[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Those who struggle to find to error in the King James Bible here often explain how they are under the authority of versions like the NA26, NA27, NIV, NAS, HCSB, NKJV, KJB. And when they are asked about having conflicting authorities, no substantive response is given, the topic is changed. Thus the new thread.

Using one section, the resurrection accounts of Mark of the Lord Jesus, the last twelve verses of Mark, I would like the pure-KJB opponents to clearly address one issue.

Is this section scripture or not ?
And if you are not sure, how can you be under multiple grossly conflicting authorities ?

Either God's word ends with the woman afraid:

Mark 12:8
And they went out quickly,
and fled from the sepulchre;
for they trembled and were amazed:
neither said they any thing to any man;
for they were afraid.

Or God's word ends with this section .. I will include the first and last verses here.

Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week,
he appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
out of whom he had cast seven devils. ..

Mark 16:20
And they went forth, and preached every where,
the Lord working with them,
and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

As a little aside, please note that skeptics and liberals strongly defend the lack of the verses as the ending, understandably concluding from the afraid ending that Mark, friend of Peter, simply did not know of the resurrection when he wrote. And that others embellished and added on those elements of the Gospel accounts. This is a very major weapon in the skeptic arsenal, especially when combined with the scholarly leanings toward the very dubious "Markan priority" theories.

Now there really is no middle ground, no way to split the difference. The twelve verses with the resurrection appearances are either:

a) Scripture, word of God, Bible
b) tampering, hand of man, forgery

The King James Bible says (a). NA26 and NA27 says (b). Modern versions agree conceptually and intellectually and textually with NA26-27 yet usually include the verses in their versions anyway with various notes, caveats, brackets, etc.

If the modern versions really believe that the ending is from man, this is obviously hypocritical and a blatant violation of the warnings about adding to scripture. (Personally my view is that they do not really believe their own intellectual viewpoints, however that is another discussion.) For the purposes of this thread we can concentrate on the underlying textual criticism alexandrian-based Greek texts, NA26 and NA-27, UBS, W-H. Texts which place this section as man's tampering. (Against overwhelming MSS and early church writer evidence, however that is not the point of the thread.)

Those here who are so intent on trying to say that "straining at a gnat" or "trow not" is not, to them, pure scripture, really have an intellectual and ethical responsibility before God and the forum to state precisely what is their view of the identity and authority of the Bible. They should not be continually evasive on this critical question. And I am using the ending of Mark as an example.

Perhaps they do not think it really matters, and if so they should say so, clearly. Twelve verses here and there, the resurrection accounts : "not an issue".

Or perhaps they will discard some of their authorities. If they agree with modern textcrit, they would then discard the King James Bible and not claim it as an authority. Since they now conclude by textual criticism that the KJB has a full section added by man. Or if they see these verses at scripture, the majestic and pure word of God, then they would say that only TR and Majority-based (and Peshitta and Vulgate-based texts) can possibly have authority .. and all the hundreds of alexandrian modern versions are corrupt and discardable. They would turn in their membership, resign from, the Version of the Month Club.

Or perhaps they never thought about this, and have to ponder. (They have been too busy trying to find an error in the King James Bible.) Then say so. "pondering"

Or perhaps they will simply say : "dunno". Actually, a dunno can be far more honest than an ongoing evasion, diversion and distraction attempts.

I am trying to make this as clear and easy as possible for those who seem to be busy looking for every possible nit-and-gnat-attack on the King James Bible that they can copy or fabricate, regurgitate and pontificate.

What is your view of the resurrection account of Mark, the ending, the last 12 verses ?
From God, or man ?

And how can you claim that "authorities" that disagree 100% on these verses are nonetheless both your authorities for the pure word of God ?

Thanks.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven