Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Faber

Is Mark 16:9-20 inspired or not?

Recommended Posts

I don't think it is.

 

What do others think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/longer-ending-mark/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

 

http://www.deliveredbygrace.com/longer-ending-mark/

 

 

Just now found 'this' -- will respond back later when I've had time to read it more closely. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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. Edited by Origen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. Edited by Origen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas said:
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, that 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.

 

Lucas said:
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.

 

Lucas said:
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.

 

Lucas said:
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.

 

Lucas said:
In fact, no one has tried to refute him in this because all the evidence is on his side.

Nonsense. It is only a fact in your mind and no scholar holds such a view.

 

Lucas said:
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.

 

Lucas said:
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.

 

Lucas said:
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×