Mark 16:8-16:20

[Canuckster1127]

Jason,

What is the Hebrew Word for Carnivore?

Bart

[JBirdAngel]

Genesis 1:29-30 KJV
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


it doesnt matter what an animal started to eat after the fall? Humans eat meat too, regardless of what classification of animal may later have come to eat meat, the Bible shows that prior to the fall no animal or human ate meat. please keep in mind that meat in these verses doesnt refer to the flesh of an animal or human, if you feel this is wrong please check any translation of the Bible.

you see the Bible does contain the answers, and the Holy Spirit does lead to the Truth.

27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. - John 14:27 KJV

- jason

[Canuckster1127]

Genesis 1:29-30 KJV
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


it doesnt matter what an animal started to eat after the fall? Humans eat meat too, regardless of what classification of animal may later have come to eat meat, the Bible shows that prior to the fall no animal or human ate meat. please keep in mind that meat in these verses doesnt refer to the flesh of an animal or human, if you feel this is wrong please check any translation of the Bible.

you see the Bible does contain the answers, and the Holy Spirit does lead to the Truth.

27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. - John 14:27 KJV

- jason

Jason,

What is the Hebrew word for carnivore? I think I asked, but you must have missed it with wanting to tell me your opinions on some other matters.

Blessings,

Bart

[JBirdAngel]

are you saying that God telling us that animals did not eat other animals before the fall doesnt address your question which i can guess is to try to point out somehow that animals before the fall ate other animals?

God has answered your question, i am certaintly not above Him, so why do you ask me?


if i am wrong i apologize but i cannot imagine what other purpose you could have for that question.

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Matthew 22:32 KJV

- jason

[Canuckster1127]

are you saying that God telling us that animals did not eat other animals before the fall doesnt address your question which i can guess is to try to point out somehow that animals before the fall ate other animals?

God has answered your question, i am certaintly not above Him, so why do you ask me?


if i am wrong i apologize but i cannot imagine what other purpose you could have for that question.

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. - Matthew 22:32 KJV

- jason

I know what you think Jason.

Your understanding of scripture and the framework you are reading it from is very clear.

I'm trying to ask you to read something in scripture and read what it says before you tell me what you think it says.

Now, do you understand Hebrew or do you have a source you can look at that tells me if there is a Hebrew word that means carnivore as opposed to herbivore?

If not that is fine. It's a pretty simple question.

Blessings,

Bart

[rstrats]

A poster on another forum, the topic of which was also questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn't really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.


I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done that.” - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

[jlay]

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I

That is not correct.

Luke 24:1

And what is the deal with the KJV. The KJV did not add these verses. It translated these verses. The only thing that makes me more upset than someone trying to say the KJV fell from heaven bound in leather and bonded in gold, are those who want to try and undermine this translation with these verses. The controversy over these verses preceeds the KJV by over 1,000 years.

Looking first to the Greek witness, we see that it stacks up heavily in favour of the authenticity of these verses. Bruce Terry presents the following breakdown:


In Favour of Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)
The Byzantine textual set
Some of the Greek lectionaries

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20

Codex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)2
2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

[rstrats]

jlay,

re: “That is not correct. Luke 24:1"

Luke 24:1 does not say anything with regard to when the resurrection took place.

[jlay]

Luke 24:1 does not say anything with regard to when the resurrection took place.

It confirms when it didn't take place as does John 20:1. It didn't take place on the 2nd day of the week. So, it agrees with the text of Mark 16:9. You would have to be looking for disagreement, when none is implied.

"On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus."

Being that the scriptures tell us when Jesus was buried (Jn 18:42) and executed and that he rose on the 3rd day, what reasoning do you have for disagreeing with Mark 16:9? If your disagreement is because of the observance of the Lord's day then you are arguing from a negative position. Certain Christians observing the 1st day of the week as the Lord's day, doesn't have any bearing on what the scriptures say, or the merits of Mark 16:8.

And, why do you single out the KJV, when clearly the KJV is not what is in question here?

[rstrats]

jlay,

re: “It confirms when it didn't take place as does John 20:1. It didn't take place on the 2nd day of the week. So, it agrees with the text of Mark 16:9.”


You didn't include verses 2 and 3 in your last post. I was only responding to your comment that verse 1 makes my statement about verse 9 incorrect. Now while it's true that verses 1-3 agree with verse 9 that the resurrection had occurred before the second day, they don't preclude a 7th day occurrence. Only verse 9 does that.


re: “ Being that the scriptures tell us when Jesus was buried (Jn 18:42) and executed and that he rose on the 3rd day, what reasoning do you have for disagreeing with Mark 16:9?”

