Subject: Was it complete? |
Bible Note: Grace and Truth: At least try to live up to the third word in your user name! You said, "... in reguards (sic) to Mark 16:9-20, Hank tells me that he and the members of this forum believe that this portion of scripture are not in the origional (sic) manuscrips (sic), therefore (not inspired). He's in agreement with Tim Moran on this issue, there I stand on my word!" .... Show me the post in which I "told you" all those things. Show me. .... Grace and Truth, there is no human being on the face of this earth who believes more strongly than I do in the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of the autographs. Inspiration is God's superintending of human authors so that they, using their own distinctly individual personalities, composed and recorded without error in the very words of the original autographs God's revelation to man..... Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of Mark's Gospel knows that verses 9-20 of Chapter 16 have long been disputed, that there are extant some four possible endings, and that many scholars feel that these verses may indeed be spurious, because they do not appear in many of the best manuscripts that are extant. (There are no surviving original autographs of any books of Scripture)..... Now, surely you can understand that what Tim has posted and what I have posted regarding the facts of this issue do not constitute in any manner whatever an unbelief in the inspiration of God's word. What we have said -- and all we have said -- is that this portion of Mark's Gospel has been disputed by biblical scholars, and that there are strong reasons to posit that these verses did not appear in the original autograph that Mark penned..... This is a far cry from your original accusation that I did not believe the Bible was inspired. Now that you have the facts straight, I hope, do you still "stand on your word?" or do you have the Grace to tell the Truth? --Hank |