The Ending of Mark Again

Per bulletin board rules, I am starting a new thread. Unlike the thread that was closed due to personal attacks, I would like to stick strictly to documented evidence and manuscript evidence.

If this goes off thread, I give my wholehearted agreement to close it immediately.

Dr. Bob posed a very interesting question that was never really answered to my satisfaction.

Please, just provide manuscripts and endings, not opinions of such. I would really like to compare how many manuscripts have the ending, how many do not, and how many disagree and what they say. It would be nice to get the manuscript numbers or designation also, if that can be provided.

If you cannot add positive information or ask intelligent questions, please don't post on this thread.

 

You do make a good point, but the purpose of the debate is to allow the sharing of information both pro and con toward translations. Sure, we could end every debate with providing books to everyone, but that would end the purpose of the debate. The debate is to SHARE knowledge among Christians (and in this section Baptists in particular).

So, therefore, I wish to discuss the history behind the ending of Mark as evidenced by manuscripts. Obviously, you don't. That is fine. Don't . . . . . . .

What may be irrelevant to you, may be revevant to 90% of the other posters. This is not an insult, just a fact that if you are not interested in it, then nobody said you had to join in.

It is a VERY interesting thread and hopefully we can continue in a Christian like manner from here.

 

Sorry, C4K, didn't mean to steal your thunder. I was writing when you posted.

 

Does someone have a list of alternative endings in manuscripts and what they say?

 

Yes, but Michelle had a valid point. I was following the original thread with interest up to and including Ziggy's post. Afterwards, the thread was taken down the same ol' trail, so I didn't bother to wade through the slop and mud. Did anyone ever reply, or refute Ziggy's post. Believe me, I am reading for the education. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean, Ziggy's post in the original "ending of Mark thread"? I will have to go and look it up in the archive. I forgot what he said.

As we used to say in military communications; the static seems to be very high today, letting through only bursts of important info.

I'll check his last post and maybe even pull it forward with the permission of our moderator.

 

Michelle, oh Michelle,

You may state your opinion, but don't keep interrupting with nonsensical statements when we start a good discussion. If you want to discuss "INTENT" your INTENT is to derail every subject that does not fit your little world.

See, we shouldn't even be discussing this here. I opened the thread, I set the ground rules within the bounds of the boards rules. Open your own thread and rant all you want. Nobody will stop you, unless you resort to personal attacks.

I am trying to obtain historical information here, not "OPINIONS". Regardless of the definition of debate, I think I have a right, within the boards rules to ask for that.

When you keep interrupting with "I know your real intents, blah, blah, blah ad nauseum." The thread is ruined. If that is your plan of attack, then I ask you in all humbleness to not do it.

I honestly feel that the moderators have been VERY generous to you by letting you rant as much as you do.

If I were a moderator, I might not have had as much patience when it came to calling people "liars", "you know better", "you are trying to deceive us with your intent", "I know the intent of your thread.", blah, blah blah.

If you realize this, you could be a good debater, but every single thread that has been cut off has one common variable.

Because I believe you mean well, I would rather see you stay here and debate, but when you become a stumbling stone to every single thread that you disagree with, then that becomes a problem for everybody.

Stick to what the INTENT of the thread is STATED. Not what YOU think the author is trying to do. It doesn't MATTER what the author is trying to do. If he/she comes up with a conclusion to open another thread and use that information, then you can step in.

When the intent is to find historical data, your opinion is worthless. So is that of every single other person on this board, including myself. Now, if the thread invites opinions, that is a whole other story.

You need to lighten up before you blow a gasket. I for one, respect you as a Christian, but I do get tired of you bringing the "attitude" to the discussion.

I am only spending this much time and wasting the boards band-width in order to try to help you understand what the problem is and how you too can provide good input to our debates.

I am not going to do this again, because technically it is against rules, but somebody needs to be blunt and tell you what is going on and hopefully you can realize this and become a good debator and we don't lose you. Otherwise, you are headed for a shut-down, I'm afraid (I do not speak for the moderators) but, as I said before, if threads keep closing they are going to HAVE to do something in order to prevent damage to the bulletin board.

 

Thank you, TC!

 

NOW, can we get back to Mark?

A good point was made in a link that was graciously provided to me. (You might want to share it with all.)

I did not realize that even church fathers of the early church did not refer to Mark's ending and that there was pretty good evidence of exactly who wrote it. Very interesting.

I did know, that no older manuscript contains the correct ending.

 

THANKS RSR, you already did share. . .

GREAT information there. I suggest everybody look at it.