[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

[pneuby]

I'm going to copy here the comments by John MacArthur out of my NKJ Study Bible. {paragraphs are mine} I do so not to raise the ire of those here who don't care for him. It's just one of the few "scholarly" commentaries I have at my disposal. Thus, I'm hoping it is representative of arguments for which the AV'ers have developed a sound repsponse....
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

"The external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark's gospel. While the majority of Gr. manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also exists, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older ms., while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was consdered spurious.

The fourth - century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Gr. ms. available to them lacked vs.9-20. The internal evidence from this passage also weighs heavly against Mark's authorship. The transition betweeen vv. 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Gr. particle translated "now" that begins v. 9 implies coninuity with the preceding narrative. What follows, however, does not continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, but describes Christ's appearance to Mary Magdalene.

The masucline participle in v.9 expects "he" as its antecedent, yet the subject of v.8 is the women. Although she had just been mentioned 3 times (v.1; 15; 40,47), v.9 introduces Mary Magdalene as if for the first time. Further, if Mark wrote v.9, it is strange that he would only now note that Jesus had cast 7 demons out of her.

The angel spoke of Jesus' appearing to His followers in Galilee, yet the appearances described in vv.9-20 are all in the Jerusalem area. Finally, the presence in these verses of a significant number of Gr. words used nowhere else in Mark argues that Mark did not write them. Verses 9-20 represent an early(they were known to the 2nd- cen. fathers Irenaeus, Tatian, and, possibly, Justin Martyr) attempt to complete Mark's gospel.

While for the most part summarizing truths taught elsewhere in Scripture, vv.9-20 should always be compared with the rest of Scripture, and no doctrines should be formulated based solely on them. Since, in spite of all these consideraions of the likely unreliablity of this section, it is possible to be wrong on the issue, and thus, it is good to consider the meaning of this passage and leave it in the text, just as with John 7:53-8:11.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I'm pretty cool with it as Scripture.

[Diligent]

Obviously, if you "don't know" what the ending of Mark is, then you can't believe God preserved his words. Anyway, here is a short answer:

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_mr16_9-20.html

The ending of Mark is actually very well addressed by "AVers." How many books from KJV proponents have you read?

[bibleprotector]

In my mind the case concerning the ending of Mark has been closed, having been answered by Burgon, Hills and Holland. These would be the particular authors I would recommend to read on the subject.

[pneuby]

Originally Posted by Diligent

The ending of Mark is actually very well addressed by "AVers." How many books from KJV proponents have you read?

No books, as of yet. I'm plodding my way through much of this information on the net. Will's got an excellent page, Chick Publications' info, and certainly your site. Perhaps I've read either your link, or something from Chick's on the verses once before. As with much of what I read, my comprehension is excellent, but my retention leaves much to be desired.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by John MacArthur

likely unreliablity of this section

Originally Posted by pneuby

I'm pretty cool with it as Scripture.

Hi Pneuby,

How much more of your pretty cool Scripture is unreliable ?
And how do you separate out unreliable scripture from more reliable scripture ?
And is any scripture fully reliable ?

And do you now reject NA26 & NA27 because they claim that the section is not scripture ?

Can the resurrection accounts of Mark be both God's word and not God's word at the same time ?
Can houses divided stand ?

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
The evidence for the verses from Mark, to those not indoctrinated by alexandrian seminary confusions, is actually overwhelming. On many concurring infallible proof levels. However that is not my point in this thread, which is more conceptual than technical.

[pneuby]

How much more of your pretty cool Scripture is unreliable ?

And how do you separate out unreliable scripture from more reliable scripture ?

And is any scripture fully reliable ?

And do you now reject NA26 & NA27...

Steven, I know you represent much of the passion on this board for what you believe to be the truth. However, for every newbie like myself who signs-up and actually POSTS here, there's probably quite a few more who just lurk. Thus, while I am not at all easily offended, I would encourage all of you Bible-Believers to keep this in mind.

I'm in my 40's, and I came to salvation in a church using NASB, and NIV. (FWIW, I never have had any affinity for the latter, and I only have one copy of it in a parallel with the NAS.) I fell away for 20+ years, and I've only been back in a walk for 2.5 years. My current church leadership uses several versions, probably in order of NASB, NKJV, ESV-NIV. I haven't so much read more than a few psalms or proverbs from the AV in my life. Still, using these versions, I've got all the doctrines correct. I've experienced a tremendous amount of growth in these couple years.

