Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired or not?

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Origen View Post
    That would mean that some scholars came to a logical and honest conclusion basis upon the evidence and the arguments. That can't happen. No way. No thinking person could ever believe such a thing could happen.
    That would be elevating a scholar, minimizing sin and exalting natural abilities.

    Liberalism is merely men and women thinking as men and women always think apart from revelation.

    Symptoms of liberal churches:
    1. Pursuit of the world's wisdom
    2. Embrace the world's theology
    3. Follow the world's agenda
    4. Employ the world's methods

    I find it disturbing that faith has become a crutch and "critical" thinking is our sight by which we walk.

    God bless,
    William

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Origen View Post
      Yeah, sure. They are all too stupid and cannot evaluate the evidence. But you who cannot read a word of Greek following out of date evidence and arguments know the truth, nonsense.
      You can either call it "stupid" or "wilfully blind". The fact remains that even after Burgon THOROUGHLY DEMOLISHED the theory that the last twelve verses of Mark are not inspired, modern Bible scholars and translators continued to ignore the evidence and pretend that there is still some doubt about this portion of Scripture. Since you do not know me, you have no idea whether or not I can read Greek or not (and it is really immaterial). Burgon's evidence is certainly not out of date, since there is absolutely no additional proof that refutes him. In fact, no one has tried to refute him in this because all the evidence is on his side.

      Originally posted by Origen View Post
      Nothing but a caricature. No modern scholar holds to Westcott- Hort theories. Their views, just like those of Burgon, are 125 years out of date. The fact you have to keep suggesting they do proves you have never read or tried to understand what modern scholars think on the topic or why.
      I have read enough of what modern "scholars" think to know that they all still SLAVISHLY following Westcott and Hort. The proof is in the modern Bible versions, and all of them are based upon the "critical texts". And all those critical texts (Nestle, Nestle-Aland, UBS) are based primarily upon the work of Westcott and Hort. And W&H are primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two of THE MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts in existence.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Lucas View Post
        You can either call it "stupid" or "wilfully blind". The fact remains that even after Burgon THOROUGHLY DEMOLISHED the theory that the last twelve verses of Mark are not inspired, modern Bible scholars and translators continued to ignore the evidence and pretend that there is still some doubt about this portion of Scripture. Since you do not know me, you have no idea whether or not I can read Greek or not (and it is really immaterial).
        If Burgon's arguments had been that conclusive, there would not today be any debate. There is debate, and therefore his arguments cannot have been conclusive.


        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          You can either call it "stupid" or "wilfully blind". The fact remains that even after Burgon THOROUGHLY DEMOLISHED the theory that the last twelve verses of Mark are not inspired
          That is your opinion and is certainly not a fact. Since you have convinced yourself of that, there is only option you have, namely believe all scholars who do not agree are stupid or willfully blind. That does make it easy for you. Why interact with the scholarly sources when you can just dismiss them without any evidence and having not read any of them.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          modern Bible scholars and translators continued to ignore the evidence and pretend that there is still some doubt about this portion of Scripture.
          They do not ignore the evidence at all. In fact there is a great deal of discussion and debating on the evidence. If you cared to really study the topic you would know that. The only people who want to shut it down are people like you who claim that Burgon is the end of discussion. Never let new research, evidence, or ideas stand in your way when you have made up your mind.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          Since you do not know me, you have no idea whether or not I can read Greek or not (and it is really immaterial).
          lol You don't and I know you don't and it is very material.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          Burgon's evidence is certainly not out of date, since there is absolutely no additional proof that refutes him.
          That is just asinine and fail to acknowledge that research has continued on for 125 years.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          In fact, no one has tried to refute him in this because all the evidence is on his side.
          Nonsense. It is only fact in your mind and no scholar holds such a view.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          I have read enough of what modern "scholars" think to know that they all still SLAVISHLY following Westcott and Hort.
          Really? Name a modern scholar and cite the source where he slavishly follows Westcott and Hort. Give us documented examples. Now don't give us something that someone says about some scholar but what the scholar himself says.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          The proof is in the modern Bible versions, and all of them are based upon the "critical texts".
          In case you did not know the KJV translators had to make choices as well. That is the way it was done then and that is the way it is done now.

          Originally posted by Lucas View Post
          And all those critical texts (Nestle, Nestle-Aland, UBS) are based primarily upon the work of Westcott and Hort. And W&H are primarily Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, two of THE MOST CORRUPT Greek manuscripts in existence.
          Your lack of knowledge on the topic is amazing. If you had really read anything on the topic you would know better. All you have is your caricature. Neither Nestle-Aland or the UBS is based upon W&H but it is an eclectic text. But don't allow the writings of these modern scholars to stand in your way since you know so much based upon sources 125 years out of date. There is no reason for you to read these scholars since you made up your mind long ago.
          Last edited by Origen; 06-26-2017, 06:15 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X
          Articles - News - SiteMap