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

[scottae316]

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.

If it wasn't for "STUPID foolish scholarship" we would not have any translations of the Bible into English or any other language.

[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

Correct

See I told you guys I knew the answer.

[branham1965]

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

See I told you guys I knew the answer.

YOU REALLY PUT YOUR HEART IN YOUR POSTS REVED. GREAT JOB.

[victoryword]

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Gen. 3:1-4)

"Hath God said?"

"What He said isn't true."

Questioning the validity of any portion of God's Word is satanic. Questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is satanically inspired.

[Justaned]

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Gen. 3:1-4)

"Hath God said?"

"What He said isn't true."

Questioning the validity of any portion of God's Word is satanic. Questioning the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 is satanically inspired.

If God said it, and that is the question. Did God in fact say that or was it added by some well intentioned scribe? Some evidence seems to suggest it was added. However none of the evidence is conclusive and there is some evidence that it is genuine, so that wisdom says we can't simply delete it but must consider it.

I know that answer doesn't satisfy you but it is the only conclusion that can be made based on the evidence. Now if you want to discard all the evidence and say it is genuine or false that is your option but remember you have to discard the evidence. That is blind faith. God has never asked us to have blind faith. The kind of faith we are to have is faith fully supported by the evidence and the Word of God.

[Justaned]

Read point 7 a few times. The early church fathers can't be trusted on doctrine but they can be on whether a passage is authentic or not. Does that even begin to make sense to you?

Also a few of the other points are not totally correct.

The earliest text or manuscript we have in hand does not contain this passage. So the question has to be asked was it added and then later added to all the other manuscripts that were later copies? Who can say one way or another?

It doesn't matter where the later manuscripts came from what matters is what manuscript were they copied from. If they were copied from the earliest one we have the verse would not be in there. So they had to be copied from others or the passage was added by them. Who can say? No one! And that is point.

On the Septuagint one thing we do know is Jesus had access to it, read from it, quoted from it. We also know no where did Jesus ever mention the Apocrypha which was in the Septuagint was not scripture. Yet we arbitrarily remove it and threaten if anyone adds or subtracts Mark 16:9-20 they are of the devil. More importantly we point to the doctrines in Apocrypha and say they are man made doctrines of Satan and thus condemn the Catholic church.

[victoryword]

The Passage the Devil wanted out of your Bible
http://www.christian-faith.com/passage- ... our-bible/

[Justaned]

The Passage the Devil wanted out of your Bible
http://www.christian-faith.com/passage- ... our-bible/

Victorywood
How about showing us how little faith we all have and take a nice bit swig of * just to show us your spirituality.
Hey if it is in the Bible it has to be true so drink up.

Not a sip but a nice big glass full. The kind that would dissolve most of your esophagus before it ever got to your stomach.

[Justaned]

Hypotheses on how to explain the textual variations include:

Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the "Longer Ending" as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.
Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances.
Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100's composed the "Longer Ending" as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.
Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark's account, and considered the "Longer Ending" superfluous.)
Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with verses 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gospels.
James H. Charlesworth, repeating Metzger's descriptions of some of the external evidence, has pointed out that the Syriac Sinaiticus manuscript (from the 400's), Codex Vaticanus (c. 325), and Codex Bobbiensis (c. 430) are all early witnesses that exclude the Marcan appendix. In addition to these, over 100 Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts, also omit the appendix. The Armenian Version was made in 411-450, and the Old Georgian Version was based mainly on the Armenian Version. One Armenian manuscript, Matenadaran 2374 (formerly known as Etchmiadsin 229), made in 989, features a note, written between 16:8 and 16:9, Ariston eritzou, that is, "By Ariston the Elder/Priest." Ariston, or Aristion, is known from early traditions (preserved by Papias and others) as a colleague of Peter and as a bishop of Smyrna in the 1st century CE.

Scholarly opinions
The current consensus among scholars is that verses 9–20 were not part of the original text of Mark but represent a very early addition.

Explaining the reason for adding the verses, text critic and author Bart D. Ehrman, without going into much detail about the manuscript-evidence, says:

Jesus does rise from the dead in Mark's Gospel. The women go to the tomb, the tomb is empty and there is a man there who tells them that Jesus has been raised from the dead and that they are to go tell the disciples that this has happened. But then the Gospel ends in Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts by saying the women fled from the tomb and didn't say anything to anyone because they were afraid, period. That's where the Gospel ends. So nobody finds out about it, the disciples don't learn about it, the disciples never see Jesus after the resurrection, that's the end of the story. But later scribes couldn't handle this abrupt ending and they added the 12 verses people find in the King James Bible or other Bibles in which Jesus does appear to his disciples.[38]

Among the scholars who reject Mark 16:9–20, a debate continues about whether the ending at 16:8 is intentional or accidental. Some scholars consider the original ending to have been verse 8. Others argue that Mark never intended to end so abruptly: either he planned another ending that was never written, or the original ending has been lost. C. H. Turner argued that the original version of the Gospel could have been a codex, with the last page being especially vulnerable to damage. Whatever the case, many scholars, including Rudolf Bultmann, have concluded that the Gospel most likely ended with a Galilean resurrection appearance and the reconciliation of Jesus with the Eleven,[39] even if verses 9–20 were not written by the original author of the Gospel of Mark.

