Featured Is all of Mark inspired by God?

Listening to a John MacArthur talk yesterday, he mentioned that a part of Mark was not supposed to be there or some such thing. Is there anyone here that agrees with that idea and is prepared to support it?

 

So can you support why it should or should not be there?

 

The main gist of the link seems to be that older manuscripts did not include some passages. So? If some writings of Mark, for example, were discovered later and added in, great. Or if Mark later finished his book and the edit was only added later, so what? The main issue should be whether what it says is inspired or in error. If the folks putting together the KJV were inspired, then maybe it all worked for the good.

 

In your gotquestions link the first paragraph said this
"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."

So it was not me that brought it up. I addressed your link.

 

Fine. The first person to post here cannot support why we should discount some of the book of Mark.

 

OK, so whatever version we prefer, why would I toss out what some of the book of Mark says?

 

Why would I toss it out?

 

I commented on you saying NO to supporting the position that some of Mark was not inspired. Is that you position or not?

 

So why post if you cannot address the issue?

 

Bye