The end of Mark???

[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.

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.

Pointer,

You are so far off my point, it is almost funny...

I didn't mean to imply that I memorize scripture every day. Actually just by reading the bible enough a person starts to remember scriptures and where they are in the bible. Simple logic should show that concept.

As far as understanding and gaining wisdom from the knowledge a person acquires or has memorized, that would be a different topic than "The end of Mark".

Edited August 27, 2006 by thepreacher

[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.

Pointer,

You are so far off my point, it is almost funny...

I didn't mean to imply that I memorize scripture every day. Actually just by reading the bible enough a person starts to remember scriptures and where they are in the bible.

Oh, I do agree. To know the gist of a passage, and approximately where it is, is often very useful indeed.

As far as understanding and gaining wisdom from the knowledge a person acquires or has memorized, that would be a different topic than "The end of Mark".

Indeed it would; but then people do like to make known their like of the KJV.

[Guest Theology_Professor]

The ending of Mark should be there.

[cjrose]

pointer

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.

Heretical? Can you please provide your evidence for this silly notion? Do you even read what you post?

First you say the NIV is easier to understand then claim all are worldly and heretical? Makes no sense.

[cjrose]

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?

Billie you are so insightful, sis, friend and fellow stoogie

[cjrose]

Tripe.

Tripe is a fish my grandmother used to make stew out of ewwwwww eyeballs and everything. It's an Italian thing.

[billie]

Tripe.

Tripe is a fish my grandmother used to make stew out of ewwwwww eyeballs and everything. It's an Italian thing.

Yucky poo poo! Down here tripe is pig intestines. People actually eat that.

[cjrose]

Tripe.

Tripe is a fish my grandmother used to make stew out of ewwwwww eyeballs and everything. It's an Italian thing.

Yucky poo poo! Down here tripe is pig intestines. People actually eat that.

Never heard that one but sounds even more pukey.... but how would you like an eyeball staring up at you from your spo on???

[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?

Billie you are so insightful, sis, friend and fellow stoogie

Thanks, dear.

[billie]

but how would you like an eyeball staring up at you from your spo on???

That would be soooo creepy.