In two lectures -- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dsVJVD4FAXQ.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zRs6hgKaaaI.html -- I review a lot of the text-critical evidence pertinent to this passage. And in other videos I point out the falseness of many of the claims that MacArthur made in his "Bad Ending" sermon.
Once again, excellent. John Mac is regarded as a pillar of integrity when it comes to the Scriptures. This is yet another example where his agenda takes precedence over objectivity... too much emotional baggage regarding the supernatural tends to do that.
John MacArthur is a disciple of Ulrich Zwingli. Like Zwingli he is a rationalist and most of his doctrines are not those of Scripture. Nor do his doctrines and private interpretations reflect the teachings of the early church. Now while we do not prove doctrine by the early church but rather by Scripture Alone, we do expect that our doctrines will not be hitherto "novel and unheard of", and based upon the opinions of men like Zwingli , Calvin, William Kiffen and Darby, 1500- 1800 years after Christ. Think about it. MacArthurs doctrines are mostly from the time of Zwingli onwards. Is it reasonable that the true faith should be based upon teaching that were unheard of prior to Zwingli and Calvin and Kiffen and Darby ? Be not carried about with diverse and UNHEARD OF doctrines (Hebrews 13:9) But rather: MARK them which cause divisions and offences ALONGSIDE the DOCTRINE which you have learned; and AVOID them. (Romans 16:17) "And he that hath My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD." (Jeremiah 23:28)
I was shocked by Pastor MacArthur’s evaluation of Mark 16:9-20. John Mac hasn’t done his research. The reference to the two manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as not having the 9-20 ending is not enough, as Sinaiticus has over 14800 alterations and upwards of 22000. They are supposedly the oldest manuscripts, but this can be disputed. In fact, it is my strong belief that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are a trojan horse to put doubt on the gospels. Mike Winger is another, who after extensive research concludes that the v9-20 were added later and were not written by Mark.
This is a prime example of fitting Dogma into scripture. With so many Bible versions out there, MacArthur is bound to find one to support his theology in at least one passage. Of course the rest of whatever bibe he uses will refute his presumption. I suppose you could find a edit download to corrupt any text. This method only shows us the lack of confidence in MacArthur trying to persuade his followers. If you teach sound doctrine, based on Gods Word you do not have to prove anything. Gods Word is truth.
@@AnHebrewChildEvery single one of these “discernment” monkeys are angry or robotic looking. Except for Justin Peters, he just looks sad and depressed.
You never wrote The Scriptures, what (Satan) makes you think which Scriptures to accept and which ones to disregard?, Rev 22:19 _"And if any man shall _*_take away_*_ from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."_ Rod's first statement is what would take away his part *out* of the book of life, etc...
@ Rod Saunders? I attend Grace Community and I’m challenging McArthur’s teaching independently. I would like to get McArthur’s response to your analysis. Would you kindly reply with your email ______________?
Ivan Panin found the Adutiorus Woman, the angel stirring the water, and the last verses in Mark to contain the same mathematical formula of sevens found in the rest of the New Testament. He declared them, all three, cannon.
Helli my divine star. You are beautiful divine soul. I am hungarian, i need to google translate. I lieve here to an short message. Thank you very much. My Lord Jesus Christ bless you. 👑
You named all 2 & a half manuscripts without the real ending. Over 5,000 manuscripts contain the real full ending including all of them found where the scriptures say the church was. Including all found in Israel & Rome.
618 out of 620 Greek manuscripts of mark include the longer ending. Felt the need to say that before I actually watch**** update**** Great video Rod! I now have more truth to stand on when these issues come up in conversation. In the past I’ve had to sit quietly and assume some level of truth from our reformed brothers and sisters when they argue against this.
Cameron C sad as it seems every denomination seems to resort to embellishment when attacking another or defending itself. We all believe they won’t change the bible to suit themselves until we watch them do it.
