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

[Justaned]

Billy
I love the NASB but it is nearly impossible for me to preach from, as I often get tongue tied because of the sentence structure. So I use the NKJV to preach from. If I'm preaching to new believers or 'English is a second language' listener I use the NLT.

For personal study I always used the NASB but since I notate my Bible and I don't want to miss those notes when I'm preaching I tend to study from my NKJV more and more.

However in truth I do a lot of study in Wordsearch using many many translations and making notes that can appear in any translation.

In effect I had the NKJV Dake bible years ago since Wordsearch allows Dake's notes to be seen in any translation you pick. So I can have Dake's notes, MacArthur's notes, Jack Hayford notes and my own notes in front of me for every Bible verse. Bible software is great!!!!!!!!!!

REVED
i threw that list away.
id be afraid to omit these verses.Rev 22 says dont do it.1 John 5:7 is covered in the Dake notes.no one went there.
what version do you preach out of if i may ask please.

I don't see it as justifying anything. You state that verses are taken out of the Bible, I simply stated that the reverse could be said. You are of the opinion that the verses are taken out, others view them as additions or scribal comments that were added later.

Scott
I totally agree with you on this.

In my opinion there is no way to prove the validity of the verses in question, however none present new doctrine or contradict existing scripture. I try to treat these verses in question as questionable and avoid using them to establish doctrine or to defend existing doctrine. In other words they are there and I hold them but I don't use them because they are questionable.

Never had a problem except from people that focus on the verses as some kind of test of the validity of your Christianity.
However I have also learned that most people that do this have no idea what true Christianity really is.

God's Word is questionable???

I would disagree. Man's word in questionable but NOT God's.

That is a new one for me. I think I will let that one go on by.

I didn't say God's word was questionable I said there are verses that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are now in the KJV. Where they simply missing from the early manuscripts that we have or were they later added is the question. Writting style and word usage in some cases suggest some were added rather than missing. However that can not be proven or disproven at this point.

However none of them introduce new doctrine nor do any of them contradict existing doctrine so to me they are not a problem. Yet a lot of people waste a lot of time arguing over them, instead of being about the master's business.

Hi Ed,

You have "Dake's notes, MacArthur's notes" on your computer side by side!

Wow that really covers the gamut of theological studies. From Dake the literal Bible believer to MacArthur the idiot Charismatic hater.

Bibleman
I do that so I'm always sure to have your kind of convoluted and mixed up theology covered. I use a little Dake, a little MacArthur, a little this guy and a little that guy but it all together and shake all about and I have Bibleman Theology

[bibleman]

Bibleman
I do that so I'm always sure to have your kind of convoluted and mixed up theology covered. I use a little Dake, a little MacArthur, a little this guy and a little that guy but it all together and shake all about and I have Bibleman Theology

[victoryword]

Heck, even MacArthur believes that Mark 16:9-20 is canon. He just doesn't believe that it applies today.

Yet we have "Pentecostals" on this forum who question it's canonicity. Which one is worse - the cessationist who recognizes Mark 16:9-20 as inspired Scripture but disregards it promises as relevant for today's Christians or the "non-cessationists" who cast doubt upon the validity of these promises?

[branham1965]

HEY VW I BELIEVE THAT 9-20 IS IN THE HOLY CANON ....IF ONE READS REVEREND DAKES NOTES ITS PROVEN TO BE AS IS 1 JOHN 5:7.IKNEW THAT AT 15...38 YEARS AGO!!!!
IF YOU CONFRONT A CULTIST BREAKOUT THE DARB!!!!! THEY CANNOT REFUTE IT!!!!JWS WONT EVEN TOUCH IT!!!

Heck, even MacArthur believes that Mark 16:9-20 is canon. He just doesn't believe that it applies today.

Yet we have "Pentecostals" on this forum who question it's canonicity. Which one is worse - the cessationist who recognizes Mark 16:9-20 as inspired Scripture but disregards it promises as relevant for today's Christians or the "non-cessationists" who cast doubt upon the validity of these promises?

[Justaned]

Heck, even MacArthur believes that Mark 16:9-20 is canon. He just doesn't believe that it applies today.

Yet we have "Pentecostals" on this forum who question it's canonicity. Which one is worse - the cessationist who recognizes Mark 16:9-20 as inspired Scripture but disregards it promises as relevant for today's Christians or the "non-cessationists" who cast doubt upon the validity of these promises?

First no one is casting doubt on the promises contained in the Mark 16:9-20 passage, so just get off that soap box right now.

The question of Mark 16:9-20 is serious question and deals with inspired word of God versus words added by man and claimed to be inspired by God.

Fact the earliest known existing manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.

