Kerney Thomas
1
The guy's an emotional rhetoric who tries to appeal to people's emotion to try and sell them a wooden nickel. He thinks Mark 16:17-18 of the Bible will make miracles occur. The rhetoric fails to realize that Mark 16:17-18 is part of Mark 16:9-20 which is NOT FOUND IN THE MOST RELIABLE AND EARLIEST BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPTS. We read scholarly scholars of Christianity who say:
NIV Bible footnote for Mark 16:
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses DO NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))
NRSV Bible footnote of Mark 16:8:
"Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book with the shorter ending; others include the shorter ending and then continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the passage is marked as being doubtful."
The Message (Bible) footnote for Mark 16:
"Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained ONLY in later manuscripts."
Amplified Bible footnote for Mark 16:
"Some of the earliest manuscripts DO NOT contain verses 9-20."
ESV Bible footnote for Mark 16:
"Some of the earliest manuscripts DO NOT include 16:9-20."
CEV Bible footnote for Mark 16:
"One Old Ending to Mark's Gospel: Verses 9-20 are NOT in some manuscripts."
Scofield Reference Notes of Mark 16:9-20:
"The passage from verse 9 to the end is NOT FOUND in the two MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century."
Good News Translation footnote of Mark 16:9-20:
"Some manuscripts and ancient translations do not have this ending to the Gospel (verses 9-20)."
ERV Bible footnote of Mark 16:8:
"Some of the oldest Greek copies of Mark end the book here."
GOD'S WORD Translation - footnote of Mark 16:8:
"Some manuscripts and translations end Mark here; some add verses 9-20. "
People's New Testament Commentary of Mark 16:9-20:
"The remainder of the chapter is not found in the Vatican or Siniatic Greek MSS., but is found in the Alexandrian. These are the three oldest and most reliable MSS. Some hold these verses to be a later addition, but as they are found in all the most ancient versions they must have been a part of Mark's Gospel when the first century ended. Schaff, Plumptre, Olshausen, Lochman and others regard them genuine, while other critics consider them doubtful."
New American Standard Bible footnote for Mark 16:9:
"Later mss add vv 9-20."
New American Standard Bible footnote Mark 16:
"A few late mss and versions contain this paragraph, usually after v 8; a few have it at the end of ch."
Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament: Commentary of Mark 16:8:
"Had come upon them (eicen auta). Imperfect tense, more exactly, held them, was holding them fast. Trembling and astonishment (tromo kai ekstasi, trembling and ecstasy), Mark has it, while Matthew 28:8 has "with fear and great joy" which see for discussion. Clearly and naturally their emotions were mixed. They said nothing to any one (oudeni ouden eipan). This excitement was too great for ordinary conversation. Matthew 28:8 notes that they "ran to bring his disciples word." Hushed to silence their feet had wings as they flew on. For they were afraid (epobounto gar). Imperfect tense. The continued fear explains their continued silence. At this point Aleph and B, the two oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, stop with this verse. Three Armenian MSS. also end here. Some documents (cursive 274 and Old Latin k) have a shorter ending than the usual long one. The great mass of the documents have the long ending seen in the English versions. Some have both the long and the short endings, like L, Psi, 0112, 099, 579, two Bohairic MSS; the Harklean Syriac (long one in the text, short one in the Greek margin). One Armenian MS. (at Edschmiadzin) gives the long ending and attributes it to Ariston (possibly the Aristion of Papias). W (the Washington Codex) has an additional verse in the long ending. So the facts are very complicated, but argue strongly against the genuineness of verses Matthew 9-20 of Mark 16. There is little in these verses not in Matthew 28:1 ff. It is difficult to believe that Mark ended his Gospel with verse Matthew 8 unless he was interrupted. A leaf or column may have been torn off at the end of the papyrus roll. The loss of the ending was treated in various ways. Some documents left it alone. Some added one ending, some another, some added both. A full discussion of the facts is found in the last chapter of my Studies in Mark's Gospel and also in my Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 214-16."
