[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20  (Read 3057 times)

aquatic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #15 on: May 09, 2019, 04:31:57 PM »


Well you should. Why do you think the NIV is the most widely used bible version today? It's because it's the beast

Haha. That typo made me laugh a bit.

George

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #16 on: May 09, 2019, 06:05:51 PM »


Well you should. Why do you think the NIV is the most widely used bible version today? It's because it's the beast

Haha. That typo made me laugh a bit.

Wow! So Funny. Shouldn't you be out printing Hitler Youth Movement flyers or something :(

James Heckman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2019, 05:00:58 AM »
Hello James,

Certainly, one would respect Westcott and Hort, if one were Roman Catholic.

Kindly read the following and then, I urge you to read up their historical involvement and their open sympathies to and warm welcome from non other than the Vatican.  The combined work of these two men were nothing more than a most useful tool in the destruction of the original King James Bible and thus, forming an insidious continuation of the counter-Reformation, which is felt by the discerning believer, to this very moment !

That's strange, as in the forum I usually regularly post (Puritan) almost all of the scholarly Reformed Ministers, theologians and experts consider Westcott and Hort to be respected scholars whose work they respect. They most certainly wouldn't be using the NIV if they thought for a minute that they were part of Roman Catholicism. Not sure you have this correct.

James Heckman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2019, 05:06:02 AM »
The idea that they are good scholars is a matter of personal opinion. I'm sure you agree that the phrase "Good Scholar" is subjective. And my subjective opinion, based on my years of study of them and their methodology, is that they are actually "not" good scholars. At least in my definition of good and scholarship. Although I do understand that the word "good" is also subjective. Exhibit one is that the NIV is a product of the Westcott and Hort philosophy, and it is decidedly not a good translation.

e.g.: http://mountainretreatorg.net/searchit/searchit.cgi?westcott%20and%20hort


Frankly that's a lot to read, but I'll check into it when I have the time and get back to you. But as I told Alexandra, I find it hard to believe that Puritan and Reformed Theologians have been duped. The teachers I know state that Wescott and Hort, though not perfect, are very good scholars, and the NIV a good version of the Bible. Perhaps as you say, it's just a matter of personal preference.


Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2019, 10:19:23 AM »


Quote
>>>
...but you have to respect Westcott and Hort.
<<<


No, we don't "have" to.

Well you should. Why do you think the NIV is the most widely used bible version today? It's because it's the beast and people respect the author's scholarly writings and translations.

You know Warren, you are just too old fashioned for the church. Except when it comes to a literal rendering of Christian doctrines.

Perhaps just a Freudian slip .... of epic proportions, I must add .........
Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Betty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 382
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2019, 02:04:24 PM »

Concerning the Atonement:

Alexandra

None of your arguments actually speak to the question of the authenticity of Mark chapter16, verses 9 to 20. You are merely attacking the man, rather than the scholarship he used in coming to his conclusions.  :(

Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2019, 02:42:31 PM »

Concerning the Atonement:

Alexandra

None of your arguments actually speak to the question of the authenticity of Mark chapter16, verses 9 to 20. You are merely attacking the man, rather than the scholarship he used in coming to his conclusions.  :(

Hello Betty,

Thank you for your comment. 

Before I go into any additional explanation and since you seem to hold a defensive position to Westcott and Hort, please might I ask that you furnish us, the readers, with your own information ?  This way we could possibly, at best, enter into some dialogue.

However, should you not have sufficient  knowledge on the subject, I would highly recommend that you do your own study and research, and then, by all means, present your findings.  I am sure there would be others who might also be interested and wish to comment.

In Christ
Alexandra

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Travis

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Greetings
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2019, 03:55:15 AM »
James,
   Though some scholars may differ in their opinion about the authenticity of these verses, as Tony said, there is no disagreement about if what the text says is accurate theologically. The second evidence of divine inclusion is that these texts are found in the vast majority of all the biblical manuscripts that have been found down through the centuries. The evidence for the omission of these texts is derived from the fact that they weren't in a few old manuscripts. This is based on an assumption by some scholars that the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts because they were closer to the originals in time. But that's not a logical conclusion unless we are going to assume that most of the later texts became corrupted. But if that were the case, then why are all the newer texts not corrupted elsewhere? And why do they agree elsewhere with the older texts? It is more likely that it is the few old texts that were corrupted and that is why they were put aside and lasted so long. Also, for a Spirit filled Scripture by Scripture reason why the text is not an unbiblical addition, I highly suggest you read Tony Warren's article, Understanding the Signs that follow Believers.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/bible/mark16.html


Puritan Heart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2019, 01:13:53 PM »
Hello James,

Certainly, one would respect Westcott and Hort, if one were Roman Catholic.

