Featured The original written word of God.

Sentences are better than a few words. They give an improved context. Your posts are characterized by the enigmatic.
I still don't know what you intended with your reference to the 2020NASB.

[...untranslated...]

 

He did not say baptism was part of it in Mathew Luke or John, He only says believe and be baptized in mark. Somethign is wrong with that picture no matter how you look at it.. And because if it. We have water baptismal regeneration preached from all these churches.. using mark 16 as proof text.

That was to the disciples/apostles. Jesus never promised this would occur with everyone,

He said this is how you will know them, who are them? They are those who believe and are baptised and have come to God.

That would include you and me (except the word baptise there is a mistake or error.

He did not say this is how you will know some.

The text is wrong plain and simple.. whether it was mistaking ly added later or whatever reason it was there. I do not think it was part of the origional text.


Now can I prove it? No. But when you look at it with the rest of scripture it does not make sense.

 

All referring to the originals!

 

That is the point I was tryign to make

Just because 99% say it is true. Does that mean it is?

If was added after the two oldest manuscripts. You would expect almost 100 % from that point on to show it in their text.

To me, the one closest to the original would be the most accurate.

 

From the website .....
The Text of the Gospels: Mark 16:9-20 and Early Patristic Evidence

3) Irenaeus. In the course of his writings, Irenaeus – a prolific and prominent bishop in the second century – mentions that as a youth growing up in Asia Minor, he had heard the voice of Polycarp, who had heard John. As an adult, Irenaeus moved to the city of
Lugdunum (Lyons), where he served as bishop. He also visited Rome in 177.
In Book Three of Against Heresies, chapter 10, (written around the year 180) Irenaeus says: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus
had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.’” This plainly shows that in the manuscripts of Mark that Irenaeus read, around 150 years before Codex Vaticanus was produced, Mark 16:9-20 was part of the text of the Gospel of Mark

 

you will have to forgive me But I see nothing in your post which shows Irenaeus speaks of the verses in question about baptism, poison and snakes.

 

The verses about baptism, poison and snakes are contained in Mark chapter 16 verses 9-20, also called the "long ending". Irenaeus quoted it in such a way that it is ironclad that he knew the "long ending", verses 9-20.

Irenaeus says: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus
had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God.’

KJV 16:19
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

 

Vs 19 is repeated in other gospels

Baptism and snakes and poison is not.

So sorry my friend, You have not proven the long version is shown By Irenius.

Baptism is not required. And it nonsensical in the passage

Snakes and Poison is nonsensical. And was not promised to all who would be saved by faiht in CHrist.

Somethign is wrong. Period.

 

There may be something wrong. But it's not the quotation. Show us from the other Gospels a match for verse 19?

 

SHow me anyplace else where Jesus said faith and baptized.

Show me anyplace else where he said whoever is saved will drink poison and not die, and be bitten by a snake and not die

Matthew shows that Christ ascended into heaven after he said the words. Its interesting in matt, he said go and make disciples baptizing them

While in mark, He said go spread the sospel. Whoever believes and is baptised. Then he ads the poison and snakes.

Somethign is fishy man, Its not like they say the same things different ways in other accounts, they are saying things different.

One says to make disciple. And baptize them

They other says teach people to believe and be baptized to be saved.

I doubt mark got it that wrong.

 

So in otherwords you doubt verses 9-20 were genuine but added later and were not original to Mark? I get it. But that wasn't what we were discusing exactly. Were were discusing the age of witnesses. I think you were thinking the 2 oldest manuscripts of Mark didn't include Mark 16:9-20. True, but were were pointing out that older Church Fathers also quoted the words earlier than the age of those two manuscripts.

Irenaeus quoted them is beyond all doubt late 2nd century. Doesn't mean the words are genuine. But it does mean those words were in Bibles older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (4th century)

Again, please notice Irenaeus using the word "Mark"..
Irenaeus says: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus
had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God

 

Mulling this thread over recently.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 NASB​

In all likelihood Timothy’s religious education was received in two forms, oral eduction and in a written form, probably through the use of a Greek Septuagint.
Paul calls all Scripture (even a translation) God-breathed or God-Spirited, inspired.

The Translators of the KJV makes a vague mention of inspiration in their preface:

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italianand Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.
King James Version Preface​

Rob

 

I don't know the details of Family 35. I've never compared variants between f35 and another Text. However I think a listing of accuracy would be.

Majority Text most accurate.
Then Family 35.
Then the Textus Receptus.
Last Critical Text.

How do you rank family 35?