The Ending of Mark

We beiieve in faith that the versions we have in our hands are the word of God.

The problem here lies in your definition of "conflicting." The various Bible versions do not contradict one another in matters that really matter - all of them present the plan of salvation perfectly as God handed it down for everyone.

Then by your own definition the KJV does not qualify as the word of God. There are errors in the KJV as well as in other English Bible versions. God's words were error-free in the originals. But all we have is mere translations of the originals. And since these various versions were translated by humans, there are errors in all of them.

Good for you! But you don't need to push your favorite Bible version as the only legitimate word of God in English because that just isn't true. The textus receptus on which the KJV is based is also compiled from various and "conflicting" manuscripts. But then since you don't pay any attention to the Greek, that won't matter to you.

The ending of Mark that is found in the KJV and in some other Bible versions may have been a part of the original autographs, but maybe it was added by some well-meaning scribe who had an incomplete manuscript. We will never know whether the ending of Mark's Gospel as recorded in any Bible version is the original until we get to heaven. But when we get to heaven we'll be so busy praising God and Jesus Christ for what they have done for us that we will not be concerned about the ending of Mark's Gospel or any other part of the Bible because we will be living in the presence of God for all eternity.

 

1. Supposed errors in a KJV come as a result by 2 reasons.
a. These folks who "find" these supposed errors often do not understand the passage or word so they assume it is an error. The average saint does not find errors they are taught there are errors in a KJV by the "enlightened" ones.
b.These same folks are often times trying to correct the KJV with faulty mansucripts from Egypt so of scourse there are discrepancies.

2. I grow weary of this type of accusation - I believe I do not push - I seek to defend, there is a difference. I do seek to warn unsuspecting saints of those in "power" (Greek/Hebrew professors, Madison Avenue marketing, etc.) who are doing the real "pushing" and promoting of this modern movement of modern and conflicting versions.

God bless

 

AVBunyan,

I appreciate you, brother. You have not convinced me of your position, but I still respect your commitment to what you believe is right. Thank you for presenting your position in a civilized manner.

 

Actually, supposed errors in the KJV come because THEY ARE THERE. While they may not be outright mistranslations, they are poor renderings at the very least.

An example: "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Now before anyone reminds me that they useta use "Easter" for "Passover" back in the day, lemme remind them that the older 1599 Geneva Bible has "passover" in this passage.

I seek to warn unsuspecting saints that the KJVO myth is a totally-false, man-made false doctrine. Anyone who says the KJV or any other one version is the ONLY "official" Bible translation is depending upon a second authority to tell them what their "final authority "is.

Now, there's no prob with anyone choosing one valid version to be his only Bible by PERSONAL PREFERENCE, but there's simply no other legitimate reason for such a choice.

Can you prove with certainty that the longer ending of Mark is supposed to be there?

 

Why should I take your opinion over the KJV translators (no offence intended)? I think their credentials are better than yours. Perhaps your perception of "error" is personal bias.

That is a misdirected argument. Do you assume the KJV translators didn't know what they were doing? They used the "old ecclesiastical terms" where they could. I think that was wise as it eliminated a lot of strife and confusion caused by word games (such as we have in this forum).

Your teaching that "any version is as good as another" could be cast in the same light. Who is making the claim that the KJV is "official?"

No, personal preference is a poor reason to choose. The nature of the original language text base, the confidence of the reader in the translators and the common choice of a study group are just a few better reasons. The argument of "clarity" would be a much better reason than "personal preference." I doubt we would agree on what constitutes "clarity" though.

Can you prove it isn't? Did you read any of the article? It seems to be a fairly well reasoned bit of textual criticism to me.

A.F.

 

Okay, if you want 2 reasons, try these.. 1. The errors are not "supposed" as you falsely claim, and 2. the errors are there. (Really only one reason...)

Since no one is attacking the KJV then just what is it that you are defending against? It is the erroneous KJVO stance that attacks and belittles the word of God in any version that is not the KJV. And the "modern movement" that should be warned against is the KJVO myth - not the acceptance of the various legitimate translations of God's word. There have been various Bible translations down through the centuries, but the KJVO myth surfaced very recently on the time line.

Sorry for straying a bit. Back to the OP. There is no way for us to know with 100% certainty that the loinger ending of Mark's Gospel was in the original autographs. But on the other hand there is no way for us to know with 100% certainty that the longer ending wasn't in the original autographs.

 

AVBunyan:
//My point exactly - either you take by faith what
you have in your hands today or not.//

Keith M: //We beiieve in faith that the versions we have
in our hands are the word of God.//

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it!
The HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/
is the inerrant Written Word of God and in the language
I actually use to make my way through this world.
(Though thou must know that I usually go, one weekend a year,
to a Medieval Fair where they actually speak
Elizibathian/Jacobian English).

The 'one book God'-ites don't have the moral highground
here. It is by faith that freedom readers construe their
English Versions to be the 'written word of God'.

AVBunyan:
//Problem is - how can multiple and conflicting versions
all be the 'word of God"?//

The problem here lies in your definition of "conflicting."
The various Bible versions do not contradict one
another in matters that really matter - all of them
present the plan of salvation perfectly as God
handed it down for everyone.

I note the self-contradiction here. The KJVs
are 'multiple & conflicting versions'.

Freedom Readers believe, BY FAITH in Messiah
Jesus, that any 'seems like a conflict' passages can
be resolved by each individual priest/Christian
IF they have enough information about the matter.

I beleive that the purpose of the Baptist Board (BB)
Bulletin board (bb) Version/translation Forum
is to provide a vehicle for this discussion: what
is the real meaning of particular passages?

In that light, I think this topic should be about the
impact of these different endings of Mark
on one's theology.

 

Works for me, Deacon!

 

Ed, the longer ending of Mark's Gospel speaks of baptism, casting out demons, speaking in tongues, handling snakes and drinking poison. These things, based on this passage, have been twisted out of shape by some errant groups. Some, based on this passage and despite what the rest of the NT teaches, believe that one must be baptized in water in order to be saved. Some believe that speaking in other languages miraculously still exists despite the fact that this disappeared when the NT was completed. Still others believe they can handle poisonous snakes or drink poisonous things without harm coming to them, despite what the Bible teaches about testing God.

I have to stop and question at times whether the Holy Spirit would actually lead someone to write things that would cause such confusion among NT readers. Then I read 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." (NKJV) The longer ending of Mark has caused much confusion, and thus the Spirit leads me to believe it was not a part of the original Gospel.

 

Why do you think there is no bold and faithful translators who can boldly delete the longer ending of Mark if they believe that Mark 16: 9-20 is not the Words of God?
Why do the versions like NIV say and only discredit Mark 16:9-20 instead of deleting it courageously? Is it because they are afraid that they cannot sell the books and lose the money if so? Then do they love money more than the Truth ? Ask all the modern version translators to delete the longer ending boldly! They are money lovers! They are not ready to martyr for the truth, but are just money makers!
Don't argue with KJV lovers! argue with money lovers!
Ask NIV why they include John 8:1-11 ( Pericope Adulturae) while they don't believe it is not a part of genuine Bible!
Ask Modern Bible versions to behave as they believe!
If they don't behave as they believe, they are hypocrites!

I mentioned there are 619 manuscripts for Mark 16 and among them 615 are majority texts 4 are minority texts.
All majority texts 615 have the longer ending, and among 4 minority texts, 2 are A and C but they have longer ending again. Only B which contains a lot of modification to satisfy Whorish Romanc Catholicism and Aleph which was the exercise copy of the monks at Sinai Monastry have no longer ending.
Do you believe all 617 manuscripts added the ending later on and only these 2 have the genuine portion of Mark ?
I wonder what have caused so many people to misunderstand this portion?

P45 might have been damaged, but there is a trace.

http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkTwo.html
Is p45 ( beginning of 3c ) later than B and Aleph which date back to 4 c?

It might be interesting if anyone could post the photo of thelast chapter of Vaticanus Mark.

900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions
325-350 A.D. Vaticanus: blank space there. Vaticanus does not have any other blank spaces like this in the entire manuscript.
340-350 A.D. Sinaiticus: blank space there. However, According to www.LogosResourcePages.org/uncials.htm, you can see where this text was in Sinaiticus, but it was pumiced out (erased).
(900-1000 A.D. Armenian manuscript has it, but says it was added by Aristion, whom Papias mentions

(http://www.biblequery.org/ntmss.htm)

 

I am confused friend. Are you speaking from reason or revelation?

To say that we don't accept a portion of scripture because someone has misused it doesn't seem to be a valid reason to me. Much Scripture has been misused in one way or another. Exempli gratia: The Roman Catholics justify the office of "Pope" by Matthew 16:18 where our Lord says "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Should we therefore delete it from the Scriptures? I think not! But look at how much confusion the misuse of that one verse has caused.

Of course, if you have a special leading from the Holy Ghost I can't argue with that. I can only comment by saying that I have not shared in that revelation.

A.F.

 

Typical - because some of you do not understand the passage nor rightly divide the word of truth you procede to question the authenticity of the passage.

 

No,not following 2Timothy 2:15(not to be found in the Alexandrian forgeries)causes the confusion.The verses are authentic.

 

...and...

Uh, guys, that is exactly what we are doing here. Thanks for your two cents, but that's all it's worth. When are you bringing out the snakes and the hemlock?

We who seek to rightly divide the word of truth have no reason to be ashamed.

The longer ending of Mark's Gospel has caused much confusion. It has been the root of several false teachings. Can you offer absolutely certain proof that the longer ending of the Gospel was really a part of the original autograph? Of course you can't! But neither can anyone offer absolutely certain proof that it wasn't. We do not have the original autographs.

Faith allows us to accept many things, but faith also allows us to reject other things as not coming from God. And when a single passage causes as much confusion and false teaching as the longer ending of Mark's Gospel it is in faith that some accept this is likely not inspired writing, but rather something added by a well-meaning scribe very early in the copying process.

 

Rob,

Thanks for your Info on the Link and your quotation.
I may need some time to digest it as the interpretation of the same contexts result in different views.

I think John Burgeon dealt with this issue as well.
As for manuscripts, this might be a small overview:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html