jossshr Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 15 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/25/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 26, 2006 Well now you're getting into a translation issue. I stick with good ol KJV. I may look to the NIV sometimes for clarification, but the KJV's always the authority in my book. The KJV was the original English translation more than 400 years ago. It does not use more recently discovered manuscripts. If you really want an authority then you might want to check out the NASB or the ESV which are more updated literal translations. The King James actually has a lot of questionable translations mainly because it is so old. The passage I referenced in my previous post is one of them, but it has Mark 16:9-20 just like all other bibles but with a footnote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2006 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. The most significant thing about the Marcan appendix is that it is not used by any serious student to support a theological position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryt Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,230 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/03/1952 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Those bibles that do not have Mark 16:9-20 are missing the Word of God. LT Actually two of the most important and oldest manuscripts don't have that portion of Mark and the context of what is said seems kind of wierd I found this article about it when researching. The reason they are the oldest is because they were not used and discarded in some archive. If they were used by the church they would have been worn out and copied. Important is a qualitative judgement only important to those that deem it so. God preserved His Word for us down to the present time. Don't get me started of Hort and Wescot. Both were involved in the occult. LT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryt Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 52 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,230 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 124 Days Won: 1 Joined: 08/22/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/03/1952 Share Posted August 26, 2006 Well now you're getting into a translation issue. I stick with good ol KJV. I may look to the NIV sometimes for clarification, but the KJV's always the authority in my book. The KJV was the original English translation more than 400 years ago. It does not use more recently discovered manuscripts. If you really want an authority then you might want to check out the NASB or the ESV which are more updated literal translations. The King James actually has a lot of questionable translations mainly because it is so old. The passage I referenced in my previous post is one of them, but it has Mark 16:9-20 just like all other bibles but with a footnote This is a lie taught by advertising companies. Seriously. I have checked this out. The KJV is not in question in any passsage. People are fighting it because it is true... it is Satan trying to do away with the true word of God again in the KJV. He is trying to replace man-made, satan-inspired works. Are you really going to fall for these lies? You are so right. Money is the motivating factor here. New translations = more money. LT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatingaxe Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 62 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 9,613 Content Per Day: 1.45 Reputation: 656 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/31/1952 Share Posted August 26, 2006 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. The most significant thing about the Marcan appendix is that it is not used by any serious student to support a theological position. It is used by people who believe in healing! Those who believe healing is no longer for today debunk it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2006 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. The most significant thing about the Marcan appendix is that it is not used by any serious student to support a theological position. It is used by people who believe in healing! Not by serious scholars who believe in healing. Those people use 1 Cor. 12:9 and 28. (Though of course, most of those today who say they believe in healing do their best to avoid that chapter. And usually, a lot of others!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2006 If they were used by the church they would have been worn out and copied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 115 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 8,281 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 3 Joined: 03/03/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/30/1955 Share Posted August 26, 2006 These verses do NOT occur in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. They ARE however quoted by the Fathers, and attributed to Mark, in writing PREDATING Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. They ARE in thousands of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament writings, some of geneologies well predating mss V and S. Both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are missing other sections of the New Testament as well. It has been many years since I studied this out, but I believe it is Sinaiticus which has a large, blank section, right after Mark 16:8, as if the copyist was going to write more, but for some reason never returned to his task. As I studied this, the evidence for excluding seemed so trivial that I simply could not see how any reliable scholar could EVER opt to leave them out. It looks to me like the only reason to leave them out is because some 'scholars' have permitted their 'Dispensationalist Dudgeon' cloud their scholarly equanimity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wouldhe Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 66 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 274 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/21/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/03/1995 Share Posted August 26, 2006 9-20 were written by Mark. It curtails a very important part of the Gospel in it. Missing the word of God.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted August 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 26, 2006 These verses do NOT occur in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. They ARE however quoted by the Fathers, and attributed to Mark, in writing PREDATING Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That isn't necessarily saying anything. Even one hundred years is quite sufficient time in which to add an 'ending'; or a dozen of them. As I studied this, the evidence for excluding seemed so trivial that I simply could not see how any reliable scholar could EVER opt to leave them out. It looks to me like the only reason to leave them out is because some 'scholars' have permitted their 'Dispensationalist Dudgeon' cloud their scholarly equanimity. The hermeneutic principle applies here, as everywhere else. The fact is that there is no doctrinal teaching in the appendix that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture. This debate is of academic interest only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts