Forums » General Discussion

    • 5 posts
    October 12, 2015 7:32 AM EDT

    Dear brethren,

    I posted verses in Mark 16:15-18 (the great commision), and one of my friend commented that mark is up to MArk 16:8 only..

    and she said sorry but what u post is wrong..how true is this..? any idea, sorry but im still learning about bible..I didnt argue with her but i told her i will search..

     

    Thanks..


    This post was edited by Amy Binas at October 12, 2015 7:39 AM EDT
    • 272 posts
    October 12, 2015 11:18 AM EDT

    Hi Amy! Here is a link to the entire chapter of Mark (ESV version), which goes to 20. I guess you could ask your friend what kind of Bible she is using? I'm not familar, for instance, with what the Catholics might use, or some of the non-mainstream type groups, like Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.

    • 5 posts
    October 13, 2015 2:51 AM EDT

    Hi sylvia,

    I didnt argue with her because i dont have any idea about this..she is in other group (DATING DAAN)- this is filipino language,i think ur not familiar on this another sect of religious group in philippines which i think they will really argue if i will answer but because i dont like argument.just want to be clear.thats why i shared.

    This is what i posted.

    15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
    16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

     Her comment:

    This post was edited by Amy Binas at October 13, 2015 2:57 AM EDT
    • 5 posts
    October 13, 2015 2:54 AM EDT

    Thanks sylvia..just want to clear..better i will not answer her.


    This post was edited by Amy Binas at October 13, 2015 2:55 AM EDT
    • 272 posts
    October 13, 2015 8:36 AM EDT

    Hi Amy! Oh, it's ok if you don't want to argue with her, I was actually just curious what kind of Bible she was trying to use. For sure, of course, what you posted is part of the Bible. I tried to google "Bible Scholars", but I think the term is too general to find whatever it is...oh well :). Have a blessed day!

    • 1 posts
    October 13, 2015 10:09 AM EDT

    [blockquote]Sylvia Todd said:

     I was actually just curious what kind of Bible she was trying to use. For sure, of course, what you posted is part of the Bible. I tried to google "Bible Scholars", but I think the term is too general to find whatever it is...oh well :). Have a blessed day!

    [/blockquote]

     

    Syliva, after reading this I read the topic "One of my favorite Bible stories..A Fake?"  and near the end of Brian Copeland's response he mentions people believing that Mark:9-20 should be put in footnotes along with the story in john of the woman caught in adultery as not being original scripture. He may know something about this. 

    • 272 posts
    October 14, 2015 10:09 AM EDT

    Aha, thanks sis, I must have missed that somehow (some days are crazier than others ;-)). I just read the other post and yes, interesting thoughts! I wasn't really aware that movements existed to have whole sections of the Bible removed, but guess that's not that surprising. I think we all have parts we focus on more than others, and personal agendas, whether they are conscious or not. Apparently, there are some who are interested enough to try to make them official :).

    My general random thought on the whole thing, by no means official ;), is that God is all-powerful, period. He is likely to be very interested in what is being placed in His word, for the sake of those receiving it, and powerful enough to allow and disallow whatever He pleases. He "may" even allow tweaks over time for the generations. Honestly, I'm not sure on that last because the Word could also be considered complete, but I wouldn't be personally bothered if He wanted to do that ;).

    In the case of the woman caught in adultery for instance, there are those who will focus on that passage more, and those who will mostly like to talk about Eve, to no end :D. With the great commission, there are those who already say that speaking in tongues is of the devil, even with that passage and others still in there. People gonna be people ;-).

    I believe there is a quote attributed to Billy Graham, when asked which translation of the Bible he preferred. I believe the response was something like "pick one and live by it". Whatever translation we have, none of us will follow it perfectly anyway and we will focus more on whatever God's purpose for our life dictates, and will be filtered by our cultural and personal backgrounds.

    Love God, love others, pick a translation, and let Him sort it out :).