Kindly read the following and then, I urge you to read up their historical involvement and their open sympathies to and warm welcome from non other than the Vatican.  The combined work of these two men were nothing more than a most useful tool in the destruction of the original King James Bible and thus, forming an insidious continuation of the counter-Reformation, which is felt by the discerning believer, to this very moment !

That's strange, as in the forum I usually regularly post (Puritan) almost all of the scholarly Reformed Ministers, theologians and experts consider Westcott and Hort to be respected scholars whose work they respect. They most certainly wouldn't be using the NIV if they thought for a minute that they were part of Roman Catholicism. Not sure you have this correct.

Hello James

Kindly read through the following link and then tell me how it would be possible, if reliant on the NIV, for all these scholarly Reformed Ministers, theologians and experts of whom you speak to not falter seriously in the doctrines to which they ascribe, and furthermore, including those who so gullibly imbibe their teaching without seeking and searching for truth for themselves both in the existent life and for the benefit of their eternal souls ??

https://mundall.com/erik/NIV-KJV.htm

With a plethora of modernised versions, allegedly making it easier for the reader to understand, combined with an accepted philosophy of a tyranny-of-experts,  it has become an unspoken assumption both in the church at large and society in general, that one is no longer required to think for oneself.  The sweat work will be done by the savant and those who march the hallowed halls of theological seminaries.

Ostensibly, there is no need for earnest prayer, intercession, study of the scriptures, reliance upon the Holy Spirit, meditating upon the Word for answers and understanding. 

We are lead to believe that with the NIV being so easy to understand, the church has finally been offered an accessible interpretation of that which theologians and humble men and women of God have wrestled with for centuries ... well, it is obvious that this is what they want you to believe ......

2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/b]

Alexandra

Psalm 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Christopher Henson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Gender: Male
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2019, 04:40:06 AM »

What about the idea by some that the vocabulary and style of Mark chapter sixteen, verses 9 through 20 are non-Markan?

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2300
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #25 on: May 12, 2019, 10:32:04 AM »
>>>
What about the idea by some that the vocabulary and style of Mark chapter sixteen, verses 9 through 20 are non-Markan?
<<<

As far as I'm concerned that's unjustified and highly subjective. I read Mark very carefully long before I ever heard of the controversy of style, and the whole chapter blended and flowed seamlessly together. This half-baked theory I believe is based on, and influenced by nothing more than the need to justify the conclusions. It is a product of personal opinion and individual beliefs rather than sound scholarship. Some scholars also attempt to justify these views by the process of "hapax legomena," that is to say by citing of some terms found here in Mark and not elsewhere in the bible. That's a ridiculous methodology and would make a lot of Scriptures non-authentic is carried to its logical conclusion.

What's more, none of this was even a issue for scholars "UNTIL" the older texts were found, and then suddenly there appeared a theme of the later verses being a different style. It wasn't until the 1800's that scholars began questioning the originality of these 12 verses. In other words, to justify the belief that the verses were non authentic. Bottom line, don't listen to the experts, read it yourself and see if verse 8 seamlessly marries itself to verse 9, the rest of the verses and more importantly, the rest of the Bible. When I ask myself if Mark 16:9-20 belong in the Bible, the evidence is overwelming that it does. And the church also answered "Yes" for centuries. It is only now with the greater ability to propagate contrary views that this notion has taken serious footing in the church. Really, I don't see any diversion from the Markan style because there is none. Perhaps it magically appears if one is looking for it hard enough. ...kinda like the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If you're looking to justify it, you will find the justification, even when there is none. The authenticity of these verses of Mark chapter 16 should not be doubted. Not only are they found in nearly all Greek manuscripts, they agree with the rest of the Bible, and have been accepted in the church from the Second Century A.D. and the Spiritual nature of the text is self-evident without personal opinion or bias.

"nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"i acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Scotty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2019, 03:02:27 AM »
So do you subscribe to the King James Only philosophy?

Dana Pescator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2019, 07:12:09 AM »
Did you read this thread? I would recommend that you actually read it.


Melanie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Female
  • 🌴"But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God. -Psalm 52:8"
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2019, 10:01:44 AM »
So do you subscribe to the King James Only philosophy?

No Reformed Christian here that I know of subscribes to that.

Erik Diamond

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2528
  • Gender: Male
  • We are to God the aroma of Christ. (Eph 5:2)
Re: The Question of the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2019, 01:14:23 PM »
Quote from: Scotty
So do you subscribe to the King James Only philosophy?

You can Start Here on KJV onlyism here.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]