The end of Mark???

[LadyGunivere]

ummmmm.......wow I'm learning alot here by listening to you all....I didn't even start the topic. Thanks!!!!!

[thepreacher]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

jossshr,

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

Ivan Panin a mathematical scholar studied the languages Arabic and Greek in order to understand the bible better. He found that the bible was mathematically perfect in that it contains perfect patterns in everything from a single letter to how all the books are arranged. Ivan Panin sent out a challenge to the world to try and refute or correct his studies. To my knowledge no one has.

I have his New Testament copy and some of his notes. So whenever there is a question on the validity of a scripture or even a spelling I go to see if it is in line with Ivan Panin

[pointer]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original

Can you give an example or two, please?

but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

That's no argument for the KJV.

Memorisation is a pretty good way to kill off meaning, by inurement, anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Satan well knows. Use of the treacly KJV is an even better way to kill off meaning, and there must be millions who have been turned off Christianity by it, probably far more than have been saved through it. When the GNB first came out (as the TEV), there were many who said, "This can't be the Bible, I understand it!" Satan has been worried ever since, but the NIV has put him in a panic; hence the subsequent rise of the KJVO movement.

It is much better to understand what is in Scripture, and much the best way to understand is to use original languages. It requires effort, but then so does memorisation, and reading that KJV! Those who really want to know what God says will not bother even with the best published translations, which are all worldly and heretical anyway.

[Floatingaxe]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original

Can you give an example or two, please?

but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

That's no argument for the KJV.

Memorisation is a pretty good way to kill off meaning, by inurement, anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Satan well knows. Use of the treacly KJV is an even better way to kill off meaning, and there must be millions who have been turned off Christianity by it, probably far more than have been saved through it. When the GNB first came out (as the TEV), there were many who said, "This can't be the Bible, I understand it!" Satan has been worried ever since, but the NIV has put him in a panic; hence the subsequent rise of the KJVO movement.

It is much better to understand what is in Scripture, and much the best way to understand is to use original languages. It requires effort, but then so does memorisation, and reading that KJV! Those who really want to know what God says will not bother even with the best published translations, which are all worldly and heretical anyway.

Tripe.

[billie]

Axe, you read my mind. Not memorizing Scripture's a good way to fall into temptation. I wonder if Jesus memorized the Scriptures He threw at Satan in the desert. Nah, why would a Jew memorize the Torah?

[Floatingaxe]

Amen Billie!

Psalm 119:11...

Your word I have hidden in my heart,

That I might not sin against You.

[LadyGunivere]

Amen billie!!!!!!

[Adarian]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original

Can you give an example or two, please?

but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

That's no argument for the KJV.

Memorisation is a pretty good way to kill off meaning, by inurement, anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Satan well knows. Use of the treacly KJV is an even better way to kill off meaning, and there must be millions who have been turned off Christianity by it, probably far more than have been saved through it. When the GNB first came out (as the TEV), there were many who said, "This can't be the Bible, I understand it!" Satan has been worried ever since, but the NIV has put him in a panic; hence the subsequent rise of the KJVO movement.

It is much better to understand what is in Scripture, and much the best way to understand is to use original languages. It requires effort, but then so does memorisation, and reading that KJV! Those who really want to know what God says will not bother even with the best published translations, which are all worldly and heretical anyway.

Are you a believer? Treacly? Heretical? Or are the only ones who have truth those who are doctors of greek and hebrew?

From the book of Revelation: 1:6 KJV

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

And in the NIV, the same passage reads:

"and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father

[pointer]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original

Can you give an example or two, please?

but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

That's no argument for the KJV.

Memorisation is a pretty good way to kill off meaning, by inurement, anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Satan well knows. Use of the treacly KJV is an even better way to kill off meaning, and there must be millions who have been turned off Christianity by it, probably far more than have been saved through it. When the GNB first came out (as the TEV), there were many who said, "This can't be the Bible, I understand it!" Satan has been worried ever since, but the NIV has put him in a panic; hence the subsequent rise of the KJVO movement.

It is much better to understand what is in Scripture, and much the best way to understand is to use original languages. It requires effort, but then so does memorisation, and reading that KJV! Those who really want to know what God says will not bother even with the best published translations, which are all worldly and heretical anyway.

Are you a believer? Treacly? Heretical? Or are the only ones who have truth those who are doctors of greek and hebrew?

From the book of Revelation: 1:6 KJV

And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

And in the NIV, the same passage reads:

"and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father

[wouldhe]

I am writing a new article on my site about the ending of the book of Mark. There is a lot of evidence that the book of Mark ends at 16:8 and that 9-20 were not written by Mark. I wanted to get some of your thoughts on this if you have heard about it. Most Bibles have a foot note after Mark 16:8 if you want to check it out.

I most always just use KJV. Not only do I believe it is the closest to the original

Can you give an example or two, please?

but for ease of memorization, just one version helps.

That's no argument for the KJV.

Memorisation is a pretty good way to kill off meaning, by inurement, anyway. Familiarity breeds contempt, as Satan well knows. Use of the treacly KJV is an even better way to kill off meaning, and there must be millions who have been turned off Christianity by it, probably far more than have been saved through it. When the GNB first came out (as the TEV), there were many who said, "This can't be the Bible, I understand it!" Satan has been worried ever since, but the NIV has put him in a panic; hence the subsequent rise of the KJVO movement.

It is much better to understand what is in Scripture, and much the best way to understand is to use original languages. It requires effort, but then so does memorisation, and reading that KJV! Those who really want to know what God says will not bother even with the best published translations, which are all worldly and heretical anyway.

Tripe.