Are we being a bit disingenuous here in the comment section? I know I’m a little late to weight-in but perhaps we could say the same of you. Not one person here plays with deadly snakes or drinks poison or heals anyone under some license of that verse. Your faith in it is no stronger than MacArthur. Maybe just maybe, after decades in the ministry, MacArthur concluded the mysterious verse seemed contentious, or ignored, or misused, dangerous, and not part of the word of God. But if any of you have a snake charming/poison pill popping ministry, let me know.
9 And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 10 for it is written, k“ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ 11 and “ ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ” 12 And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ” 13 And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time. The exact same principle applies to your claim. It is quiet confusing that cessationist follow the pattern of Satan himself, isn't it?
Good coverage Rod. I can distinctly recall the C I Scofield Study Bible arging for its authority based upon Irenaus' quoting it- that should be a big point to cessessionists!!!! For myself, i just say the ending of Mark has been lost, but the Mark 16:9ff passage went back to the Jesus oral tradition ..as in apostlotic but it wasnt part of Mark but some scribe included it in Mark rather than miss it out because it was accepted as scripture and authoritive.
And we know both of the text types are from the Alexandrian scrolls. Or trash cans... Well how many times has MacArthur changed Gods word to fit his agenda Oh Well oh well Sorry about the Jimmy d young quote.
When McArthur showed his reference for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, I knew where he was going and what his conclusion would be. He called them “the two most important manuscripts…” The fanatical reverence for these two “witnesses” has been astounding since the revised version of 1881.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating! We Jesus disciples DO CAST OUT DEVILS, DO HEAL THE SICK DO RAISE THE DEAD , BY FAITH!!! Stop already the stupidity! Evil, all the way . To discredit God's Word, as it is written... Gonna go just as God Himself allows and no more! God's plan and WORD will prevail above all! Praise the Holy name of JESUS! 🎉
Just discovered your channel. I so appreciate your healthy, sensible and thorough approach. Flame throwing gatekeepers are exhausting. Thank you for your good work. God bless you.
Also the Synotics includes Jesus death burial and resurrection. It would be strange that Mark left it out. Since skeptics believe the Gospels evolves overtime Mark ending at verse 8 fuels the narrative.
If JMac would have been clear that his comments were "speculative," it would be fine. He "could" be right. But he doesn't KNOW that it was added now any more than he knew in 2006. This is the problem with taking what anyone says about anything at face vale just because they are usually correct (in your opinion). Until I see more proof, I'll prefer to keep it as I don't think removing verses from the canon of the Bible should be done under any other circumstance except for irrefutable, verifiable, inarguable evidence. Thanks for you video. Now, the issue of the interpretation? Some folks take this passage way out of bounds.
The church stood by faith. (aka: The low church, the bible-believing christian, the bride of Christ) She was assured of her Bible, throughout the ages. She was assured of the canonicity of not just the 66 books, but of the plenary, chapters, verses and words. Johnny Mac was on the right side, but alas, the higher influencers have won him over. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Elegant presentation! Great job!☝ One more point: Perfection has different has different definitions. Therefore, the Lord would only have to reach 99 Plus % perfection to attain a perfect Bible. Knowing this engenders and increase in faith. The approach of the scholars engenders a decrease in faith. That do not believe that God, necessarily, has in fact bequeathed his perfect word to his bride.
I believe McArthur is correct ..verse 9 itself contradicts other gospel, because Jesus died on thursday afternoon and should have been not risen on early sunday as the verse said but late sunday as book of Joel prophesied he will be 3 days and nights in the belly of the earth..
Well I agree with MacArthur, for the sheer fact that Mark ended many of his passages with high emotion just like 16: 8. More than that though, I've watched in person many so called healings and demon casting and many claims by Charismatics that flopped every single time, when for 20 years I was a Pentecostal. Gibberish was even worse. I'm not saying none of this can ever happen, but it doesn't happen wholesale, as faked by fakers. I also think demons can make things appear real as well. The man of perdition will do signs and wonders just like the Charismatics claim. Besides to live is Christ, to die is gain, I'll take the latter, thank you.
it still strikes me as odd that Macarthur would reject the "long ending" yet endorse the LSB as "the most accurate." Did he forget, or do you think it was the latest marketing ploy? After all, his group made the LSB and would have been a bad sells move to continue to reject the included "long ending" of Mark. Several of the passages removed from the NASB were included in the latest "most accurate translation." And yes, I agree with you, the KJV is far better. Currently I am using the Simplified KJV.
