Is Mark 16:9-20 authentic?

[37818]

So, 37 -- may I call you 37? -- I admit sometimes I just skim, and don't read as deeply as I should, so lemme just ask point blank.... Are you suggesting you're pretty much 100% certain that the "long ending" is supposed to be part of the Scripture? (I don't want to misconstrue your position)

As sure as the book of Mark itself.

Why should I doubt it?

[Cow Poke]

As sure as the book of Mark itself.

Just wanted to make sure.

Why should I doubt it?

Because there's a good possibility you're wrong, but your mind is already made up.

[37818]

No. That is absolutely putting words in my mouth that I did not say, or did not come close to saying.

It was a question. Not an accusation. You suggested that I was having too high of expectations of God.

Perhaps it is our expectations of God that need examination?

[37818]

I'll say it! I don't think he FULLY knows God, and the verse cited was Jesus talking to His Father about the people knowing the "true God" as opposed to the many false Gods. I don't think it implied "fully knowing".

Jesus stated in His prayer to the Holy Father how one is to have eternal life. ". . . this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John in his letter wrote this:
". . . we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." -- 1 John 5:20. (1 John 5:12.)

[Cow Poke]

Jesus stated in His prayer to the Holy Father how one is to have eternal life. ". . . this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Yeah

John in his letter wrote this:
". . . we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." -- 1 John 5:20. (1 John 5:12.)

Yeah. So? Are you claiming that you fully know God?

[37818]

Does the text need to be from the original author to be inspired of God?

So you believe God used a co-writer with Mark? Just to change the original ending? Why would God need to do that?

[37818]

Just wanted to make sure.

So what part of Dr Pickering's arguments were false?

Because there's a good possibility you're wrong, but your mind is already made up.

Well, primarily 3 Greek manuscripts suggests that I'm wrong. The full manuscripts of Mark as handed down by the church's suggests that my conclusion is most probably correct. The law of the excluded middle tells us that it, the complete gospel account of Mark is either God's word or not all God's word as a whole.

[Cow Poke]

Well, primarily 3 Greek manuscripts suggests that I'm wrong.

Well, it's actually more than that, but that should be enough to suggest that men a WHOLE lot smarter than you and I question the long ending.... but you, no doubt, have this all figured out.

[37818]

Is it your view that God in his Providence does not allow there to be scribal alterations in the text transmission process?

God did not make us readers of His inerrant word to be inerrant interpreters. Nor did God disallow, to stop the deliberate or accidental errors in copies. In other words, God's inerrancy does not extend to the making of inerrant copies. But there are the laws of statistics by which the original can be discerned. 3 manuscripts versus 1000+ manuscripts.

[37818]

Well, it's actually more than that, but that should be enough to suggest that men a WHOLE lot smarter than you and I question the long ending.... but you, no doubt, have this all figured out.

Not just me, but most of the body of Christ until the 19th century when this "correction" came again to light.

Specifically, what is the reason you question the "long" ending?

[37818]

Yeah

We agree here.

Yeah. So? Are you claiming that you fully know God?

"fully?" ". . . this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, . . ." ". . . the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, . . ." The walk of us Christians with God are not the same. If they were, would we not all agree? ". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." As the Apostle Paul instructed the Corinthian church.

[robrecht]

Not just me, but most of the body of Christ until the 19th century when this "correction" came again to light.

Specifically, what is the reason you question the "long" ending?

Interesting. An argument from authoritative tradition. Do you believe in papal infallibility as well? ;)

[robrecht]

Succinctly false, in my book.

Well, at least I'm succinct! ;)

[robrecht]

God did not make us readers of His inerrant word to be inerrant interpreters. Nor did God disallow, to stop the deliberate or accidental errors in copies. In other words, God's inerrancy does not extend to the making of inerrant copies. But there are the laws of statistics by which the original can be discerned. 3 manuscripts versus 1000+ manuscripts.

Oooh, an argument from the laws of statistics. So is it your contention that each and every manuscript has a statistically equal chance of having the correct reading?

What about the fact that manuscripts were copied from earlier manuscripts?

[37818]

Interesting. An argument from authoritative tradition. Do you believe in papal infallibility as well? ;)

I believe God is inerrant. On the basis that God is inerrant, His word is inerrant. So I do believe in the inerrant Bible (66 books) God has given His people. I do not believe there are any inerrant interpreters of God's word. I do not believe there are any inerrant copies handed down from the original inerrant autographs. I do not believe there are any inerrant translations. So I do not believe in any kind of pope.