Mark 16: 9-20 inspiration, God or man?

God's word has always been available, just not in pure, complete form in English. If God can save a soul with a few spoken words or a few words written on a tract or t-shirt, He can cause a reformation or revival from incomplete Bibles as well. Everybody knows God’s word was available in several different forms and languages before 1611, but not His complete word in one language.

I believe it to be added by a scribe and not inspired by God and certainly not written by Mark. Thoughts?

I certainly understand why one would come to this conclusion given the evidence for this being the case. However I believe the very fact it's in our bibles now is not just an "oops they slipped this in" kind of thing. I believe it is in there for a reason, but I can't say that without adding that it is my belief and faith that push me that direction because, like I said before, the evidence certainly supports your view without a doubt, but what the evidence doesn't support is that just because these verses are not in the oldest manuscripts that they weren't in any manuscripts at that time. This event could have truly happened and God made sure that it was put in there however He made that come to be. Again my view does lean heavily on trusting that God made sure it was in there, and that I fully understand the evidence absolutely supports your view here. Anyway I'm really late to the conversation, I just replied right away.

John, you still have not answered my question. If the 1611 translation is the inspired translation, then the KJV you use today is not an inspired text. It has been revised numerous times since 1611. If the 1611 was inspired then why did the KJV committees choose to revise it so many times?

And God never let things happen to test people?

Well it says God does not temp us, but the world does, the "flesh" will always deceive and lure us.
James 1:13-15
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

So we are tempted by our flesh, and yes God does allow it no doubt, so again I do NOT disagree with coming to that conclusion at all. It's just me personally, in my OPINION and experience that I can trust His word, I don't live and die on any 1 verse anyway, period. I just believe it is in there now because God wanted it so. That just what I believe, but please, please, please, understand that I fully see the evidence we have 100% supports the case it was added. I do not deny it and absolutely think the evidence supports that conclusion. I just cannot think that it wasn't Gods will that it be put in, if He didn't want it there, then why's it there? Kind of thing. I just have no desire to question His word in any sense, this is in no way a correction or "teaching", simply how I see it spiritually at this point in my walk. Honestly what difference does it make with or without that part anyway? If it wasn't supposed to be there then, why is it there?

I believe it to be added by a scribe and not inspired by God and certainly not written by Mark. Thoughts?

Spelling changes are not revisions. Is this what you are referring to?

I did not say tempt. I said test. God has let people go through trials to be tested. He did not tempt them.

Clearly, you guys see the truth, but refuse to believe it because that would mean that God could inspire a bible today.

Signs, wonders and miracles of the Apostles, I believe.

I believe it to be added by a scribe and not inspired by God and certainly not written by Mark. Thoughts?

I believe it to be added by a scribe and not inspired by God and certainly not written by Mark. Thoughts?

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:


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

My friend,

The passage says they will, it does not say they might

My argument with you is not that children of God will never do those things, or they never have, i would be wrong if i think this

My discussion is about what the passage says.

The passage says they (all believers) will, it does not say they might.

I can not twist the word of god to make it say what i want, i must take it at its word,

If this is inspired, it is in error (just like believe and be baptized is in error)

Gods word can not be in error, so i can not consider these words inspired.

For me, it brings up the question of what makes something scripture.

Those that said that were scripturally ignorant and spiritually insensitive.

Scripture is the written words of God through prophets, apostles, and evangelists. So divine supernatural inspiration makes certain books Scripture and others non-inspired.

Regarding the last twelve verses of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus shows A BLANK SPACE within the Gospel of Mark which is exactly equivalent to the space required for the last twelve verses of Mark. That in itself is proof that those verses were removed from that document. But the majority of manuscripts do have this passage.

Here is a summation of the book by John William Burgon whose full title is:
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.