Why i believe that? If God didn't what to write that? We people dont have the rights to extend it, Its only mark 16:8 The 9th verses up is man made thinking,it is not inspired by God coz it is not included in the real manuscript.
To exclude this passage is absolutely heresy and a DIRECT rejection of the powers and gifts of the Holy Spirit. It is blasphemy. And to remove this would mean your name is blotted out of the Book of Life. Revelation says that removing scriptures would mean your name be removed.
It doesn't matter if 99% of manuscripts have the long ending unless they are before the codexes Sainaticus and Vantinacus, to claim the long ending is original. Also, the church fathers' references mentioned here are not strong evidence. Instead, another manuscript "Diatessaron" earlier than the codexes Sainaticus and Vantinacus, is considered to support the short ending as well.
Or maybe jmac now has more years of study. And more access to information now. And if it should be in there and I don’t mind if it does, I would gladly say that the Act’s of the apostles and the rest of the New Testament writings would confirm that it did. Besides, the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movement in no way reflects the early church.
@@ReformedGibberish5881 Or maybe you need some discernment. I know MacArthur's teachings pretty well. He has done a lot valuable work for the Body of Christ, yet in some regards like soteriology, eschatology and Gifts of the Spirit he is plainly contradicting the word of God.
Okay so this may have been just a cognitive slip, but when you mention controversial New testament passages for people who know anything about textual criticism would not be a verse from Mark 16 or the woman caught in adultery, these are relatively insignificant passages compared to the passage that names the trinity that was added by later Latin scribes Christians are hesitant to even reference the passage even if they're arguing in favor of the trinity, however they definitely will if they can tell the person they're talking to doesn't know anything about textual criticism. Because the New testament can't test for the Trinity outside of the one verse that was not present in any Greek manuscript. Greek is only presumed to precede latin based solely on very wishy washy claims about language distribution. I say that because in Christian studies; several outdated concepts are still very much thriving because I'm order to challenge their status quo; you have to go through their ranks and get all the accreditations to even properly challenge them in a way they would address. OF COURSE;THAT is purely theoretical. Because ; they refuse to entertain ideas that challenge certain pillars. This is why art ehrman was unleashed in the peak of new atheism to publically shame the notion of Jesus existence being up for debate Notice what I said there. Not claims that Jesus never existed. But claims that question if Jesus not have existed. Bart ehrmann said on so many occasions that it's impossible to count that nobody relevant in the field would even entertain the question, it is a presupposition mandatory in New testament studies. And this is where we get the protestant Jesus. A Jesus who was man; who died and either faked his own death or someone else was killed in his place ; but the most popular was the "vinegar" forced him to sleep; was pulled from the cross by a disciple of his that was rich; and placed in a tomb where he woke days later and walked out; being seen by his sexual spouse Miriam ;whom he then went to France; lived in a cave and Gabe north to the Merovingian dynasty of Kings. Based on that last part you can see where this theory originated. Of course there are variants of that but that is where the minimal facts Jesus came from The reason that all new testament scholars agree to those minimal facts is because those are the things that are not allowed to be questioned. Therefore a charlatan journalist can come along and claim that this is the 100% proof that Christianity is true because no scholar questions these certain things. Of course what I am proposing is a conspiracy theory but it is a conspiracy of financial interest, which makes it completely plausible, and I don't think very hard to prove. Barterman was a Christian apologist when he came on to the scene in the late 2000s, because he demanded the highest fees almost immediately, and he mainly spoke to Christian organizations. Not to mention the fact that he was a Christian agnostic; married to a Christian scholar. He was defending his field and his Christian friends. Making him absolutely not an inpartial player. Bart was as bias as they come. The other thing is that now Bart is basically a mythicist ; as he even advocated the empty tomb as a historical fact and this was based on that Bart's big thesis was that Mark is a