The Ending of Mark

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Mark 16:1-8 is in EVERY Greek manuscript. Maybe a word different or a spelling of a word, but 99.99% full agreement in EVERY Greek manuscript.

    Then crunch time. The ending (Mark 16:9-20) is found in hundreds of Greek manuscripts and NO TWO AGREE. Some have just another verse. Some have vss 9-13. Others have selections from the verses. Still others have added material not in the AV 16:9-20 at all.

    Why is this? Because Mark's account ended at v.8 and that is NOT LIKE Matthew or Luke. It kind of just stops. Remember, Mark was writing a sermon preached by Peter . . and this might be where the altar call came in!!

    So over time, many readers and copyists added their own ending, the ending they heard from others, etc etc and we end up with a huge hodge-podge of endings. It just didn't seem right to not have Mark end like Matthew or Luke.

    The Byzantine family (copies of copies of copies) had 9-20 added, so it came down as such in the AV. And, of course, the doctrinal mess found in these verses has plagued the church with false groups - from believe and be baptized Campbellites to Appalachian snake handlers.

    Conclusion: When MAN adds his own ending to the Gospel story, he will pay for it.
     
  2. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, Dr. Bob, even it those verses weren't in there and were added, this wouldn't affect any doctrines, correct? I don't see where it would, though I've had many tell me it would. Funny thing is they cannot tell me which doctrine(s) it affects.
     
  3. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    DrBob: "Then crunch time. The ending (Mark 16:9-20) is found in hundreds of Greek manuscripts and NO TWO AGREE. Some have just another verse. Some have vss 9-13. Others have selections from the verses. Still others have added material not in the AV 16:9-20 at all."

    Actually, Dr Bob, most of those hundreds (make it a precise 1620 MSS, according to the data published by the Nestle-Aland people) read Mk 16:9-20 without any real variation beyond spelling differences such as itacism, etc.

    In contrast, two early Greek MSS, and those two alone, except for a single late 12th century MS (MS 304) are the *only* ones omitting the long ending. In addition, six and only six MSS contain *both* the long ending and the so-called shorter ending.

    *None* of the MSS have only verses 9-13 or merely "selections from the verses" as you stated. Where that came from I have no idea.
     
  4. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Dr. Bob.

    But, I also agree that there is no harm in the scriptures because they refer to promises made to people alive at that time and people today who handle snakes are taking a promise not meant for them.

    No doctrine effected either way. To me it does not harm or help the KJV. It is just there.
     
  5. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mark 16:9-20 is in my Bible, so I know that God wanted them there.
     
  6. AVL1984

    AVL1984
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    6,932
    Likes Received:
    3
    They're in my Bible, too (the KJV), and they're also in my NIV.
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, however in the NIV they are prefaced with the following:

    "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

    In doing this the NIV translators are putting doubts in the minds of the readers concerning the Word of God.
     
  8. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Why perpetuate an error? The KJV folks only had about a dozen manuscripts to work with. The fact that the KJV didn't have much to work with and the NASB, NASU95 and so many others have corercted the problem ought to be celebrated instead of viewed with disdain. As Christians we ought to have impeccable integrity and do our best to make things right when we see they are wrong.
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    A number of the snake charmers have died trusting the KJV. But that passage says they won't. What happened?
     
  10. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    If there is a difference between the KJV and the NASB or the NASU95 or any other version, I will stay with the KJV, it is the Word of God and does not need to be corrected by you or anyone else.
     
  11. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    A number of the snake charmers have died trusting the KJV. But that passage says they won't. What happened? </font>[/QUOTE]If, in the slim chance that this is Biblical, the people being talked about were the first century Christians that could often perform miracles, such as healing, like many of the disciples. This was a promise not made to us today. If we are stupid enough to not understand this, then it makes sense that if we pick up a snake, we risk a nasty, painful death.

    That is my only point. This is not meant to be an argument that the verses belong there, only a way to explain it if for some reason we are wrong.

    That's what I meant by, it doesn't matter. ... just my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm not trying to preach this.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I guess you don't undedrstand what I tried to say. It has holes and you don't even know it. It like those who claim the earth is flat. In fact they truly believe that and have a society for themselves. But now others know the earth is not flat. Probably until 1492 most believed the earth was flat. They had no proof otherwise. But now we know different. Even the church world ridiculed the folks who said the world was round.