The following is from a Christian source:
"Mark 16:9-20 is absent in the Codex Vaticanus (which is ironic since Roman Catholics always quote Mark 16:16 for baptism salvation – and also for the fact that they added it in), it’s also absent from the Codex Sinaiticus and any other early manuscripts. Here is an interesting excerpt I found:
“Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand... The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).”
Sources:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
http://www.christkeep.com/articles/mark16920.html
A.T. Robertson, a Greek academic extraordinaire, was also a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament and the various manuscripts. He graduated from Wake Forest College, and enrolled in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville, Kentucky and received the Th.M. in 1888. In 1892 Robertson was appointed Professor at Southern Baptist and remained in that post until a day in 1934, when he died. A.T. Robertson says in his book:
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Pages 199-200:
"It is appropriate to draw our next example from the only other various reading that involves so large a section, — that which concerns the last twelve verses of Mark. The evidence may be stated as follows : —
Insert: A, C, A, D, X, 2, ^, V, etc., 1, 33, 69, and
nearly all minuscules ; all Old Latin codices
except k ; the Vulgate Latin ; the Curetonian,
Peshitto, Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac ; the
Memphitic, and Gothic ; Justin, Tatian,
Irenajus, [Hippolytus], Macarius Magnus ; and
post-Nicene fathers generally.
Omit : B, N, L^22, 743 (on the authority of the Abbe W
Martin) ; codex k of the Latin ; the Armenian, and
^thiopic; [Clement], [Origen], Eusebius, [Cyril of
Jeru.salem], and, among the post-Nicene fathers,
the {iTTo^ecrtV, Jerome, Victor of Antioch,.Severus
of Antioch. Also such minuscules as 15, 20. 300, 199, 1,
206, 209, which preserve knowledge of the doubt.
Some words are necessary in explanation of this evidence, n simply omits the passage. B omits it, but leaves a blank space, which is apparently intended for it; this seems to prove that the exemplar from which B was copied lacked these verses, but that they were known to B's scribe. As the weight of B is due to the character of its exemplar, not to the knowledge of its scribe, this does not affect B's testimony. L closes at verse 8, but adds at the top of the next column: " These also are somewhere current: ' But all things that were commanded, they immediately announced to those about Peter, And after this Jesus also Himself, from the east even to the west, sent forth by them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salv'ation.' These are also, however, current, after ' For they were afraid.' "...
And then our usual twelve verses are inserted. /^ The;. existence of this shorter conclusion (to which L gives the preference) is a fortiori evidence against the longer one. For no one doubts that this shorter conclusion is a spurious invention of the scribes ; but it would not have been invented, save to fill the blank. L's witness is, then, to MSS. older than itself, which not only did not have our twelve verses, but had invented another conclusion in their place. The Abb6 Martin tells us of another codex, which he numbers 743, that repeats the arrangement of L. Codex 22 closes the Gospel at verse 8, marking it as " The End," and then adds : " In some of the copies the Evangelist finishes at this point ; in many, however, these also are current," . . . and inserts our verses 9 — 20, closing again with " The End." The Old Latin MS. k contains the shorter conclusion only, and hence is a specially strong witness to the omission of our twelve verses. The Thebaic version might possibly be added to the witnesses for insertion, but we have from it only a mediocre paraphrase of verse 20, and it cannot be confidently determined what disposition was made of it.
An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Pages 201-203:
"The transcriptional evidence leads to the same conclusion. No good account can be given of the omission of these verses. To suppose that they were omitted in a harmonic interest is to presuppose a freedom and boldness in dealing with the Gospel narratives never elsewhere experienced, and that to serve a purpose far more easily attained. To suppose the omission to have arisen from the misunderstanding of a note placed here to mark the end of a liturgical lesson is to assign a greater age to the present lesson system and to this method of marking MSS. than can be proved for either. To suppose that a leaf was lost from the end of the Gospel, containing these
verses, will best of all account for their omission, but will not account for its wide distribution, nor for the failure of the beginning of the next Gospel, on the other side of the leaf, to get lost too. Mark stands very rarely at the end of the book of the Gospels, and the loss of a leaf early enough to affect the ancestors of ^<, of B, of L, and of Western k, must have affected nearly all MSS. as well. On the other hand, the insertion of such an ending is transcriptionally easy to account for. The abrupt ending of verse 8 demanded something more. That the scribes felt this is evidenced by their invention of the certainly spurious shorter ending. Why should not other scribes have sought and found another tolerably fitting close for the Gospel? And that this ending does not be- ong here, but fits its place only tolerably, is clear on careful examination. The tear at verse 8 is not mended by verses 9 — 20. Only Matthew and Luke tell us what actually happened after verse 8. And if verse 8 demands a different succeeding context, verses 9 — 20 no less need a different preceding one from that here furnished them.
Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 ; but the subject that would be aken over from verse 8 is the women. The " but " that opens verse 9 does not introduce anything adversative to verse 8. The new specification of time in verse 8 is surprising, after verse 2. "First" looks strange here. The identifying description of Mary Magdalene in verse 9 is very remarkable after verse 1. Every appearance, in a word, goes to show that the author of the Gospel did not write verses 9 — 20 as the
conclusion of the narrative begun in verses 1 — 8. And if so, the transcriptional evidence that makes an insertion here easier to conceive of than an omission has full play, and we can recognise verses 9 — 20 as only another way of filling up the gap left by the unfinished appearance of verse 8. The intrinsic evidence is not fully stated, however, until we add that there are peculiarities of style and phraseology in verses 9 — 20 which render it easy to believe that the author of the Gospel did not write these verses."
In Mark 16, on the 3rd day the women go to the tomb, which is empty. There a man in there, and that man tells the women that Jesus is not here, he has risen. And basically, this man tells the women that Jesus will meet the women in Galilee. Then it says the women fled from the tomb, and they didn't say anything to anyone. That's were it ends at Mark 16:8. The scribes thought: "My word, how could it end there? They are told to tell the disciples, but they don't tell anyone. Didn't they see Jesus? Didn't the disciples ever learn? How could it end there?"
This is what the reaction was by the scribes, which is why it could NOT end there (according to scribes), so they added 12 verses of their own, as a fabrication into later manuscripts of Mark 16. More proof of this is:
i) the writing style of Mark 16:9-20 is different as compared the prior texts in Mark's Gospel.
ii) there are inconsistencies between these 12 fabricated verses and the previous verses before.
iii) The scholars of Christianity decades ago, went with a red pen through the Bible, and they took out anything that was not authentic Mark 16:9-20 was labeled as NOT authentic.
So, you will not be preforming any miracles Kerney Thomas, neither will you Christians reading this because your Bible has got fabrications and additions in it, made to suit a theological opinion, which you now currently have adopted. In addition, we know from historical records and facts that Mark's Gospel is the MOST reliable Gospel out of the 4, and was written before any other of the Biblical Gospels. Mark 16:9-20 is part of the alleged resurrection, which (as I have proven) is NOT part of the Bible. The earliest Gospel of the Bible of the earliest manuscripts does NOT have a resurrection.
The earlier the Gospel you read, the closer it matches and relates to the Islamic concept of Jesus.
The earlier manuscript of a Biblical Gospel you read, the closer it matches and relates to the Islamic concept of Jesus.
Why is this? Because scribes have changed and added portions in to suit their own theological ideas, which deviated from the real Jesus. This is the SOLE reason why John's Gospel (the historically least reliable Gospel) is the ONLY Gospel where Jesus:
> carries his own cross
> is called a "lamb" of God (which portrays him as a sacrificial being)
> says: "I am the way truth and life."
> he states that "suffering" (i.e. crucifixion) is what he came for in John 12:27, and doesn't pray to be saved in John's Gospel. In the SAME story at the SAME time, Jesus prays to be saved from crucifixion in Mark 14:34-36, Matthew 26:39-44 Luke 22:41-42.
The earlier the Gospel and manuscript you go, the closer it matches the Islamic concept of Jesus. These things cannot take by chance. The text evidently have been changed to suit an Anti-Jesus concept, which you Christian have adopted. So, Kerney Thomas and your emotional friends, don't scream down our necks that "you'll be in hell," when your own Bible modified the true message of Jesus, which is the Islamic concept of Jesus