of those who have tried these promises and found that they actually work. So do you think that God or the devil brought those promises to pass in our lives Ed? If God then would He honor an uninspired document? If He honored the promises of Mark 16 without ever having inspired them then should I begin to ask him to do things for me based on the Koran? The book of Mormon? Should God begin honoring false documents?

The excuse that these promises can be found in other parts of the Bible does not work Ed as I am sure that there are things in the Koran and the book of Mormon that line up with some parts of Scripture. Therefore, since I have seen this promises work based on my experience and the credible testimony of others, I will stick with the fact that Mark 16:9-20 is not "iffy" as you indicated earlier, thus spreading a doctrine of doubt and unbelief in God's inspired Word, but I will have to accept them as the true genuine inspired Word of the Master.

[Justaned]

Thanks for the copying and pasting of the citations. However, numerous books by unbelieving scholars is insufficient for discounting the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark when we have evidence that Mark was quoted and referenced by church fathers and others during the period of time that these scholars dispute that the original manuscripts have this portion of Mark missing.

But here is the most important thing for me: I have personally tried some its promises, personally know of others who have tried these promises, or have read testimonies of those who have tried these promises and found that they actually work. So do you think that God or the devil brought those promises to pass in our lives Ed? If God then would He honor an uninspired document? If He honored the promises of Mark 16 without ever having inspired them then should I begin to ask him to do things for me based on the Koran? The book of Mormon? Should God begin honoring false documents?

The excuse that these promises can be found in other parts of the Bible does not work Ed as I am sure that there are things in the Koran and the book of Mormon that line up with some parts of Scripture. Therefore, since I have seen this promises work based on my experience and the credible testimony of others, I will stick with the fact that Mark 16:9-20 is not "iffy" as you indicated earlier, thus spreading a doctrine of doubt and unbelief in God's inspired Word, but I will have to accept them as the true genuine inspired Word of the Master.

Oh so you summarily impeach anyone that doesn't agree with you as unbelieving? That shows great scholarship and a lot of in-depth critical thinking.

The fact that these truths work for you proves nothing. Every Mormon if asked would testify that their religion or religious views work for them also.

Scripture is not based on experiential validity but rather by the fact it is God inspired.

When someone happens upon scripture that is suspect in origin you must first decide if it is presenting a new doctrine or is it restating something that uncontested scripture has already established as truth.

As I said and you just fluffed off is the truths listed in Mark 16 are in fact found elsewhere in scripture. But they are so stated in a way that does not invite the testing thereof by snake handling. Nor are they all encompassing. Many have tried to cast out demons and as Jesus disciples found they require more than will but require a prayed up, holy ghost filled person that is walking in close relationship with God. Likewise we see Paul bitten by a snake but paying it no mind got about the business of the Lord. He did not do it as a demonstration or testing of God’s power.

As far as drinking poison I believe many missionaries have had people try to poison them and without even knowing of the poison survived to see the next day. Again they did not drink poison to demonstrate or test God’s word.

To me Mark 16:9-18 is a passage most often abused by people that want to put God’s truth to a test. Again God has clearly stated we are not to test Him.

[DeafManHealing]

Something that came across my mind tonight while reading the replies ...

No pastor has ever asked somebody to jump off the NYC Empire building.

Everybody would see that is crazy. Why not so with drinking poison or playing with snakes ?

[bibleman]

Thanks for the copying and pasting of the citations. However, numerous books by unbelieving scholars is insufficient for discounting the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark when we have evidence that Mark was quoted and referenced by church fathers and others during the period of time that these scholars dispute that the original manuscripts have this portion of Mark missing.

But here is the most important thing for me: I have personally tried some its promises, personally know of others who have tried these promises, or have read testimonies of those who have tried these promises and found that they actually work. So do you think that God or the devil brought those promises to pass in our lives Ed? If God then would He honor an uninspired document? If He honored the promises of Mark 16 without ever having inspired them then should I begin to ask him to do things for me based on the Koran? The book of Mormon? Should God begin honoring false documents?

The excuse that these promises can be found in other parts of the Bible does not work Ed as I am sure that there are things in the Koran and the book of Mormon that line up with some parts of Scripture. Therefore, since I have seen this promises work based on my experience and the credible testimony of others, I will stick with the fact that Mark 16:9-20 is not "iffy" as you indicated earlier, thus spreading a doctrine of doubt and unbelief in God's inspired Word, but I will have to accept them as the true genuine inspired Word of the Master.

[branham1965]

what is your source for that abuse of scholarship??? who told you that???? many real scholars doubt its authenticity from all denominations.i mean real scholars who went to university and have real degrees.
one reads verses 1-8.then reads 9-20.its obvious the writer is a different one.

Billy
First of all it is real iffy whether Mark 16:18 was even inspired. Many manuscripts do not contain this passage. The ones considered most reliable do not contain it. AGREED

Man, have you been shopping at Cessationists-R-Us? Only TWO manuscripts out of 4200 do not contain the passage. When an AoG pastor begins questioning or casting doubt upon the authenticity of Mark 16 it lets me know that death has entered within that denomination and why you can't really tell anymore if they are genuine Pentecostals.

I highly recommend anyone doubting this read chapter 5 of my book, "Miracles are for Today: Confronting the Powerless Gospel with God's Word"

[branham1965]

LOOK AT FIRST JOHN CHAPTER FIVE VERSE SEVEN. 1 JOHN 5:7.

HOW ODD THAT WHEN THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WERE FIGHTING OVER THE TRINITY AND ETERNAL SONSHIP NOT ONE USED 1 JOHN 5:7.NO ONE.SURELY IF IT WAS AUTHENTIC ATHANASIUS WOULD HAVE USED IT AGAINST ARIUS.HE DID NOT.HE JUST POISONED HIM INSTEAD. HE COULD NOT REFUTE HIM SO HIS FOLLOWERS KILLED HIM.
SERVETUS WAS BURNED AT THE STAKE BY JOHN CALVIN FOR DENYING THE TRINITY DOCTRINE.

1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ADDED TO THE TEXT BY SOMEONE HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER THE APOSTLE JOHN THE DIVINE PENNED IT AS HOLY WRIT.

MARK 16:9-20
THESE VERSES ARE QUESTIONABLE.