Do verses 16:9-20 of Mark belong in the Bible?

[Dave Slayer]

Do verses 16:9-20 of Mark belong in the Bible? Some believe that they do not. Some of the versions will have a footnote at the bottom of the page saying these passages do not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Absolutly not. It is a certainty that it is not from any disciple. Why they would add a known Gnostic writting is a puzzle. :crazy

 

[Lewis]

Absolutly not. It is a certainty that it is not from any disciple. Why they would add a known Gnostic writting is a puzzle. :crazy

First of all all of the Bible is true, and second of all this is a Christian board watch the attack, and it is against the rules to constantly type in big letters.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Absolutly not. It is a certainty that it is not from any disciple. Why they would add a known Gnostic writting is a puzzle. :crazy

First of all all of the Bible is true, and second of all this is a Christian board watch the attack, and it is against the rules to constantly type in big letters.

You have a rule on the size of letters? I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

 

[Lewis]

Absolutly not. It is a certainty that it is not from any disciple. Why they would add a known Gnostic writting is a puzzle. :crazy

First of all all of the Bible is true, and second of all this is a Christian board watch the attack, and it is against the rules to constantly type in big letters.

You have a rule on the size of letters? I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Yes you can't always type in big letters, that rule was in place when I got here almost 5 years ago, and I have not heard of it changing. And also, if you have a problem with one part of the Bible, then you have a problem with the whole Bible.

 

[Free]

I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Proof please.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Prophecies says that the word of God would be tampered with, and I believe those prophecies. I trust God, but I do not trust man. Yahwah is the God of truth, and His words are true, but man is not trustworthy. Scholars are not trustworthy prophets of God.

 

[Rocksolid]

The contents of the Bible is a settled issue, IMO. Removing the most highly disputed parts would not change the Bible's message, so there's no reason to feel a need to do it.

 

[Lewis]

Prophecies says that the word of God would be tampered with, and I believe those prophecies. I trust God, but I do not trust man. Yahwah is the God of truth, and His words are true, but man is not trustworthy. Scholars are not trustworthy prophets of God.

Moses was man, David was a man.

 

[Rocksolid]

The contents of our Bible is a settled issue, IMO. Removing Mark 16:9-20 wouldn't change the meaning of the Bible, it would only invite more challenges - and, that's a road I won't go down.

 

[Free]

I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Proof please.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Prophecies says that the word of God would be tampered with, and I believe those prophecies. I trust God, but I do not trust man. Yahwah is the God of truth, and His words are true, but man is not trustworthy. Scholars are not trustworthy prophets of God.

Moses was man, David was a man.

Moses and David were also prophets of God.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Proof please.

Jeremiah 8:8
" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? It may be against forum rules to explain other scriptures in relationship to the subject. I know, Ill make a post about the commandments.

 

[Free]

I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Proof please.

Jeremiah 8:8
" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? It may be against forum rules to explain other scriptures in relationship to the subject. I know, Ill make a post about the commandments.

I asked for proof of the argument you made, not for Scripture.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I asked for proof of the argument you made, not for Scripture.

NIV study bible scholar note: ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

 

[Lewis]

I asked for proof of the argument you made, not for Scripture.

NIV study bible scholar note: ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

And the NIV Bible can be one of the worst Bibles to get something from, to many changes. But that another argument.

 

[JudaicChristian]

I asked for proof of the argument you made, not for Scripture.

NIV study bible scholar note: ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

And the NIV Bible can be one of the worst Bibles to get something from, to many changes. But that another argument.

Word for word the KJ is the best, but the NIV has corrected many KJ errors. That is why I use both.

 

[Imagican]

I just don't believe that it is proper to add writtings that were written hundreds of years later, by someone pretending to be a disciple.

Proof please.

Free,

If you care to study what is offered here, you will find that scholars are ALMOST unanimous in their understanding that the LAST eight verses of Mark were either; A. NOT WRITTEN BY MARK. B. Written by Mark at a LATER date. C. Added WAY LATER than that contained within the original manuscript.

The REASON that these verses are BELIEVED to be corrupt is that they are of a DIFFERENT context so far as the WORDS that are used. When compared to the REST of Mark's Gospel, these LAST eight verses contain DIFFERENT WORDS than those throughout the REST of it. Note that the beginning of Mark introduces Mary as meeting Christ on the road. Then HALF WAY through this chapter, it REINTRODUCES Mary as if we didn't ALREADY KNOW, from what was written in the BEGINNING Of the chapter, WHAT Mary was being spoken of.

And then we have the words offered concerning the LAST 'last supper' upon Christ's resurrection. There were TWO apostles that were PRESENT at this dinner and wrote Gospels. Mark was NOT EVEN AN APOSTLE. The two accounts WRITTEN BY THOSE THAT WERE PRESENT offer NOTHING so far as the commission that is offered in Mark. Matthew and John BOTH wrote Gospels and NEITHER of them mentioned ANYTHING about Christ stating that 'these signs shall follow them that believe'. They simply offered that Christ commanded the apostles to 'go out and Baptise'. Yet in Mark, there is specific mention of healing, handling serpents, drinking poison and speaking in tongues. Yet NEITHER of the TWO apostles that were PRESENT mentioned ANYTHING about these words.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[wavy]

I have explained the problem in the following thread dealing with the exact same subject:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35662


Thanks,
Eric