historical document I could go on about this for days but The relavemcenof this is; that there is a section of Mark that has Jesus specifically speaking Greek as well as having him speak Aramaic elsewhere making him bilingual This shouldn't even be questioned based on the fact that he was from the Galilee where the Greeks had ruled and controlled for hundreds of years by that point. Basically the pyrophenician woman is first described as a Greek and then described as a syrophenician by race. Now of course there will be people immediately say that it says skyrimination by Nation, but there was no word race at the time the 1611 Bible was created, and the fact that Greek is not being described as the ethnicity. Syrophenician is her ethnicity. So where does the Greek part come in. The Greek part means she speaks Greek. With that said the area was under Roman imperial rule at the time of the Bible in the New testament, so there's no reason to believe that manuscripts and followers of Jesus would not have spoken Latin. Certainly definitely by the point that the book of John was written, the very first manuscript of John very well could have been written in Latin because it has a very heavy Roman focus, as well as specifically saying that the king of the Jews sign said King of the Jews in Latin Greek and Aramaic. Also the fact that it said that it was written in Hebrew shows that the person riding it didn't know what they were talking about
I think they were added, they found out at one of the pools i dont remember if it was the one in John 5:4, that there was a spot where behind the pool they could stir the waters(in some tv show i was watching). Definietly added
And let me add in a tidbit more information on this RU-vidr here... The reason why he's saying inspired which is a very scary word to use when it comes to a person's belief Faith aspect the story concluded and Mark is reading as though he wasn't there The story is a here say inclusion 100% of it with no proof that any of that actually happened I am not leaving my soul up to pieces of manual script that is here say and that was added into Canon for the world to read hundreds of years later. And if you read closely it reads as a third person storytelling. People wake up
End of Mark simply shows that the women feared Rome accusing them of conspiracy n said nothing to those passing them. Isaiah shows to interpret line upon line n precept upon precept KJV. The others compliment n show they did say something
I can't believe you are still talking after you said the word inspired. People you do not want to hear the word "inspired" when you are talking about a God that you wish to worship... Is the speaker of this video secretly biased and trying to insert his opinion onto the listener subliminally.
Internal evidence points to the short ending, - it mirrors the beginning - the transfiguration is the middle term - Mark as a narrator never uses god etc... But god knows you will not die the day you read the longer endings...
If you want a confirmation that the last verses of Mark chapter 16 we’re not something that was just made up Google Chuck Missler on Mark chapter 16. Mistler was a dispensationalist and probably did not believe that the gifts of the spirit were for us today. However I find his teaching which supports the last verses of this chapter to be authentic as very informative. Once you realize the mathematical impossibility’s of those versus not being inspired by God you will see just how great our God is. I’m glad he’s had these things from those who believe they are wise and revealed them to his children praise God.
Too complicated for me, it is not the fault of the congregation that things are misunderstood,it is the fault of the teachers so why would other denominations not be saved.
Imagine, On that added verse stated that even if you touch or beat by the poisonous snake,you will not die? 😂😂😂😂 In brazil,in some churches there believeth that verse, So they put some venomous snake in the middle of their service to prove that verse,, So what happens next? 😂😂😂😂 Some of their members died including their children😂😂😂 Bcoz of that spurious verses added by unscrupulous people, Some of churches suffered. The bible clearly stated that My people are perish bcoz of lack if knowledge. So dont be fooled by that added verse. It is inspired by God but rather added by unscrupulous people to their benefit. What is written in original is original. No one can add to that. Nothing more nothing less.
This is a very good summation. Doesn't need to have a "scholar" explain. Your presentation is sufficient. You make it easy to understand as you usually do. Thanks again.
I was surprised that Mike Licona dismissed this portion of scripture as he's an astute scholar. Had to go online and do a little digging. Was surprised to find that you had done a video regarding.
