Featured Is all of Mark inspired by God?

No one including your Net Bible can disprove Burgon. Period

 

Sigh: my opinion is Mark 16: 9-20 is inspired and part of the cannon of scripture. This is why I have a problem with ESV and other modern translation placing brackets around Mark 16: 9-20, it gives impression that people can pick and choose. Tradition has accepted these as canonical.

Here’s my final point. Does Mark 16: 9-20 change doctrine, does it change the doctrine of Baptist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc? No (emphasis on no). I could see his point if it changes doctrine but it doesn’t change anything. MacArthur is just casting confusion.

 

The ending as found in the KJV especially the last few verses are seen by some to support Pentecostals

 

No! You challenge it as inspired!

 

Are you denying the Inspiration of the ending of the KJV

 

Pentecostal (craziness) will draw from other scriptures passage, it still doesn’t change doctrine, even Pentecostal doctrine.

What comes to mind is Pentecostal snake handling. Wacky. Mark 16:18 then they go to Acts 16:16–18.

 

Johnny Mac is an excellent biblical scholar. Those that study biblical Greek recognize a major change in the writing style at about 16:10 and do not believe the same author, Mark, wrote it. It’s not a matter of his writing that part at a later date, it is plainly someone else writing. Others have already given several theories for this change.

You rightly point out that the question comes down to whether we believe it is Holy Spirit inspired scripture.

I find what is taught after v.10 is consistent with other passages that are readily accepted as scripture. Even the passage concerning handling snakes could be seen as fulfilled when Paul was bitten by the poisonous snake after his shipwreck on the journey to Rome.

So, to answer directly, I have no problem accepting it as scripture since it is consistent with other passages and has early inclusion in the canon.

peace to you

 

Not a reason to X it out of the word of God. I have no problem with it, rightly divided.

 

This is the kind of blasphemous mess the "Scholarship Only" crowd gets us into by adopting a humanistic view of the Bible (ex: only the originals are inspired, the Bible in your hands has mistakes): we think nothing of tossing out an entire portion of the word of God. To even discuss this is beyond sad.

 

I find it more interesting that the question is moot.
While there are verses in the "questionable" portion of Mark that are convenient for their clarity, there is nothing in the passages in question that are essential to any doctrine. It adds no information that is not also found elsewhere.

 

I don’t discount scholarship. My understanding of Greek is very limited, but there is clear agreement among those that are committed to study biblical Greek that the writing style is so different after about v.10 that it’s very unlikely Mark wrote it.

Not a hill to make a stand on, imo.

peace to you

 

Try drinking a deadly poison to see if you survive. That will confirm or deny at least that part.

 

wow, that is some narrow pool you're drawing from. Reams of scholarship have been written in defence of including the passage.
If today there is some measure of agreement for blotting it out, it's among an increasing number of apostates that nest in the branches of the humanistic only scholarship tree.