I'm not disagreeing with verse 9. I am only interested in receiving an answer to the question that I posed in my first post on Apr 08, 2009 7:26 am .


re: “And, why do you single out the KJV, when clearly the KJV is not what is in question?”


I didn't mean to single out the KJV. Perhaps I should have said “such as the KJV”. I was merely trying to exclude those few versions/translations that place a comma after “having risen” which of course changes the meaning.

[jlay]

You still haven't provided any scriptural basis for discounting Mark 16:9.

It seems your argument against it was that, "first day proponents usually use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, quote Mark 16:9."

When you consider the other scriptures I have referenced, just where does the burden of proof lie in regards to the day of the resurection?

[Canuckster1127]

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV has it, that is used for a doctrinal teaching that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I

That is not correct.

Luke 24:1

And what is the deal with the KJV. The KJV did not add these verses. It translated these verses. The only thing that makes me more upset than someone trying to say the KJV fell from heaven bound in leather and bonded in gold, are those who want to try and undermine this translation with these verses. The controversy over these verses preceeds the KJV by over 1,000 years.

Looking first to the Greek witness, we see that it stacks up heavily in favour of the authenticity of these verses. Bruce Terry presents the following breakdown:


In Favour of Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)
Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)
K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)
X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)
Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)
f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)
28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)
892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)
1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)
The Byzantine textual set
Some of the Greek lectionaries

Opposed to Mark 16:9-20

Codex Sinaiticus (A) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
Codex Vaticanus (B) - (4th c. uncial, Alexandrian)
304 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)2
2386 (11th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

Hey Jlay,

It looks impressive numerically except for one important thing. Take a look at the dates in the "In favor" column and then the "Opposed to". Notice that they include 2 manuscripts from the 4th century AD and that there's nothing that recent in the "In Favor" column. Manuscript analysis in this regard isn't a matter of totalling up the available manuscripts and then declaring a majority preponderance as the most likely.

Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are very "heavy hitters" because of their older dates as well as the grouping of the manuscript families (or traditions) which recognizes that reliance by the miniscules (for example) upon the uncials tends to replicate previous variances so even though you may have a huge number of manuscripts, they may simply represent a replicating of the same change through a particluar family or tradition. That often accounts for the large scale dissemination of a variant, but it doesn't logically carry the same weight of these two manuscripts which are closer in time to the original. Also consider the general principle that changes to a manuscript tend to be additions rather than deletions.

So looking at this list, I and a preponderance of textual scholars and critics would assess the "Opposed to" Mark 16:9-20 as stronger. In fact, in most greek texts this is represented by a particular passage being given a "weighting" of A, B, C or D with A being a very high level of confidence and D being a very low level of confidence, based upon these and other factors, but what I stated above is a very, very important (probably the most important) factor that goes into these ratings. I don't have my Greek text with me as I write but I'm pretty sure this passage is rated as a "D". Most every modern translation and many KLV's printed today, includes a note here alerting the reader that this passage is considered by very many scholars to be an addition and not part of the original text.

I love the KJV too and grew up on it. As a critical study Bible however, the Textus Receptus that was used to draw for the translation is just not strong enough in my opinion compared with any of the mainstream english translations produced in the 20th century which have more manuscripts available and have weighted the reliability factors to avoid the mistake of assuming that number of manuscripts is what determines reliability.

So any appeal to this passage for evaluating other passages on a "biblical" basis would be weak. The onus would be upon the claimant to address these concerns first of all and then if the point being made couldn't be drawn from other undisputed passages, then it pretty much just begs the question as to how "biblical" the argument is. Note higher in this thread that near the top that I've got some information there with how Bruce Metzger handles this passage in an interesting variant view that in effect sees it as a different author but then still argues for it's inclusion. At the time I wrote that 3 years ago, I tended to agree with him, I'm not as sure now. There are ways to reconcile it and Metzger's is especially interesting as it takes all of this in, agrees with it and then still argues for it remaining in the text.

It's probably best not to derive anything from this passage however that can't be found elsewhere too.

blessings,

bart

[rstrats]

jlay,

re: “You still haven't provided any scriptural basis for discounting Mark 16:9.”

I said in my last post that I wasn't doing that. I don't know where you're getting that idea.



re: “It seems your argument against it...”


See my previous comment.


re: “When you consider the other scriptures I have referenced, just where does the burden of proof lie in regards to the day of the resurrection?”

For the purpose of this “discussion” I am only concerned with the day of resurrection in so far as it is mentioned in the question that I asked in my original post. I don't know where you are getting the idea that I am questioning the day. Please read my post of Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:26 am (I wish the posts were numbered).

[jlay]

Dont' worry Bart I haven't drank any poison lately.

[rstrats]

Canuckster1127,

re: “It's probably best not to derive anything from this passage however that can't be found elsewhere too.”

And that would include the information in verse 9.