W
WIbaptist
Guest
I believe it to be added by a scribe and not inspired by God and certainly not written by Mark. Thoughts?
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
W
WIbaptist
Guest
I’ve yet to meet a bible believing Christian of any denomination that belives water baptism is anything more than than a public display of faith in Jesus. Those that hold to infant baptism are putting tradition and church doctrine over the Bible and I oppose them.If you meet a Baptist, or one from any other denomination that still believes that water baptism is necessary to be saved, they would disagree with you.
Mayhaps you could expand on why you do not believe Mark wrote this part of his Gospel for us?
And, what part of those verses is it you do not agree with/or believe to be unBiblical?
Hi WIbaptist, Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox aside, do you know any Lutherans or members of the Church of Christ/Christian Church denominations (particularly if they are non-instrumental)? If you do, then you know people who believe strongly that the waters of baptism as salvific. In fact, one or two wings of the Church of Christ denomination believes that baptism is required to be saved, that salvation is not possible apart from:
1. submersion in the waters of baptism and
2. the reciting of the Acts 2:38 baptismal formula specifically
To give you an idea of just how serious they are about this, I was part of an ecumenical prison ministry a little while back and some of the guys from that denomination were telling inmates that they'd have to wait to be released from prison before they could be saved (because they had no way to baptize them in prison). When I asked them what they believed would happen to an inmate who had come to saving faith in Christ, but who died before they could be baptized, they told me that he/she would be judged and condemned at the Great White Throne judgment, that God must not have wanted them to be saved
~Deut
Another question to consider is this, why has remained as part of every Bible translation, even those that are based on the earliest manuscripts that stop @ v8? Some translations that use the earlier manuscripts, like the NASB, put brackets around v's 9-20 to make sure that we know.
This is what the folks at Got Questions.org have to say in their Q & A about this subject (just FYI):
Question: Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?
Answer: Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.
In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.
The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark.
Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.
While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.
~Deut
W
WIbaptist
Guest
Most translations other than KJV and NKJV now add it as a note or state that it was not in the earlier more reliable transcripts and should be read with caution.
What amuses me is that God Himself, with all His power, can not keep and protect His Written Word from being corrupted by man.
Or, at least, some would argue............
Or, at least, some would argue............
You quote the verses and state that they are not inspired... But you then do not explain why they are not inspired.. Throwing out accusations while providing no evidence is not a good policy..
Put forward the reason why you claim that Mark 16 - 9-20 is uninspired...
W
WIbaptist
Guest
I ever said that God didn’t allow it. God has allowed many things to happen to test us. We are told to use discernment.
W
WIbaptist
Guest
There is a reason that no master copy or original bible exists and that it was fragmented and dispersed. If there were a master copy or original then it could be altered and no one else would know of it. But with it being fragmented and dispersed, if someone altered tbier copy others would know and call it out. No complete bible exists prior to Diocletian’s persecution of the church. God’s word is preserved but it was never promised to be in a single book.
W
WIbaptist
Guest
I stated what I believe and asked others for their thoughts. Why taint original thoughts and responses by stating my own? It’s called a discussion.
You made an accusation against the Holy Bible.. As a Christian i will stand and defend the Holy Bible.. So now you refuse to back up your accusation...
My thoughts are that you are a false accuser of the Word of God..
W
WIbaptist
Guest
Where is your proof that God’s word would be preserved perfectly in a single text? Are thought for thought translations such as the NLT the word of God since they take liberties and add what they think the intent was vs the word for word translations that don’t do that?
I believe the KJV is the Inspired word of God.. No i see you have not brought forth any reasoning or evidence that the scriptures you quoted as uninspired.. Therefore there seems to be no point in dealing with you anymore.. May the Holy Spirit deal with you and defend His Children from deception..
W
WIbaptist
Guest
The Muslims also take great offense at those who challenge their god, holy text, and prophet. I raised a question. If that offends you, that’s in you. The God I worship is all knowing, all present, and all powerful. He doesn’t need men to be offended for him.
W
WIbaptist
Guest
there are more inaccuracies in the KJV than we have time to discuss.To everyone else who believes in the Holy Bible::
Psalms 12: KJV
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. {7} Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Psalms 12: KJV
6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. {7} Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."