     

    • 272 posts
    October 15, 2015 9:26 AM EDT

    I agree, Brian, I'm not even concerned about whether I ever qualify as a scholar, it's just enjoyable to explore ideas and get to know people better :)!

    I've never checked if it was true, but I think it's attributed to Helen Keller that in the earlier part of her life as a blind and deaf person, she had no opportunity to hear His name or see a Bible, but still knew Him in her heart. So yeah, I agree with all of that, Brian, including if all the Bibles were taken away, we would still serve Him. He spoke to my heart before I ever had any reason to know Him, except in a negative way. He is Lord, and the rest is just details :).

    • 272 posts
    October 15, 2015 11:05 AM EDT

    Amen to that, brother!!!

    • 23 posts
    October 15, 2015 11:12 AM EDT
    Amen and Amen.
    • 5 posts
    October 18, 2015 2:23 AM EDT

    Thanks to all who shared their knowledge..I agree to all of you..God will speak and He will lead us in the right path, what to read and what to believed..I lvoe this minisitries..Ive learned a lot..Thanks again..God bless u all..

    • 272 posts
    October 18, 2015 10:38 AM EDT

    Amen, Amy, have enjoyed this convo and am glad that you have joined us at RHM :)!

    • Moderator
    • 129 posts
    October 18, 2015 10:55 AM EDT

    Amy, if she does not like Mark 16:15, then use Matthew 28:18:  “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”” (Matthew 28:18–20 ESV)

    As far as the longer ending of Mark, it is really a summary of things contained in the other gospels. Here is a detailed description from Tyldale's commentary:

     

    The longer ending (Mark 16:9–20) This section contains the so-called ‘longer ending’ of Mark, omitted in some MSS, and rejected as spurious by most early authorities, such as Eusebius and Jerome. Certainly the style is quite unlike that of the rest of Mark. This poses a problem which may be put briefly as follows. To end the gospel with verse 8 is not only abrupt linguistically, but also abrupt theologically.6 Nevertheless, this [Vol 2: Mk, p. 342] so-called ‘longer ending’ is not found in some important manuscripts, and seems to be deliberately excluded. In addition, between verses 8 and 9, several early MSS and versions read ‘But they told Peter and his group briefly all the things that had been commanded them. And after these things Jesus himself appeared to them, and sent out through them from east to west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of everlasting salvation.’ This reads like an early attempt to tidy loose ends; the last clause in particular does not sound Marcan in its expression. One MS actually ends with this summary, omitting verses 9–20 altogether, which is even more suspicious.

     

    As regards the longer ending itself, it may be fairly described as showing knowledge of the subject matter of John 20:1–8 (the story of Mary Magdalene), along with that of Luke 24:13–35 (the story of the Emmaus road), and Matthew 28:18–20 (the great commission). If so, it must be later than these other gospels, and therefore later than Mark. It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton outline which can be easily filled in from the other gospel narratives. But verse 9 itself seems to be introduced without reference to verse 1 above, virtually as a fresh beginning, which is suspicious. Indeed, the whole summary seems to have been drawn up independently of Mark’s Gospel, without reference to any of the preceding verses. Therefore it seems reasonable to see the longer ending as an attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a gospel whose original ending was either felt to be inadequate or had been lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating. Further general textual uncertainty is shown by the addition of another long saying added to verse 14 by one authority.

     

    Jerome knew of its existence in several MSS of his day, but as it is, from its content, obviously non-canonical, it will not be further mentioned here except as evidence for a general textual dislocation at this point in Mark’s Gospel. What, then, is the theological value of this longer ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman caught in adultery, in John 8:1–11, as an example of a Christian tradition which may well be genuine and is undoubtedly early, but does not belong to the actual [Vol 2: Mk, p. 343] gospel text as it stands. In the case of the Marcan ending, we can go further; the contents are in any case authentic, even if perhaps derived from other evangels, and there is even the strong possibility that this is an ‘official ending’, added by the early church to a sort of ‘second edition’ of Mark. We know so little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it, even if it is only a patchwork of pieces from the other gospels. It would be unwise, however, to build a theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has ever done.