Dedication.
Preface.
Chapter I. The Case of the Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, Stated.
Chapter II. The Hostile Verdict of Biblical Critics Shewn to Be Quite of Recent Date.
Chapter III. The Early Fathers Appealed to, and Observed to Bear Favourable Witness.
Chapter IV. The Early Versions Examined, and Found to Yield Unfaltering Testimony to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter V. The Alleged Hostile Witness of Certain of the Early Fathers Proved to Be an Imagination of the Critics.
Chapter VI. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part I.
Chapter VII. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part II.
Chapter VIII. The Purport of Ancient Scholia, and NOtes in MSS. on the Subject of These Verses, Shewn to Be the Reverse of Waht Is Commonly Supposed.
Chapter IX. Internal Evidence Demonstrated to Be the Very Reverse of Unfavourable to These Verses.
Chapter X. The Testimony of the Lectionaries Shewn to be Absolutely Decisive as to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter XI. The Omission of These Twelve Verses in Certain Ancient Copies of the Gospels, Explained and Accounted for.
Chapter XII. General Review of the Question: Summary of the Evidence; and Conclusion of the Whole Subject.
Appendix (A). On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture. The Correct Text of S. Luke ii. 14, established.
Appendix (B). Eusebius
Appendix (c). Proof that Hesychius is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.
Appendix (D). Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work.
Appendix (E). Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of
Appendix (F). On the Relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Sinaiticus (א).
Appendix (G). On the so-called
Appendix (H). On the INterpolation of the text of Codex B and Codex א of S. Matthew xxvii. 48 or 49.
Postscript.
L'Envoy

And this is what Burgon said in his introductory remarks:
Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premium, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premium the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular...If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.

Scripture is the written words of God through prophets, apostles, and evangelists. So divine supernatural inspiration makes certain books Scripture and others non-inspired.

Regarding the last twelve verses of Mark, Codex Sinaiticus shows A BLANK SPACE within the Gospel of Mark which is exactly equivalent to the space required for the last twelve verses of Mark. That in itself is proof that those verses were removed from that document. But the majority of manuscripts do have this passage.

Here is a summation of the book by John William Burgon whose full title is:
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark: Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.

Dedication.
Preface.
Chapter I. The Case of the Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, Stated.
Chapter II. The Hostile Verdict of Biblical Critics Shewn to Be Quite of Recent Date.
Chapter III. The Early Fathers Appealed to, and Observed to Bear Favourable Witness.
Chapter IV. The Early Versions Examined, and Found to Yield Unfaltering Testimony to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter V. The Alleged Hostile Witness of Certain of the Early Fathers Proved to Be an Imagination of the Critics.
Chapter VI. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part I.
Chapter VII. Manuscript Testimony Shewn to Be Overwhelmingly in Favour of These Verses.-Part II.
Chapter VIII. The Purport of Ancient Scholia, and NOtes in MSS. on the Subject of These Verses, Shewn to Be the Reverse of Waht Is Commonly Supposed.
Chapter IX. Internal Evidence Demonstrated to Be the Very Reverse of Unfavourable to These Verses.
Chapter X. The Testimony of the Lectionaries Shewn to be Absolutely Decisive as to the Genuineness of These Verses.
Chapter XI. The Omission of These Twelve Verses in Certain Ancient Copies of the Gospels, Explained and Accounted for.
Chapter XII. General Review of the Question: Summary of the Evidence; and Conclusion of the Whole Subject.
Appendix (A). On the importance of attending to Patristic Citations of Scripture. The Correct Text of S. Luke ii. 14, established.
Appendix (B). Eusebius
Appendix (c). Proof that Hesychius is a copyist only in what he says concerning the end of S. Mark's Gospel.
Appendix (D). Some account of VICTOR OF ANTIOCH'S Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; together with an enumeration of MSS. which contain Victor's Work.
Appendix (E). Text of the concluding Scholion of Victor of Antioch's Commentary on S. Mark's Gospel; in which Victor bears emphatic testimony to the genuineness of
Appendix (F). On the Relative antiquity of the Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Sinaiticus (א).
Appendix (G). On the so-called
Appendix (H). On the INterpolation of the text of Codex B and Codex א of S. Matthew xxvii. 48 or 49.
Postscript.
L'Envoy

And this is what Burgon said in his introductory remarks:
Recent Editors of the New Testament insist that these “last Twelve Verses” are not genuine. The Critics, almost to a man, avow themselves of the same opinion. Popular Prejudice has been for a long time past warmly enlisted on the same side. I am as convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. It is not even with me as it is with certain learned friends of mine, who, admitting the adversary’s premium, content themselves with denying the validity of his inference. However true it may be,—and it is true,—that from those premium the proposed conclusion does not follow, I yet venture to deny the correctness of those premisses altogether. I insist, on the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,—untrustworthy in every particular...If I may be allowed to say so,—S. Mark’s last Twelve Verses shall no longer remain a subject of dispute among men. I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds: and this ought in fairness to close the discussion. But I claim to have done more. I claim to have shewn, from considerations which have been hitherto overlooked, that its genuineness must needs be reckoned among the things that are absolutely certain.