What brought me to the issue was a deacon at another church who told me of the differences in Bibles. Other than language, and the difference between 'word-for-word' vs. 'thought-for-thought' approaches, I had NO idea of the missing-added verses. He is a TR guy, and he encouraged me toward a NKJV, not as the 'best' choice, but only as what I now see as "the least altered". So, after a bit of research, I bought one.

I guess what I'm trying to point out is this. You can't just POUNCE on those of us in my shoes and say, "See, SEE! Here's this point, and that point. NOW, can't you reject your corrupt 'bible'-du-jour??' This is a process, ladies and gents. I'm here, willingly, trying to learn. I'm open. Afterall, I've read that even Diligent is formerly an NIV'er, LOL.

Now, I'll tell you straightout what I've not been seeing here. There is nowhere near the same level of grace
that I see on sites that are Anti-KJO. Steven, you are one of the few exceptions, so please don't take that as a personal affront.

So far, I'm leaning toward a MT/BT text position. I would hope you agree that is a step in the right direction. I bought a KJV so that I would have the same point of reference as most of you here. That is the Sword Bible which was my first post. Because it only eliminates the Elizabethan, with no other changes, I'm comfortable with it. Still, I offered to send out a copy to any other KJV'er, JUST so that a trained-eye could post a review. You can read for youself how that thread digressed.

Where I'm still struggling is the minutae that seems to be much of the discussion here. Yes, you point out that God's words are important. Yes, the scripture is convincing. However, is Christ's primary intent for us to make sure we get the "jot and tittle" correct? Or rather, is it to live as he lived, using his example?

So, whether I "study" to show myself approved, or I be "diligent" to do so, isn't the point that one should apply himself in order to "handle accurately", or "rightly divide"? Is it really the text we should be concerned with? Shouldn't the priority be the principle/s the Lord wants us to see, and to apply in our actions, thoughts and lives?

[Easy E]

You said...

Is it really the text we should be concerned with?

Yes.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by pneuby

My current church leadership uses several versions, probably in order of NASB, NKJV, ESV-NIV. ... I had NO idea of the missing-added verses.

Isn't that amazing ?

The modern versions even can have a motto:

"Use the modern versions, you don't know what you are missing !"

Very common in the churches today.

Oh, I am a former NIV'er as well. Many, many years.

Originally Posted by pneuby

So far, I'm leaning toward a MT/BT text position. I would hope you agree that is a step in the right direction.

Precept upon precept, line upon line. My view - simply the move to totally separate from the alexandrian versions, to a superior source text, is a move in the right direction.

Generally, email and web forums are difficult. This is one of the most gracious forums I have ever seen, and the moderation is sensitive and helpful. Even the best web forums, like this one, struggle to keep a balance that emphasizes truth and accuracy, responsibility and responsiveness, and cordiality and friendliness.

You will find that you cannot separate the words of God from the principles of God. Essentially, a distinction without a difference. However I will not go into that now, others have and may do more.

I asked you the questions above simply to prod you to think about the conceptual issues, as you had frequently referred here to being under very conflicting authorities. My questions were simply a response meant to show you some difficulties in your taking the conflicting authorities position.

Shalom,
Steven

[George]

Pneuby's Post #7 > Bible Versions > "Conflicting authorities & Mark's resurrection accounts.

Aloha brother,

I couldn't help noting your posts and I perceive that you may be sincere in searching for the truth i.e. "the scripture of truth" [Daniel 10:21]- as opposed to any other.

As far as to whether the last 12 verses of Mark are "genuine" scripture, a man by the name of John Burgon wrote the most exhaustive and thorough study on the "genuineness" of these verses (400 plus pages of manuscript evidence on just the 12 verses!) that has been ignored by the majority of the textual critics since he completed his monumental study.

When it comes to the issue of "Which Bible", some of us tend to be overly zealous and may be a bit too "forceful" in our presentations when dealing with this matter. Having said that, brother Steven Avery is not one of them. Since brother Steven has joined this Forum I have read all of his posts and have found them not only to be very informative and edifying, but also presented in a manner that is thoughtful, measured, reasonable, and considerate.

The issue of "Which Bible" is far more complicated than just - what we as Christians prefer to use for our personal Bible. Please read: AV1611 Bible Forums > Bible Versions > Page #7 > Post #69 (My post of 05/03/2008).

In Post #69 I have tried to outline the issue of "Which Bible" in terms that I believe are both "reasonable" and without some of the vitriol and accusations that seem to be almost unavoidable when discussing this issue. (I also list numerous authors that you may want to search out regarding this subject)

If after reading Post #69, you would have any questions I would be happy to try to answer them (If I can).