Verses 9–20 share the subject of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, and other points, with other passages in the New Testament. This has led some scholars to believe that Mark 16:9–20 is based on the other Gospels and Acts. Some of the elements that Mark 16:9–20 has in common with other passages of Scripture are listed here:

v.11 they refused to believe it (Luke 24:10–11);
v.12–13a two returned and told the others (Luke 24:13–35);
v.14 appeared to the Eleven (Luke 24:36–43, John 20:19–29, 1 Cor 15:5);
v.15 Great Commission (Matthew 28:19, Acts 1:8);
v.16 salvation and judgment (Acts 2:38, 16:31–33);
v.17a cast out demons (Luke 10:17, Acts 5:16, 8:7, 16:18, 19:12);
v.17b speak with new tongues (Acts 2:4),
v.18a pick up serpents (Luke 10:19, Acts 28:3–6);
v.18c lay hands on the sick (Mark 5:23, Acts 6:6, 9:17, 28:8);
v.19a ascension of the Lord Jesus (24:51, John 20:17, Acts 1:2, 1:9–11);
v.19b sat down at the right hand of God, (Acts 7:55, Rom 8:34, Eph 1:20, Col 3:1);
v.20 confirmed the word by the signs that followed (Acts 14:3).
Jesus' reference to drinking poison (16:18) does not correspond to a New Testament source, but that miraculous power did appear in Christian literature from the 2nd century CE on.[2]

Scholarly conclusions
The vast majority of contemporary New Testament textual critics (see also Textual criticism) have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel. This conclusion extends back as far as the middle of the nineteenth century. Harnack, for instance, was convinced that the original ending was lost.[40] Rendel Harris (1907) supplied the theory that Mark 16:8 had continued with the words "of the Jews."[41] By the middle of the 20th century, the view that the Long Ending was not genuine had become the dominant viewpoint. By this time, most translations were adding notes to indicate that neither the Long Ending nor the Short Ending were original. Examples include Mongomery's NT ("The closing verses of Mark's gospel are probably a later addition...," 1924); Goodspeed's (who includes both endings as "Ancient Appendices," 1935); Williams' NT ("Later mss add vv. 9-20," 1937); and the Revised Standard Version (1946), which placed the Long Ending in a footnote. Tradition intervened, and by the early 1970s the complaints in favor of the verses were strong enough to prompt a revision of the RSV (1971) which restored the verses to the text—albeit with a note about their dubiousness. The vast majority of modern scholars remain convinced that neither of the two endings is Marcan.

In Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament[42] Metzger states: "Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."

The 1984 printing of the NIV translation notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20." However, the Committee on Bible Translation has since changed this to read "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9–20."

Theological implications
Few doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations stand or fall on the support of the longer ending of Mark.[citation needed] The longer ending does identify Mary Magdalene as the woman out of whom Jesus had exorcised seven demons (but so does Luke 8:2), but Mary Magdalene's significance, and the practice of exorcism, are both supported by New Testament texts outside the debated passage.

The longer ending of Mark 16 is of considerable significance in Pentecostalism and other denominations:

Mark 16:16 is cited as evidence for the requirement of believer's baptism among churches of the Restoration Movement.
Mark 16:17 is specifically cited as Biblical support for some of these denominations' teachings concerning exorcism and spiritual warfare, and also in support of speaking in tongues.
The practice of snake handling and of drinking strychnine and other poisons, found in a few offshoots of Pentecostalism, find their Biblical support in Mark 16:18. These churches typically justify these practices as "confirming the word with signs following" (KJV), which references Mark 16:20. Other denominations believe that these texts indicate the power of the Holy Spirit given to the apostles, but do not believe that they are recommendations for worship.
The longer ending was declared canonical scripture by the Council of Trent. Today, however, Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this ending.[12] The Catholic NAB translation includes the footnote: "[9–20] This passage has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."

Summary of manuscript evidence
Mark ends at 16:8 in 4th century Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209An incomplete summary of the manuscripts and versions that contain Mark 16:9–20 can be found in the apparatuses of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition and the fourth edition of United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.

Omit Mark 16:9–20: Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 304, Syriac Sinaiticus, a Sahidic manuscript, Armenian manuscripts; Eusebius, manuscripts according to Eusebius, manuscripts according to Jerome (who was repeating part of Eusebius' statements, condensing them as he loosely rendered them into Latin).
Add but marked with asterisks, obeli or other critical note in manuscripts: f1, 22, 138, 205, 1110, 1210, 1221, 1582.
Present, but without the title and chapter marks: Minuscule 461.
Add 16:9–20: A, C, D, W, Codex Koridethi, f13, 33, 565, 700, 892, 2427 (which is, however, a forgery), 2674, the Majority/Byzantine Text (over 1,200 manuscripts of Mark); the Vulgate and part of the Old Latin, Syriac Curetonian, Peshitta, Bohairic; Irenaeus, manuscripts according to Eusebius, Marinus, Acts of Pilate, manuscripts according to Jerome (add with obeli f1 al), Ambrose, Aphraates, Augustine, Augustine's Latin copies, Augustine's Greek manuscripts, Tatian's Diatessaron, Eznik of Golb, Pelagius, Nestorius, Patrick, Prosper of Aquitaine, Leo the Great, Philostorgius, Life of Samson of Dol, Old Latin breves, Marcus Eremita, Peter Chrysologus.
Add shorter ending only: Codex Bobbiensis (Latin), with a unique interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 and with the last phrase of 16:8 omitted.
Add shorter and longer ending: L (019), Ψ (044), 0112, 099, 274 (margin) 579 lectionary 1602, Syriac Harclean margin, Sahidic manuscripts, Bohairic manuscripts (Huntington MS 17), Ethiopic manuscripts.
Add 16:9–20 with "Freer Logion": Codex Washingtonianus (4th/5th century); manuscripts according to Jerome.

Most of this info comes from Wikipedia and is footnoted as to where the actual statements and conclusions are made.

[branham1965]

Reverend Dake
says they are authentic.and he proves it.

go jump in the lake ye unbelievers.