Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired or not?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired or not?

    I don't think it is.

    What do others think?

  • #2
    Mark 16:9-20 did not appear in the earliest versions of the manuscript, but before knowing whether it was divinely inspired or greated by a more secular source, we'd need to know its origin. Was it taken from one of the Apocrypha, added from a now lost manuscript, or added at the decison of a churchman or politician? Some sources suggest it dates from the second century, which puts that section's origin date at much the same time as the rest of Mark.

    It may not have been part of that gospel originally, but that doesn't mean its writing and addition wasn't divinely inspired. It has been present in the Bible since early times, and it has been allowed to remain through the various councils. If God didn't want it there his will could have removed it at some point over the centuries.
    Comment>

    • #3
      Originally posted by Faber View Post
      I don't think it is.

      What do others think?
      Doesn't really matter to me. There is no new information or contradictory doctrine as a result. If the message was solely based on Mark 16:9-20 I wouldn't use it as Scriptural reference, but because it is consistent with the rest of Scripture I wouldn't hesitate to use it.

      God bless,
      William
      Comment>

      • #4
        Don't you think going unharmed from drinking any deadly poison is new information (Mark 16:18)?
        Comment>

        • #5
          One of the promises for believers is, "they will pick up serpents with their hands." Acts 28:3-6 tells us that Paul did that.

          When Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and put them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened on his hand. When the native people saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer. Though he has escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.” He, however, shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. They were waiting for him to swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But when they had waited a long time and saw no misfortune come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god. (Acts 28:3-6)
          Clyde Herrin's Blog
          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by ChatterBox
            Mark 16:9-20 did not appear in the earliest versions of the manuscript, but before knowing whether it was divinely inspired or greated by a more secular source, we'd need to know its origin. Was it taken from one of the Apocrypha, added from a now lost manuscript, or added at the decison of a churchman or politician? Some sources suggest it dates from the second century, which puts that section's origin date at much the same time as the rest of Mark.

            It may not have been part of that gospel originally, but that doesn't mean its writing and addition wasn't divinely inspired. It has been present in the Bible since early times, and it has been allowed to remain through the various councils. If God didn't want it there his will could have removed it at some point over the centuries.
            Hi CB, the majority of scholars believe The Gospel of Mark was actually the first Gospel written in years 65-70 AD.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Faber View Post
              I don't think it is. What do others think?
              This is not a matter of subjective opinion but of objective facts. Dean Burgon wrote a 350 page book to prove from the Greek manuscripts, lectionaries, versions, and Early Church Fathers that the last twelve verses of Mark are authentic Scripture. Google "The Dean Burgon Society" to obtain a copy of this book. Below is a quotation summarizing the book.

              The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

              Dean John William Burgon

              This present book is filled with dynamite in its impact! Dean John William Burgon has amassed overwhelming evidence from manuscripts, lectionaries, ancient versions, and church fathers proving the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Mark!


              In the 350 pages of this book, Dean Burgon has proved that Mark 16:9-20 (the last twelve verses of Mark), is a genuine part of Mark's Gospel about which we should have no doubts whatsoever! A thorough grasp of Burgon's methodology of textual criticism such as is exhibited in these pages will convince the honest reader to reject the false conclusions regarding these twelve verses (and other verses as well) which have been accepted by the NASV, the NIV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NEB, TEV, CEV, and the other modern versions!

              If indeed, as Dean Burgon shows clearly, "B" (Vaticanus) and "Aleph" (Sinaiticus) are in serious error here, they can not be trusted elsewhere either! The manuscripts, the lectionaries, the ancient versions, and the quotations from the church fathers all unite to show that Mark 16:9-20 was in Mark's Gospel from the very beginning!

              The text of this Burgon Reprint is based on a complete photographic reproduction of Burgon's 1871 Last Twelve Verses of Mark. The reprint publisher has post-scripted Burgon's work with a Thirty-four paged summary--"Dean John William Burgon's Vindication of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark" written by D. A. Waite, Th.D, Ph.D. # 1139)
              Comment>

              • #8
                My thought is that the passage has been included in what is called The Bible / God's Word. If God didn't want it to be included, He would have seen to it that it wasn't. But it Is. And my NKJV has a foot-note at the bottom of the page. about. it. I don't usually pay any attention to the footnotes -- or much attention to the use of the various manuscripts. That which is included is included for us to accept and read.
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sue D. View Post
                  My thought is that the passage has been included in what is called The Bible / God's Word. If God didn't want it to be included, He would have seen to it that it wasn't. But it Is. And my NKJV has a foot-note at the bottom of the page. about. it. I don't usually pay any attention to the footnotes -- or much attention to the use of the various manuscripts. That which is included is included for us to accept and read.
                  It isn't only liberal scholars who have their doubts about the longer ending of Mark.

                  Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark

                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ThyWordisTruth View Post

                    It isn't only liberal scholars who have their doubts about the longer ending of Mark.

                    Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark
                    Just now found 'this' -- will respond back later when I've had time to read it more closely. :)
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      I"ve finally read the article you included. Personally - after reading his article -- I'm not concerned about what he sees as being a problem. There are other passages that make it Sound like baptism is required as part of salvation. But it's mainly the wording of the sentence. There's a logical explanation for that passage. It Is part of God's Word -- it didn't accidentally get included. And it's up to the individual pastor as to he preaches. And the footnotes at the bottom of the page -- some manuscripts have those verses some don't. So that passage Was included.

                      Thanks for including it, though. Interesting reading.
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ThyWordisTruth View Post
                        It isn't only liberal scholars who have their doubts about the longer ending of Mark.
                        Actually many conservative Christians have also been duped by the "scholars" who promote the idea that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine Scripture. Many fundamentalist Bible schools and colleges accepted the Westcott- Hort Theory hook, line and sinker, so we should not be surprised if conservatives go along with Bible corruptions and all the new Bible versions. Even the New KJV was tainted and cannot be trusted entirely.
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                          Actually many conservative Christians have also been duped by the "scholars" who promote the idea that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine Scripture.
                          Yeah, sure. They are all too stupid and cannot evaluate the evidence. But you who cannot read a word of Greek following an out of date source and arguments know the truth, nonsense.

                          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                          Many fundamentalist Bible schools and colleges accepted the Westcott- Hort Theory hook
                          Nothing but a caricature. No modern scholar holds to Westcott and Horts theories. Their views, just like those of Burgon, are 125 years out of date. The fact you have to keep suggesting modern scholars do proves you have never read or tried to understand what modern scholars think on the topic or why.
                          Last edited by Origen; 06-26-2017, 07:32 PM.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Lucas View Post
                            Actually many conservative Christians have also been duped by the "scholars" who promote the idea that the last twelve verses of Mark are not genuine Scripture. Many fundamentalist Bible schools and colleges accepted the Westcott- Hort Theory hook, line and sinker, so we should not be surprised if conservatives go along with Bible corruptions and all the new Bible versions. Even the New KJV was tainted and cannot be trusted entirely.
                            Maybe scholars, whether liberal or conservative, live up to their name, and allow themselves to be swayed by the evidence.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ThyWordisTruth View Post
                              Maybe scholars, whether liberal or conservative, live up to their name, and allow themselves to be swayed by the evidence.
                              That would mean that some scholars came to a logical and honest conclusion based upon the evidence and the arguments. That can't happen. No way. No thinking person could ever believe such a thing could happen.
                              Last edited by Origen; 06-26-2017, 07:31 PM.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap