1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Ending of Mark and Snake Handling

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Phillip, Oct 16, 2004.

Top Posters
Page 5 of 5
  1. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    You are free to mutilate your bible if you want to, I will stay with the KJV, God's Holy Bible for the English-speaking people.
     
    #81 Terry_Herrington, Oct 18, 2004
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apparently you weren't listening.
    My Bible has the passage. I point my Bible
    out to you: It is the HCSB (Holmon Christian
    Standard Bible). I have three KJVs on my
    computer desk:
    KJV 1611 edition
    KJV 1769 edition
    KJV 1873 edition
    Which one is like your KJV, God's Holy Bible?
     
    #82 Ed Edwards, Oct 18, 2004
  3. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Terry Herrington:You are free to mutilate your bible if you want to, I will stay with the KJV, God's Holy Bible for the English-speaking people.

    So will I, as well as staying with some of the other versions of God's Holy Bible for the English-speaking people.

    However, I will NOT simply accept possible mistakes or additions without a thorough investigation. Were the AV men infallible? Not according to their own words. The later publishers did Christianity a great disservice by removing the AV translators' "To The Reader" from later KJV editions.
     
    #83 robycop3, Oct 18, 2004
  4. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know whether the verses mean that people would intentionally handle snakes and drink poison, or be forced upon them, or would happen accidentally. Regardless, there are no such signs in today's church. Nobody says, "Wow, can you believe the Christians drink poison and don't die? Can you believe they handle snakes without being bit?"

    I say #1. False scripture, false doctrine.
     
    #84 manchester, Oct 18, 2004
  5. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't care what MIGHT have been God's Word to speakers of 16th Century English. God's Word to the speakers of 21st Century English is the Holman, RSV, NASB, etc.
     
    #85 manchester, Oct 18, 2004
  6. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    What would be your guess as to the motivation for the "addition"? Was there a theological fad in the 9th century concerning anything in the passage? Perhaps verse 16 as support for baptismal regeneration (which however was already firmly entrenched in the church and didn't need any help) Just genuinely curious.

    My view of Mark:16:9-20:
    Personally I believe the passage is inspired (the KJV version) and selectively aimed at the apostles and eye/ear witnesses of the earthly ministry and resurrection of Jesus Christ per verse 20:

    HankD     </font>[/QUOTE]Hank, This is strictly an opinion and I am wavering somewhat on Mark's ending. All we can do is guess at what happened and when.

    The reason I mentioned the 9th century is that I am currently reading a very good book that I have mentioned many times on these threads "The Journey from Texts to Translations" (I believe?)

    Anyway, according to its author, who supplies many references, the ending of Mark that is now found appears in about the 8th or 9th century manuscripts, but does not appear in any of the older manuscripts.

    It is clear that there was an ending for Mark, but because of the differences in both style (Greek) and a sudden change in context of the existing ending, that it does not appear to fit and may have actually come from the ending of another book.

    Like Dr. Bob said, there are multitudes of manuscripts, most old ones do not have the ending, and many newer ones have different endings. The KJV translators simply picked one. (Whether God's hand was in that process, I cannot say, but I do not believe in translational inspiration.)

    Those verses have confused more people since the KJV included them than most other verses in the Bible. Preachers who demand that the verses should be there cause a problem for people who don't handle snakes.

    The author of the book above does admit that this is only his opinion too and the only historical evidence is the lack of old manuscript endings and the appearance of the ending in 9th century (about) manuscripts.

    I do NOT claim this to be true. I only state that "to me" the manuscript evidence points to a lost ending (which God obviously chose not to preserve) and an added ending.

    The author of the book also makes a good point. Most of the scribes were EXTREMELY careful in their work. They believed they were working with the Words of God, so they would never purposely leave anything out. The evidence of this is the huge number of manuscripts with only minor variations of the NT. It was found that most of these little additions appeared in later manuscripts and it was known that often a note added to a hand-printed manuscript would often wind up included in a copy of that manuscript as scripture.

    The author of the book even points to a suspected person by name who may have added it. He provides some references that point to this possibility.--don't have the book in front of me, sorry, will get it later. But, again, he states that this is not solid proof.
     
    #86 Phillip, Oct 18, 2004
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Whatever version you assume, I will just list what each Greek word says
    The only "if" (conditional/accident/may happen) is the poison stuff. Not sure that there is such a "poison" instance in the NT?? All the others are normative.
     
    #87 Dr. Bob, Oct 18, 2004
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All of what you said is understood phillip.

    "if" - good point Dr Bob!

    HankD
     
    #88 HankD, Oct 18, 2004
  9. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    So not one person who is KJVO has ever died by drinking poison and snake handling?

    Those who handle snakes would call you a liberal if you don't. But they still have people who die handling snakes.

    So what side of the fence are you on?
     
    #89 gb93433, Oct 18, 2004
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So Terry, the NKJV has this passage (and I accept it as inspired) in the same traditional version as the KJV.

