Gospel of Mark - a study of conflicting versions

Hi Jim, if you are still reading this study on Mark, I want to thank you and Granny and any other King James Bible believers for your faith and encouragement.

I have noticed the typical remarks of those who insist the KJB is not the complete, inspired words of God.

Hank says or implies our faith in is the Anglican church and we should join it. Really sound arguments, Hank.

So how many denominations and different belief systems are represented in your niv, nasb, esv etc.? Do you agree with them all doctrinally and why aren't you a member of 15 different denominations? Go soak your head, please.

Scott says "If your authority is God, then please quote him."

Scott, I have been doing just that by using the English language King James Bible. It is God's authoritative and inerrant word.


Scott continues: "If God is your authority then please quote him.
If you can't and want to maintain your claim then please let us know who this god is that led you to believe KJVOnlyism... maybe you could quote him.
God never said what you believe about the KJV. Unless you can prove otherwise then you have no claim to Him as your authority. If you say that you do then you can only be referring to a false god... possibly your own mind/pride or a false teacher."

Thank you Scott for these words of distilled wisdom. God said He would preserve His words and we believe His promises. God's true words are not mixed up in a multitude of conflicting and ever changing versions.
-----------------------------------------------
The gb pipes in from the peanut gallery with "Just call them the same thing scripture calls them--false teachers. "

How ironic. The Christians who believe God meant what He said about His words not passing away and living and abiding for ever are called false teachers while those who present and defend the confused mess that passes for the words of God today are considered pillars of the faith.


None of these guys attempted to defend the ever changing textual issues found in the modern versions rolling off the presses, and how what one gives the other takes away.

They have no settled text and constantly disagree with each other. The only thing they all unite in is that the King James Bible is an inferior translation and definitely not the inspired, inerrant words of God.

God gives to some of His people ears to hear and the faith to believe Him, and He turns others over to their vain imaginations to mock and ridicule those who believe the Book.

God knows and He will reward accordingly.

Will Kinney

 

Mark 16


Mark 16:9-20 Huge textual differences between Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and all other texts.

Modern scholarship has cast serious doubt as to the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the gospel of Mark.

Mark 16
9   Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10   And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11   And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12   After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13   And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14   Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15   And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16   He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17   And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18   They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19   So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20   And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.


There are many articles on the internet showing the overwhelming textual evidence supporting the authenticity of these twelve verses. I will discuss it a little, but for those interested in seeing more, here is a good article about it.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/mark16_9.htm


All 12 verses are omitted by both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and it is these two manuscripts that are primarily responsible for the omission of some 3000 words and at least 15 whole verses in the New Testament in such versions as the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV.

However these twelve verses are found in the vast Majority of all texts. Dean Burgon says they are present in 618 of 620 known manuscripts in his day. They are also in Alexandrinus, C, D, the Old Latin, which predates anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian versions, the Coptic Sahidic and Boharic, the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.

Dean Burgon, in his book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, shows 12 church fathers who lived before the end of the 3rd century who quoted from this section of Scripture, including Irenaeus 202 A.D., Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr.

In his book, Which Bible, David Otis Fuller cites Dean John Burgon as saying: "I insist and am prepared to prove that the text of these two Codexes (Vaticanus or B, and Sinaiticus also called Aleph) is very nearly the foulest in existence," (Pp. 126-127) and "That they exhibit fabricated texts is demonstrable....B and Aleph are covered all over with blots -- Aleph even more than B....We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, SOLELY TO THEIR ASCERTAINED EVIL CHARACTER." (Pg. 93, 128)

See my short article on "the oldest and best manuscripts" that reveals what Sinaiticus and Vaticanus really say:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/oldbest.html

Dean Burgon in his book Revision Revised also says: "What we are just now insisting upon is only the depraved text of codices A, B, C, D, -- especially of B, D, and Aleph. And because this is a matter which lies at root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on this part of the subject...We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that B, D , and Aleph (Sinaiticus), are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of GOD." (Revision Revised p.15, 16)

When you see the footnote the "oldest and best manuscripts" know that they are referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The confusion and doubt thrown upon these inspired verses of Scripture can be seen in the modern versions themselves. The RSV of 1952 actually omits all twelve verses from their text and places them in small italicized letters at the bottom of the page. Then the NRSV, and the ESV (both revisions of the RSV) have put them back in the text in brackets and separated from the rest of the chapter and with a note: "SOME of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20."

SOME!?! I thought "some" meant several, not TWO! The NASB is interesting in that it continues to change from one edition to the next. The 1960 NASB brackets verses 9-20 and footnotes "Some of the oldest mss. omit." Then it adds another ending to Mark. Addition "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

Then in 1972 the NASB omitted this alternate ending, but in 1977 they put it back in. Then in 1995 they once again took it out!

The NIV 1978 edition draws a line between verse 8 and 9 and then notes: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain verses 9-20." But the 1984 Scofield NIV edition also draws a line and separates these 12 verses and footnotes: "Verses 9-20 are not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...but it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second century." So are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus "the most reliable", or have they now been downgraded to "the most ancient"? Neither of which is true at all. They certainly are not the most reliable neither are they the earliest manuscripts.

But now the 2001 TNIV (Today's New International Version) has also drawn a line between these verses and the others; tells us "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20" and then in smaller italicized letters print the last twelve verses, thus casting serious doubt as to their validity.

Doesn't it seem just a tad unscholarly and hypocritical for the NASB, NIV, ESV to include these 12 verses in their "bibles", and yet to omit the other THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament based primarily on these same two manuscripts?

I hope this study on the gospel of Mark has been beneficial for you. You should be able to clearly see that modern scholarship is constantly changing and they have no settled text of God's inerrant words. The modern versions disagree among themselves and create doubt and uncertainty as to what our Lord really says in His inerrant words of truth and life.

Believe God's promises. Get yourself an Authorized King James Holy Bible, and rest in the faithfulness of Almighty God to preserve His pure and everlasting words.

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen" Revelation 22:21

Will Kinney