"included and rightly interpreted" that is the issue. Charismatics say those signs will accompany all believers, but that's not true and we know that because Paul says not all believers will have the same abilities. It is referring to the apostles appointed by Christ, they all had those abilities, but after John died and even before the death of the final apostle, we never saw a body of believers who all had the same abilities.
Jesus said that the signs would follow "them that believe". He didn't say "you 12 apostles". And no, charismatics don't say that all the signs will accompany all believers. The gifts are given as the Spirit wills. (1 Cor. 12:11) There is no record of any apostle drinking something deadly with no ill effects, but there have been stories of that recorded in church history.
The number one reason I see people trying to keep it out is to remove verse 16 - he that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Which doesn’t really matter because the same thing is taught throughout the NT and there is another account in Matt 28.
Matthew 28.18-20 had 3 Jesus commands 1 so save the lost 2 so water baptize the saved 3 go take the baptized and induct them into your church none of those 3 commands are in Mark 16.15-20
You yourself I’m sure have never seen anything authentic except for maybe some emotional manipulation in strange fire worship of signs and wonders instead of the worship of the triune God.
Why should there even be a question? Does this not suggest along with many issues, that while you can rely on the Bible on some truths (like whose bible?), it is not infallible. It cannot be all of you are arguing different versions and different interpretations. So those who are wrong are from the Devil? Are we suggesting only "inspired" teachers knows the truth and all of you end up squabbling? shame. Great for RU-vid clicks and revenue though ;:
Salaam side note The history of Ancient african Christianity existed long before islam. When Muhammad came up with his religion and brought it to the Ancient nazarenes they told them convert or die. #VinceBantu
Codex Bibiensis "no one takes that one seriously, does not mean a thing about the reliability of the actual manuscript. The reason that I say that is because just because there is a taboo in New testament studies, that has no bearing on whether or not a claim is erroneous or not. All that it means is that there is a social stigma around the particular text. In the case of that one specifically, it's saying that the gospel message is the proclamation of eternal life, and of course this is not what modern Evangelical Christians accept as being the gospel. Modern Evangelical Christians view jesus's life as being a ritualistic utility of a human sacrifice
I found an interesting article about this at GotQuestions: Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark. In addition, the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9-20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals. The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1), another evidence that this section was not written by Mark. Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark. While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it. In reality, ending his Gospel in verse 8 with the description of the amazement of the women at the tomb is entirely consistent with the rest of the narrative. Amazement at the Lord Jesus seems to be a theme with Mark. “They were amazed at his teaching” (Mark 1:22); “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves” (Mark 1:27); “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this’” (Mark 2:12). Astonishment at the work of Jesus is revealed throughout Mark’s narrative (Mark 4:41; 5:15, 33, 42; 6:51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32; 11:18; 12:17; 16:5). Some, or even one, of the early scribes, however, apparently missed the thematic evidence and felt the need to add a more conventional ending.
@@JewandGreek You appear to be weighing the motives of those who disagree with you (God's job) instead of simply weighing the evidence. We should treat others the way that we want to be treated and try to give the benefit of the doubt about their willingness to pursue the truth. You would serve the debate better to engage with the data of the article quoted above, such as the testimony of Eusebius concerning the manuscripts available in his time, instead of ignoring the data that supports your position and questioning their motives in presenting their arguments.
@@timothyschmidt7400 GotQuestions is notorious for being deceptive--blatantly lying and leaving out key information which would be harmful to their heretical stance. The owner and proprietor of GotQuestions is an idolater promoting a different gospel, different Jesus, different God, and different spirit. It's stupid to take anything they say as gospel truth because their entire website is filled with post hock rationalizations as to why the Bible doesn't mean what it says--they revere their false doctrine above scripture and above Jesus Christ. And I'm not exaggerating at all. But as you said, if the early church fathers were citing Mark 16:15-20 hundreds of years before the creation of these other manuscripts, it would make sense that the earlier manuscripts were just lost to time but that these verses are supposed to be in there. The Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have tons of gnostic and pagan nonsense inserted into them because they were severely corrupted texts but you don't hear their proponents revealing that because Reformed Theology/Calvinism/Augustinianism is literally gnostic in origin. They prefer the gnostic/pagan versions because they support their false doctrines!
