I find no where in scripture where any sign gifts have come to an end. But at the same time the nature of those gifts often gets over looked. Handling of snakes was never about an emotional orgy in a pretend worship service tempting God in way He never intended. Such events had a specific and reserved purpose. Is it possible today that you may be put in danger while soberly sharing the gospel and God provides miraculous protection. Absolutely! Whether it be snakes or a murderer. Unless you get the nature of those gifts correctly you will never get the Theology correct.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Snake handling
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Amy! Shame on you for speaking about your fellow Baptists in such a manner!
Hey, if the snakeskin fits.......:laugh:
Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
==I agree.
==I agree.
==I agree. I think your position on this is the best one presented in the thread. The idea that the gifts are not in operation today seems to have very limited support in Scripture. However these folks who use their "gifts" to show off or "tempt God" are in serious error. That is why people in these snake handling churches get bit and sometimes die of their injury.
Just an interesting point...I have often noted that the snakes being handled look dazed. This confused me until I saw "Dan the Animal" man and his alligator. The animal, which is a reptile like a snake, never really moved. He just sat there and moved his tail once or twice and blinked. Why? They are cold blooded and the tempature outside caused him to be lethargic. Could this also affect snakes? In cold weather, or very hot weather, could they become lethargic? Does anyone know?
Even if this is so, it does not mean they will not bite. A simple google search shows that more than a few snake hanlders have died from bites.
So whats next.........Snake whisperers?
In Mark 16 the description of "pick up snakes" can be taken another way. "I picked up a cold." for instance. I do not think that it is an instruction but a description. You can also say that Paul "picked up a snake", not intentionally, and it did no harm. You can also see the description that there is no fear in believers. NOT TO TEMPT GOD, but a sign to others that hey, this guy is protected somehow. No, the last part of Mark 16 is not in the "oldest" transcripts, neither are majors parts of Genesis and Isaiah and a few others. You will have to make a choice if Mark 16:9-20 belongs in your bible or not. If it does not, then you are walking around with a bible that has lies in it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Baffling isn't it? The low view of scripture liberal holds is absolutely amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amazing how those who claim to be "Rev" are so ignorant of textual criticism matters. But so it is with KJV-onlyism.
You should be careful to speak only on those things with which you actually know. I challenge you to provide one single post to support your false accusation of my being KJV only. Add to that I am aware of the so called textual criticism on this issue. It is not impressive. Just because someone can criticize something doesn't make it so or even credible.
The "long ending of Mark", as it is called, is an actual textual issue. The fact is, the oldest manuscripts simply do not contain the material found in Mark 16:9-20. In fact, in some later manuscripts, there is even a verse 21!
So, what are we to do with the long ending? Throw it out? Totally accept it and ignore the historical/textual issue?
I don't think either is acceptable.
We should accept Mark 16:9-20 (21) with the understanding that there are some real questions about it. Therefore we should be careful not to base any teaching soley on the material found in that section. Thankfully, I can't think of much in Mark 16:9-20 that is not found somewhere else in the New Testament. Thus, in my mind, it is almost a non-issue. Something I don't think about unless asked to.
Just like thinking critically does not mean to think bad about something/one, textual criticism is not about being critical of a text. New Testament textual criticism is simply "the study of the original wording of the New Testament" ("New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. By: David A. Black, pg.7). In this context, criticism refers to the careful study of something (Oxford: evaluation, appraisal, assessment, review, etc). If we are talking about thinking critically, that is carefully examining our thinking on a subject. If we are talking about New Testament textual criticism, we are talking about the careful study of the manuscript evidence.
So, what are we to do with the long ending? Throw it out? Totally accept it and ignore the historical/textual issue?
I don't think either is acceptable.
We should accept Mark 16:9-20 (21) with the understanding that there are some real questions about it. Therefore we should be careful not to base any teaching soley on the material found in that section. Thankfully, I can't think of much in Mark 16:9-20 that is not found somewhere else in the New Testament. Thus, in my mind, it is almost a non-issue. Something I don't think about unless asked to.
Just like thinking critically does not mean to think bad about something/one, textual criticism is not about being critical of a text. New Testament textual criticism is simply "the study of the original wording of the New Testament" ("New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. By: David A. Black, pg.7). In this context, criticism refers to the careful study of something (Oxford: evaluation, appraisal, assessment, review, etc). If we are talking about thinking critically, that is carefully examining our thinking on a subject. If we are talking about New Testament textual criticism, we are talking about the careful study of the manuscript evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus said if you love me, you will do my works and greater. That supports Mark 16:9-20. I'm not sure how many new bibles were written since the discovery of these "more reliable older" texts, but I believe the whole thing started with 47 older texts found in a dumpster in Cairo. Correct me on that. This small number is pitted against 5000 other texts that we got the KJV from. So is it the oldest? The newest? The most? You guys are probably more versed in that debate.
==That may, to some degree, support some of the points made in the longer ending of Mark but it does not change the historical/textual problem.
==I think it is a bit more complicated than that. In fact, I know it is a lot more complicated than that. I spent several years studying these matters and though I must admit that I have forgotten much of it (because of studying other things) I do recall that texts have been found in different places, at different times, and by different people.
==Textual criticism cannot be reduced to a numbers game. A text being in the majority does not automatically make it more reliable. Nor does a text being older automatically make it more reliable. There are a whole host of factors that must be examined. That is where the field of textual criticism comes in.
Baptists are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get! :laugh::smilewinkgrin:
Baptists are like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get! :laugh::smilewinkgrin:
Now that was good! And very truthful! :laugh:
Mississippi John
Member
For those interested, there is a good book on the subject called "Salvation on Sand Mountain".