Is Mark 16:17-20 for today?

I took a look and sho' nuff, my story is an old Wendy Bagwell story. I'm delighted to give him the credit he's due. Besides it was a whole lot funnier the way he told it. Cracked me up, and I knew the punch line was coming.

 

Agreed. Verses 9-20 are not genuine according to nearly all experts in the field. (Some here don't like the word Bible scholars.)

 

He does heal if he wills. And there are billions and billions of times he wills NOT to heal.

Signs are done as I have clearly shown from Scripture.

 

The Greek word for "miracle" means sign.

They signify that one is speaking for God, as I have made clear from Scripture.

As we have clearly demonstrated the Apostles are dead. The age of those who speak for God apart from holy writ is ended.

Miracles are over in this age.

God does supernatural things all of the time; God heals, God saves, etc...

But miracles are done.

 

The phrase "And these signs shall follow them that believe" has always left me wondering. They will "follow" them that "believe". I don't see an expiration date in that verse. Is our interpretation based on Scriptural evidence or on the lack of signs in our own lives?

 

Acts 28:3-6, where Paul is bitten by the viper at Malta, validates this passage. Like someone said, Mark 16 doesn't contain an expiration date.

 

Paul was an apostle

If you get bit by a snake(pit viper)---that, dear friend, will warrent a trip to the hospital emergency room and then an overnite stay----then months of recooperation

I was bit by a Copperhead as a young teenager-----he(or she) got me on the instep of my left foot----couldn't walk w/o assistance for several days---couldn't put a shoe on for several days

The scripture may not contain an expiration date---but it does contain an application date----and the application date expired as the last of the apostles died off

 

Again, you don't bother to read very closely. I had said in my post numbered 42 that Mark 16:9-20 is not considered genuine by nearly all experts in the field. That field isn't pastureland . I'm speaking of New Testament texual experts.

Wanna' partial list?
D.A.Carson
Doug Moo
Leon Morris (deceased)
Daniel Wallace
Philip Comfort
Bruce Metzger (deceased)
Keith Elliott
Michael Holmes
R.T.France
Kurt Aland
Robert Gundry

et al.

It seems as if you can't refrain from bearing false witness. Also, you constantly repudiate Elbert Hubbard's quote which you have in your signature line.

 

I think that it is for today. I believe we that believe have the power to heal in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The serpent that is spoken in this verse to me is not a snake or a viper but it is the Devil even as he was called at the beginning. Jesus said these signs shall follow them that believe and in his name they shall cast out devils. There is more then just believing? We have to have faith that with anything we ask him he is faithful and just to do them things. Only in the name of Jesus Christ. Honor and Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

The point, TC, was that nearly all New Testament scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine. The point was not about Bible translations containing that section.And you really need to look at the disclaimers in the various versions. It's put there mainly for tradition's sake.

You are totally unhinged. What in the world do you take issue with in my position to respond in such a crass way? You are a pastor and scholar?! You don't sound very pastoral or scholarly. If you can't defend your position without bad-mouthing others (and you have a sad history of doing that with others on the BB) why do you have a signature line that refutes your conduct?

 

You have the habit of ignoring the obvious. Most New Testament scholars believe,based on rational means,that the last 12 verses of Mark are bogus. You can claim otherwise and whittle away the plain wording -- but it's very evident that most NT scholars think it is not genuine.

That is not a rational statement in light of your conduct on the BB.

You just tell other people that they say stupid statements.

Tell me where I have said anything negative on this thread against any version of the Bible. If you can't produce the evidence, then stop making stuff up.

What obsession? What is driving you to make such absurd charges? Again, you are a pastor? Is this the way you behave with your congregation? You need to evaluate your conduct and conclude that you are embarrassing yourself. You can change -- I know you can.

 

From An Introduction To The New Testament by D.a.Carson and Douglas J.Moo.

"But the arguments against this ending being original are very strong.First it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the unicals [Aleph]and B),as well as several others. Second,Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not cotain this longer ending.Third,two other endings to the gospel exist:a shorter ending ...and the longer ending combined with an interpolation... The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth,the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8:Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an expressed subject),although 'the women'is the subject in verse 8;Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1;and 'when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week' (v.9) sounds strange after 'very early on the first day of the week' (v.2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics,then, we do not think that verses 9-20 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel. The resemblances between what is narrated in these verses and the narrative of Jesus' resurrection appearances in the other gospels suggest that this longer ending was composed on the basis of these other narratives to supplement what was felt to be an inadequate ending to the gospel." (p.189)

 

From An Introduction To The New Testament by D.A.Carson and Douglas Moo.

"...Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8. This third possibility is becoming more popular and is most likely. Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself,forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly.The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v.6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v.8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask --and find answers to." (pages 189 and 190)

 

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves TEACHERS, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the TRUTH, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. Call God the truth and all men a lie! Jesus is the truth! For the law was given by Moses but Grace a truth came by Jesus Christ. You can only get the truth from Jesus Christ.

 

Regarding the part about serpents, I would have to disagree with you. Do we not see in Acts where Paul was bitten by a viper, and remained unharmed? Does this not verify the saying in Mark that they would be able to take up snakes?

Scripture very clearly explains itself.

BTW: I believe that signs are possible; but that 99% of the "signs and wonders" done today are pure crapola.

 

So who among you is playing with snakes and drinking the kool-aid?