    Does that make the NKJV God's Holy Bible?


    HankD
     
    #90 HankD, Oct 18, 2004
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why I belive Mark 16:9-20 is
    God's written word, inerrant Scriputre,
    part of the Holy Bible:

    1. It is listed as such in my favorite
    English version for the period in which I
    live (early 21st century) - the HCSB.

    2. The HCSB honestly notes the passage
    is missing from some N.T. sources

    3. THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY (Benathy
    House, 1995) page 255:

    "The passage is excluded from (aleph), B, and 304.
    It is not found in the Sinaitic Old Syraiac,
    some manuscripts of the Sahadic Coptic
    version, manuscripts of the Armenian translations,
    and some versions of the Georgin translation."

    Note that B has a place left empty where the
    larger ending should be. The space is
    the size in which the larger ending would fit.

    As for tempting God by handling snakes
    can you spell this?

    Mark 16:18 Roulette

    (see also "Russian Roulette")
     
    #91 Ed Edwards, Oct 18, 2004
  12. TC

    TC Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,244
    Likes Received:
    10
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I doubt you will get an answer for this. And, if you do, it will probably be no for some reason or another.
     
    #92 TC, Oct 18, 2004
  13. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    I believe that is Metzger's point along with many others who support him.
     
    #93 gb93433, Oct 18, 2004
  14. gb93433

    gb93433 Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,549
    Likes Received:
    15
    Show me where God inspired the first Bible (the inspired version) to be written in English. I always though it was in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and that the English was simply a translation of those languages. Have the scholars, manuscripts and cameras lied to me about this? Was I hallucinating when I saw the manuscripts written is something other than English?
     
    #94 gb93433, Oct 18, 2004
  15. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the NKJV God's Holy Word because it has the longer version of Mark? To be the Word of God, it should pick verses at random and have no footnotes, presenting the verses as uncontroverted. That way a person who knows nothing of the scriptures can feel confident that it is "the real Bible," descended from heaven right into the hands of the believers.
     
    #95 manchester, Oct 18, 2004
  16. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If it descended from heaven wouldn't it be in the language in which it was originally given to Moses, Isaiah, John, etc?

    We have these preserved original language documents.

    Since the archtype KJV manuscript was lost sometime before 1640, the CofE Bible correctors had to revert back to these original language documents to make their corrections.

    And then a second statement is that the 1611 First Edition had these "footnotes" where the KJV translators were not sure as to which reading to use and indeed still exist by force of the law of the English Crown in that the AV1611 is under a copyright in perpetuity including the Apocrypha and all other devices within the pages of the original AV1611.

    HankD
     
    #96 HankD, Oct 19, 2004
  17. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe that's why the modern KJV has become "the Word of God." You take out the footnotes, take out the preface, take out the Apocrypha, then it's easy to think it's all simple and easy. Once you've come to that conclusion, it's a dogma that must be defended at all costs.
     
    #97 manchester, Oct 19, 2004
  18. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What you are now potentially saying that in 1611 it was not the Word of God but had to wait until it became so.

    When then did this transformation happen, which revision and or edition and in which year did this happen seeing that only one can be perfect out of the several on the market in the year 2004.

    After all we must be sure as to which one is the genuine Word of God and which are not as many folks are so adamantly doing concerning the MVs.

    HankD
     
    #98 HankD, Oct 19, 2004
  19. manchester

    manchester New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    What you are now potentially saying that in 1611 it was not the Word of God but had to wait until it became so.

    When then did this transformation happen, which revision and or edition and in which year did this happen seeing that only one can be perfect out of the several on the market in the year 2004.

    After all we must be sure as to which one is the genuine Word of God and which are not as many folks are so adamantly doing concerning the MVs.

    HankD     </font>[/QUOTE]Ask Michelle, she knows the answer.
     
    #99 manchester, Oct 19, 2004
  20. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    re: the book "The Journey from Texts to Translations" according to Philip:

    Philip: “Anyway, according to its author, who supplies many references, the ending of Mark that is now found appears in about the 8th or 9th century manuscripts, but does not appear in any of the older manuscripts.”

    If that source actually says such, then the author doesn’t have his facts anywhere near straight. Someone needs to go back to my earlier statement of the evidence, which (in short summary) shows that:

    (a) the long ending was present in the 2nd century (Curetonian Old Syriac, Old Latin, Irenaeus)

    (b) the earliest Greek NT MSS containing the long ending (A, C, W) are only about 50-75 years later than the *only* two early MSS that happen to *omit* the long ending, and then under questionable circumstances (blank column and a half in Vaticanus; replaced cancel sheets in Sinaiticus).

    (c) And, as previously noted, acceptance of the authenticity of the long ending did not make earlier Baptist scholars (e.g. John A. Broadus) into snake-handling, tongues-speaking, poison-drinking weirdoes. :eek:
     
    #100 Ziggy, Oct 19, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 5 of 5
Loading...