@@timothyschmidt7400 I provided the evidence in the video. The long ending was quoted by church fathers prior to the existence of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And the authorship of Mark isn't relevant because as I stated all of Deuteronomy is considered Scripture despite the fact that Moses died in the last chapter. Nothing GQ said changes those facts.
even the manuscripts that included Mark 16:9-20 have the SAME WARNING that we often see in our bibles.. IT WAS ADDED and WAS INSPIRED, NOT IN THE ORIGINAL Manuscripts. So that means it was well documented it was FRAUD
Really good video Rod and essentially confirms why I'm sceptical of the Critical Text and favour versions based on the Majority Text without being KJV Only . KJV Onlyism is an absurd cultic view that was kickstarted by a Seventh Day Adventist who I think was called Benjamin Wilkinson but our IFB friends tend to omit that fact.
Nice video. Where can we read or get the information that you shared that 99% of the greek manuscripts did show the long version . Im very interested. Thanks
Welcome back Jew and Greek. I don't agree with your word faith doctrines but I wholeheartedly agree with the Charismatic movement on healing, miracles and other supernatural elements of New Testament Christianity for today
Thanks Kevin. And I'm okay with you disagreeing with me as long as you don't spread misinformation about what I believe. And if you're a charismatic I think you and I are probably closer than you realize theologically, because many of the things people believe about Word of Faith aren't true.
Jew and Greek spreading falsehoods is a violation of biblical law. I am Pentecostal BTW. Saved in a Pentecostal setting. While my Nazarene church is Holiness, we do lay hands on the sick and speak in tongues. In fact, my first pastor, under whose Pentecostal church I was saved, was used by the Lord to raise a woman from the dead at our local hospital, in the presence of an Asian physician who has pronounced her dead. That was in the 1970s. The lady died in either 2016 or 2015. My father in the faith died in 2014
@@kevinevans8892 Awesome! I love hearing testimonies like that. Most of the Nazarene people I've known don't speak in tongues, so that's a little different.
Someone in the Byzantine church hierarchy added this ending to Mark during the fifth century AD? This is when it first appears? Does it's creation have anything to do with the dispute with Arianism?
@@ivanodosreis4921 Recently I came across a weird argument. Gen 1:1. In the beginning God created, or God created the heaven and earth in the beginning. For some reason they were arguing that this created a different doctrine. Your thoughts? From my reading this about how God prepared the earth for us.
@@WgB5 First off, the fact that this person says that Genesis 1 is a different doctrine tells you that they don’t know the Bible. Second, who created this argument?
@@ivanodosreis4921 A KJV activist had a cow when he saw that rendition. Just as other KJV fans get upset when they see heavens, instead of heaven. They seem to ignore that heavens was in the Geneva bible. I find all sorts of arguments. Some of them are silly, while she have merit.
@@ivanodosreis4921 here lies another potential problem. It can be easily argued that this restraint was applied to Revelations, not the entire bible. The KJV varies from the Geneva, apparently these translators felt free to alter the words of God. Be careful with this statement, it can backfire. Besides, where else, in the Bible, is this prohibition clearly stated. Please try to avoid creating a doctrine when it is only stated once. This is another reason I shy away from the new versions. One excuse they give, for removing scriptures, is that it is found in another part of the Bible. I disagree. Clear doctrines are built on multiple findings, not just random words.
By simple definition MacArthur (or anyone else), doesn't know the contents of any original New Testament manuscript. This simple fact doesn't help MacArthur or any Charismatic booster either. Does this video have a point?
Just now looking into this, your point that 99% of the manuscripts contain the longer ending is interesting. Also, weren't those all things that took place in the book of Acts as well?
He's okay with the book of Acts because in his theology that is descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words it ended when the apostles died out. He's not okay with Mark 16:17, 18 because it says these signs will follow them that believe which suggests this is ongoing.
