Mark 16:9-20?

[MennoII]

So what are your thoughts about this passage of Scripture. I have always thought of it as authentic, but many Christian believe this passage not to be written by Mark. I know what I believe on this Scripture but of what I call my big three passages of questionable Scripture (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; I John 5:7). I would have the most trouble defending my view on Mark 16:9-20.


Any help pro Mark 16:9-20 or even con would be most appreciated.

 

[dayhiker]

Menno
Its been a while since I read the data on this. But my memory is that the oldest copies don't have it, which would make the book of Mark end rather abruptly. If its not there in the original I don't see it as a big deal, it doesn't change any any Bible doctrine.
Also every thought in those few verse is expressed in some way in the rest of the New Testament. Like the verse they shall take up serpents. When Paul was bit and shook off a poisonous snake but wasn't harmed, I think that is the same meaning as the phrase in Mark.

So to me its not a big deal.

 

[dysert]

From Scofield:

The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.​

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Here is a short link I found about it. My thought is that since we are talking about the word of God....even though it's not in the original, it is mentioned similarly in the other gospels and God must have wanted it in there or it would not be there. That's my take on it.

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

 

[blackribbon]

Is there something in particular within these verses that bothers you...or is this just a discuss on whether or not these verses belong here?

 

[James Snapp Jr]

Menno,

I'd like to reply about this but please re-post in a different forum.

Many Bible-footnotes and commentaries do not sufficiently convey the age and scope of the evidence that supports the inclusion of these verses.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Menno,

I'd like to reply about this but please re-post in a different forum.

Many Bible-footnotes and commentaries do not sufficiently convey the age and scope of the evidence that supports the inclusion of these verses.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Why a different forum? maybe others here (like me) are interested too.

 

[mjmcmillan]

I was passably familiar with the first two, the third I had to look up. The passage in Mark is used in certain parts of West Virginia and Kentucky by an off-shoot Pentecostal group that believes we are commanded (!) to handle serpents, and snake-handling figures big in their worship. It goes without saying that some practitioners have been bitten and died, but-- that's what they're in for. The passage in John is the famous one where Jesus is asked what to do with the woman caught in the act of adultery, and his response is to write in the sand with a stick. The final one, in 1 John--- That, I had to look up. I have a question: Why is that considered a suspect verse? I use the New American Standard, and it doesn't even indicate that this verse is in any way suspect. In fact the rest of scripture backs up that verse 100%, so--- I'm mystified.

About the passage in Mark: Every notation I see on it says the earliest manuscripts don't have it, suggesting it was added later. The same thing is true of the passage in John, seems like it's missing in the earliest manuscripts.

Edit; add-on: I found the problem in 1 John 5:7. I had to look it up in the NIV Study Bible, it has notes that my copy of the NASB lacks. The passage reads "For there are three that testify in heaven: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one". Now, the problem is that no Greek translation has this before 1600 or thereabouts, so it's an add-on verse. It's found in the Vulgate, and of course any of you who carry the King James bible will be able to find it easily since it's there with no notes to say it shouldn't be.

In the NASB, the same passage reads "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth".

 

[Mediaeval]

Along with the fact that those verses are part of the Majority Text manuscript tradition, they draw attention to 'signs', which seem to be one of the emphases in St. Mark's Gospel overall.

 

[James Snapp Jr]

MennoII and MemoriesByMichelle,

I wish to address the question in a different forum -- not an altogether different website, but in a different part of Christian Forums -- because, being married, I do not qualify for this group. Plus, it's a subject that has relevance for folks who are not mature singles; it really belongs under the topic of Christian Scriptures. I would be glad to share about it there.

(Or you could just Google "Mark 16:9-20 Authentic" and see what resources become available.)

MJMcMillan,

You don't quite have a firm grip on the facts regarding First John 5:7; you have the gist of the problem, though: the Greek evidence for the phrase about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit is exceptionally poor.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

 

[mjmcmillan]

MennoII and MemoriesByMichelle,

I wish to address the question in a different forum -- not an altogether different website, but in a different part of Christian Forums -- because, being married, I do not qualify for this group. Plus, it's a subject that has relevance for folks who are not mature singles; it really belongs under the topic of Christian Scriptures. I would be glad to share about it there.

(Or you could just Google "Mark 16:9-20 Authentic" and see what resources become available.)

MJMcMillan,

You don't quite have a firm grip on the facts regarding First John 5:7; you have the gist of the problem, though: the Greek evidence for the phrase about the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit is exceptionally poor.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

There's nothing that I'm aware of stopping you from opening a thread in another part of the forum, is there? Do so, and have at it. There is no-not-any reason to request that this thread be moved, the only thing is that if you do coypasta on the opening post here, you may want to give credit to the poster you copied from.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Off-topic rant.

A few months back, over in GE50 we had some folk come in all angry and upset because the GE50 crowd doesn't spend all of their time saying wise things. If you've been over thataway, you know that GE50 is mostly games, which is not unlike a lot of old-folks homes where the old folks are capable of getting up and about. They stayed a couple of weeks being unhappy and making others unhappy because the oldsters wouldn't bend to the imperious will of the newcomers.

Now, here we have a serious subject and--- we have someone not happy because we're discussing it here and not somewhere else.

I guess whatever you do, you're gonna tick someone off.