    So what you are saying in effect is that you still believe as those who believe the world is flat refusing to believe the newer discovered evidence that the world is truly round? You still believe the old thought rather than the newly discovered evidence that proves otherwise.

    So you yourself personally also believe the world is flat too because that evidence is older? Therefore the older evidence is right and the newer evidence is null and void? So you believe the older evidence is always right? There is no room in your thoughts and ethics that quite possibly the older evidence just might be wrong? Therefore you are closed to considering it? Your kind of thinking just in terms oif ethics and integrity just boggles my mind. Perhaps you could be wrong and yet you refuse to consider the challenge you might be wrong?

    So are you unwilling to consider the possibility that you just might be wrong?

    When I look at scripture I am always reminded of Prov. 29:1, " A man who hardens his neck after much reproof Will suddenly be broken beyond remedy."

    If the KJV is the only word of God then what did Jesus use?
     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it contains the Word of God, no doubt about that, and after all the revisions since 1611, it is a reasonably accurate translation. It is just not the ONLY translation of the Word of God.

    The Word of God was given in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Hebrew and Greek both have their own problems when translating to English. The Greek has tenses that we don't even have, so we have to compromise and this leads to different interpretations of what God actually had the writer write.

    But, again, getting back to the subject, when a major number of ancient manuscripts have the verses missing or completely different endings, then there is no way to know. But, God will preserve His Word, He has for 2000 years and He is capable of doing it in 2004 (not just 1611).

    The same thing happened when the KJ translators worked on the book of Revelation. It is often thought by scholars that many versions (in the form of pieces) had to be pieced together to come up with a whole. The group selected the ones they wanted to the best of their ability.

    This thread is NOT a KJVO vs non-KJVO debate, it is whether or not the ending of Mark was or was not included in the original manuscripts.
     
  14. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wow! Your KJVO leader Ruckman himself would agree with you because he claims to correct the Greek with the KJV.
     
  15. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    A number of the snake charmers have died trusting the KJV. But that passage says they won't. What happened? </font>[/QUOTE]This is what is wrong with MVs. First MV supporters here said the KJV and the MV's are both the Word of God. Now, they are doubting the KJV as the Word of God.

    Mark 16:17-18
    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.
    (KJV)

    In spite of your doubting God's Word, the KJV, here is a fulfillment of what Mark is saying.

    Acts 28:3-5
    3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
    4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
    5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
    (KJV)
     
  16. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ain't we all sure [attack snipped] has no 'doubts in his mind' about picking up snakes (or is it "serpents"?)? I'll catch you a few rattlers for $5 a head to help you carry out your KJV. Deal?

    [ October 08, 2004, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  17. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    If you take that way of doing exegesis and applying it to day then nothing is applicable. Well then just throw it out! Why should anyone waste their time reading a book of antiquity. Sems that's what the KJVO folks have done. They claim it is the word of God and arbitraly tell us it no longer applies. I have yet to hear one reason why that passage does not go past the first century.

    The funny thing is that none of the oldest manuscripts contain that passage. What happened? The later manuscripts contain four different versions. What happened there?

    So what reason do they give to terminate its application and not others. Is that kind of like selective theology.
     
  18. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can you prove somebody did not add this because they read Acts?

    How can you prove this if most old manuscripts have a)no ending b)different endings, etc.?

    So, are you saying the translators were "inspired" in some sort of latter day inspiration, to pick maybe one manuscript that says what they think is to be included?

    They picked the apocrypha, who was inspired to get rid of it?
     
  19. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Great Question? I am awaiting the answer.
     
  20. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you take that way of doing exegesis and applying it to day then nothing is applicable. Well then just throw it out! Why should anyone waste their time reading a book of antiquity. Sems that's what the KJVO folks have done. They claim it is the word of God and arbitraly tell us it no longer applies. I have yet to hear one reason why that passage does not go past the first century.

    The funny thing is that none of the oldest manuscripts contain that passage. What happened? The later manuscripts contain four different versions. What happened there?

    So what reason do they give to terminate its application and not others. Is that kind of like selective theology.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Point taken gb! [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...