Question are they representative of all manuscripts of the time or were they manuscripts that had been intentionally or unintentionally altered.

Evidence word usage and sentence structure appears to be different than the words and sentence structure when compared to other sections of Mark.

Evidence their validity was contested by early church fathers with some totally supporting them and others calling them additions.

Evidence they are included in most surviving copies in various languages of the scripture that was preserved by the Catholic church.

My conclusion is there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove these passages, therefore I hold to them since they offer only agreement with existing doctrine established elsewhere in scripture.

However I do not use them to try to support my position on any doctrine. I further resist anyone that uses these and only these verses to support their position.

I will say of all the verses of the scripture these seem to be the most abused by people trying to support unorthodox doctrines and practices. I have to question the fact that they tend to lend themselves to be applied incorrectly and in deviation with the rest of scripture so readily as possible proof they were written by man instead of inspired by God.

[scottae316]

This discussion boils down to simply this KJV only/Textus Receptus versus oldest manuscripts and the majority of conservative evangelical and Pentecostal scholars and the newer translations. Dake used other modern translations, seems it didn't bother him.

Also my question from my previous post remains unanswered, which Biblical doctrine is changed or lost by not having the added verses?

[Justaned]

This discussion boils down to simply this KJV only/Textus Receptus versus oldest manuscripts and the majority of conservative evangelical and Pentecostal scholars and the newer translations. Dake used other modern translations, seems it didn't bother him.

Also my question from my previous post remains unanswered, which Biblical doctrine is changed or lost by not having the added verses?

Ooo Ooo I know the answer can I answer? NONE

[victoryword]

First no one is casting doubt on the promises contained in the Mark 16:9-20 passage, so just get off that soap box right now.

The question of Mark 16:9-20 is serious question and deals with inspired word of God versus words added by man and claimed to be inspired by God.

Fact the earliest known existing manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.

First you say that no one is questioning the promises in Mark 16:9-20 and then you go on to question its validity AGAIN!! To question the passage is to question its promises, especially since the promises of protection when drinking poison and dealing with serpents are not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So yes indeed you are questioning the promises when you cast doubt upon its authenticity. So I think I will stay on that soapbox for just a little while longer.

Most scholarship is just plain STUPID and fool (no, not "full" but "fool") of unbelief. Most people have simple faith. It takes a scholarly acumen to destroy faith.

[Justaned]

First no one is casting doubt on the promises contained in the Mark 16:9-20 passage, so just get off that soap box right now.

The question of Mark 16:9-20 is serious question and deals with inspired word of God versus words added by man and claimed to be inspired by God.

Fact the earliest known existing manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.

First you say that no one is questioning the promises in Mark 16:9-20 and then you go on to question its validity AGAIN!! To question the passage is to question its promises, especially since the promises of protection when drinking poison and dealing with serpents are not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So yes indeed you are questioning the promises when you cast doubt upon its authenticity. So I think I will stay on that soapbox for just a little while longer.

Most scholarship is just plain STUPID and fool (no, not "full" but "fool") of unbelief. Most people have simple faith. It takes a scholarly acumen to destroy faith.

Questioning the validity of the verse as to whether it was in the original or not does not mean I question the content of the verse. You refuse to make that distinction because you aren't interested in truth only preserving your position.
Mark 16:9-20 does not create an new doctrine nor does it contradict any existing doctrine. That is not the question.
The question is was it included in the original or was it added.

Let us say today someone proved without a shadow of doubt that Mark 16:9-16 was added after the original Mark 16 was written what would it effect? Nothing for most of us. But for people like you that it would damage your credibility.

My point is why even argue the point nothing new is contained in Mark 16:9-16 and if anything it appears to be most misused and abused passage found in scripture (as evidenced as being most quoted by snake handlers).

You say most scholarship is just plain STUPID and fool of unbelief. This is not a faith issue it is an issue of realizing the original scriptures had to be translated and copied by HUMANS and HUMANS often make mistakes. To argue against this by saying scholarship is stupid and full of unbelief is nothing but your rhetoric. Without the foolish scholarship we would still be dying from the plague, small pox, polio, using out houses and counting using our fingers. We would never know of the writings of Josephus or Fox or any of the other church fathers. Without scholarship we would probably look more like medieval Europe full of superstition and fear than free Christians.

[scottae316]

This discussion boils down to simply this KJV only/Textus Receptus versus oldest manuscripts and the majority of conservative evangelical and Pentecostal scholars and the newer translations. Dake used other modern translations, seems it didn't bother him.

Also my question from my previous post remains unanswered, which Biblical doctrine is changed or lost by not having the added verses?

Ooo Ooo I know the answer can I answer? NONE

Correct