/off-topic rant.

 

[dayhiker]

mj ... your right about that. I've seen it many times.
So sometimes when a new person comes in .. in attack mode I usually give then a little rebuke to let them know that they are welcome but their attacks aren't. Some learn from it and become good members of the board and others think we are terrible sinners and leave, no doubt not wanting to be contaminated by our carnality. I'm always glad they made such a wise choice.

 

[mjmcmillan]

Dayhiker, I'm not sure about you-- I think you're divorced, like I am-- but I've had occasion to learn that being divorced is a ticket to not being welcomed in some forums. I have doubts that attacking the regulars would improve matters much.

So--- back to what we were discussing.

1 John 5:7 has been trimmed in the NASB, there is a notation at the bottom of the page about the alternate script and why it's debatable. The NIV makes it a bit more clear. I had to go back to memory about what the King James says, though if I check my landlord probably has a copy of it here. Funny thing: Way back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, I was studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and that verse comes up as a spurious document in their bibles and teachings. You'd think I'd remember it because of the heat it generates in your average kingdom hall. They have their own bibles, carefully edited to make sure you understand the "truth" as they teach it.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

Dayhiker, I'm not sure about you-- I think you're divorced, like I am-- but I've had occasion to learn that being divorced is a ticket to not being welcomed in some forums. I have doubts that attacking the regulars would improve matters much.

Here there are divorced, widows/widowers, and older never married. I am glad this forum is here where you can be accepted and not be treated like an outcast. Yeah, sometimes someone says something that annoys me and I am sure I sometimes annoy others. I guess that is part of the fun. Society stigmatizes all of us. I think especially the church stigmatizes divorced people. I know in some legalistic churches if you are divorced you are a "bad" person no matter if you were the victim of cheating, abuse, or whatever. And this attitude carries over somewhat even to churches that are not overly legalistic. End of rant.

No disrespect to the 50s forum, but I am far from being ready to retire to talk about games or whatever. If you are fifty-something and able to retire more power to you! I have to make a virtue of necessity and have to work at least another 20 years. I have an active lifestyle (I just bought me some new hiking boots and when the weather warms up I will also hit the trails on my bicycle). I know I am 50 but I am living more like a healthy 40 year old. So I don't quite match up with any of the age-specific forums.

I enjoy that this forum has all kinds of discussions and not just discussions about relationships. I will dive into the verses in question in Mark this weekend if I have time.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Off-topic rant.

A few months back, over in GE50 we had some folk come in all angry and upset because the GE50 crowd doesn't spend all of their time saying wise things. If you've been over thataway, you know that GE50 is mostly games, which is not unlike a lot of old-folks homes where the old folks are capable of getting up and about. They stayed a couple of weeks being unhappy and making others unhappy because the oldsters wouldn't bend to the imperious will of the newcomers.

Now, here we have a serious subject and--- we have someone not happy because we're discussing it here and not somewhere else.

I guess whatever you do, you're gonna tick someone off.

/off-topic rant.

OK well first off, Mr. Snapp stated that he didn't "fit" the criteria for posting in this section of the forum because he is married. IDK he means any disrespect, and he wasn't really complaining IMO. He can start a new thread where ever he wants, that's his choice.
I agree also with the GE50 section. I tried it there and they just want to have fun (and games) and I wanted a little more content. Since the regulars there had no interest in that, I didn't stay long. I didn't really complain so to speak, but I did ask them in the beginning why they didn't talk about more serious topics but it is what it is and I like it here better.

I happen to think we are the most welcoming group IMO. Probably because we all have some sort of hashtag attached to us from society. Mine is being a widow, some of you are divorced (gasp!) and some just haven't found who they are looking for yet. That's what makes us special!

I prefer the serious subjects, but we can't be all serious 100 percent of the time. THANK YOU! for starting this thread!!!

 

[mjmcmillan]

I wonder if Mr. Snapp is going to do it. It's easy enough, all you have to do is start a new thread in the forum you wish to enter discussion in.

I suspect it won't happen, though. First, a person who has ten posts to his name since signing on in 2010 isn't exactly the most energetic of posters. There are people here who put up that many posts in a few hours. Starting a thread and following up on the results takes some energy, after all.

Second--- I haven't wanted to say it, but something about the whole business smells of "troll". It's a lot easier to come onto a board and tell the natives you don't like the way they do things than it is to really be part of the community.

 

[memoriesbymichelle]

Can a person with only 7 posts start threads though? Just curious

 

[mjmcmillan]

Can a person with only 7 posts start threads though? Just curious

That makes part of the point. He signed on here in 2010, so--- he's been napping most of the time, not terribly energetic anywhere. I'm somewhat less of a frequent poster compared to many here, there are some who had the required number of posts to do whatever they liked within a week.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

Can a person with only 7 posts start threads though? Just curious

I started my first thread after being a member for a day. I doubt I had many posts at all. I am now a highly experienced thread poster with six or seven threads on several forums. I even have one thread I started on another forum no one has replied to after a month.

I don't see that James Snapp said anything trollish. This isn't the sort of place where where they send the internet police after you if you sometimes post something here but you don't meet certain criteria, but he might not know that. I think he was just saying he was married but please don't send the internet police after him. A visitor might not know right away that we are not usually uptight and nit-picky.