• 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!

Is all of Mark inspired by God?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dad2

Active Member
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?
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
dad2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Pentecostals depend on it being there.
 
D

dad2

Active Member
Scarlett O. said:
Mark 16:9-20 may or may not have been in the earliest of manuscripts. There is evidence for both views and here's one link giving both sides. A lot of pastors will not preach from that section of Mark.

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Read also:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
Click to expand...
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.
 
Scarlett O.

Scarlett O.

Moderator
Moderator
dad2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No sure what this topic has to do with the KJV, which I like, but do not consider it nor any ancient or modern translation inspired. Only the originals - which we have no copies of - are inspired.
 
D

dad2

Active Member
Scarlett O. said:
Mark 16:9-20 may or may not have been in the earliest of manuscripts. There is evidence for both views and here's one link giving both sides. A lot of pastors will not preach from that section of Mark.

Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel? (thegospelcoalition.org)

Read also:

Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
Click to expand...
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.
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
Scarlett O. said:
No sure what this topic has to do with the KJV, which I like, but do not consider it nor any ancient or modern translation inspired. Only the originals - which we have no copies of - are inspired.
Click to expand...
I use the 1977 NASB mainly. But I believe the KJV is the Bible God placed in the hand of the church in His providence.
 
1689Dave

1689Dave

Well-Known Member
dad2 said:
Fine. The first person to post here cannot support why we should discount some of the book of Mark.
Click to expand...
Are you an accredited Greek scholar? Why would I trust your opinion? I'm sure Pentecostals would have a fair share of input on this.
 
D

dad2

Active Member
1689Dave said:
Are you an accredited Greek scholar? Why would I trust your opinion? I'm sure Pentecostals would have a fair share of input on this.
Click to expand...
I commented on you saying NO to supporting the position that some of Mark was not inspired. Is that you position or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top