Do you know that the King James Bible uses an altered version of "Mark"?

Question

There are passages at the end that do not appear in the earliest manuscripts, which indicates that somebody tacked them on years later. Most modern Bibles acknowledge this with a footnote or parenthesis. This kind of thing is why it's impossible to be a fundamentalist. You don't even know what the Bible IS.

Answer 1

Your assumption that the Book of Mark is altered is not based upon complete information.

This footnote in many Bibles refers to only 2 manuscripts! There are THOUSANDS that contain the ending of Mark!

There are also early translations that contain these verses. The Latin Vulgate, for example contains these verses and it is earlier than the two manuscripts that do not contain it. This is a translation and not a manuscript.

Many early writers quote some of these verses and referenced them as part of the Gospel of Mark.

There are three manuscripts that are considered the most reliable.

Two of these manuscripts do not have Mark 16:8-20, but the Alexandrian does. The Alexandrian manuscript is considered to be very reliable!

In addition to the Alexandrian, these verses are forund in nearly every other manuscript.

Secondly, even though these two manuscripts do not contain these verses, there is a blank space that was left on these documents at the end of Mark.

In the first century, writing materials were not as easy to come by as they are now. It is odd to waste space on a page. This seems to indicate that the scribes that copied this passage knew there was more. (Perhaps the text they were copying from was damaged and they could not read the ending, or they knew they were missing a page.)

Third, if Mark 16 ends with verse 8, this would be a very abrupt ending to that book. This would leave out the great commission, which is included as part of the other gospels. In Matthew 28, Jesus said "go... teaching". In Luke 24, he instructed that repentance and remission of sins should be preached. In the last chapter of John, Jesus said "Feed my sheep." It would be odd if Mark left out the great commission.

Even odder, if Mark ended with verse 8, it would end with the phrase "for they were afraid." This is the greatest time in the history of God's people! Jesus had risen from the dead! In this time of great hope, it is odd to end the Gospel with an expression of being afraid! The word "gospel" means "good news". Would the good news of Mark end with "they were afraid"?

Forth, the two manuscripts that do not have the ending of Mark also have other sections that are missing. Most of these other sections are accepted without question and without the footnotes you mentioned in most English translations.

If you are going to throw verses out of the Bible because these two manuscripts don't have them, in spite of nearly every other manuscript containing them, then there are many verses and even whole chapters that must be discarded! Many teach things some denominations heavily lean on for their doctrine.

Everything in Mark 16:9-20 is true, and can be shown in other places of the New Testament. People who want to get rid of these verses do so because they don't like what it teaches about baptism or they don't like what it teaches about snake handling and drinking poison.

(The truth about baptism can be shown from other scriptures in addition to Mark 16. Also, the reason that we no longer have ability to handle snakes and drink poison without harm can be shown elsewhere in the New Testament.)

There is more evidence that Mark 16:9-20 should be part of the Bible! You can be assured that it is inspired word of God!

Answer 2

The ending verses of the book of Mark are missing from two of the currently known over 5,300 manuscripts of the New Testament. The two manuscripts, each found in the early 1900's, caused a stir when a scholar who examined both declared that they were the earliest manuscripts ever found of the Bible, and thus the original reading. So it was footnoted in some Bibles produced between 1950 and 1990.

Since then, futher test have shown that the two manuscripts were produced in the late 8th century. This is based on the method by which the pages of the codex (a kind of pre-book) were sewed together (a process not invented until the early 8th century), but the content of the ink (traced to a monstery in Egypt), the type of vellum used (not invented until the 6th century, but abandoned in the 9th), and the style of alphabet used. Scholars also agree that the two handwritten manuscripts were produced by the same script, using the same paper, ink, etc. They handwritting in them is identical.

What is not often mentioned is that Mark ends in mid- sentence at the bottom of a left-hand page. When you go up to the top of the right hand page, you are in the middle of the 18th verse of the first chapter of Luke. (Yet I have never heard a scholar saying that the first chapter of Luke should be dropped from the Bible) The missing text from the end of Mark and the missing text from the beginning of Luke would perfectly fill both sides of a single page.

It appears that this scholar was copying from a Bible that was missing a page. So he was unable to include that page in his manuscript.

Plus, the two text in question come from the 8th century. Yet the ending of Mark is present in all known manuscripts from the 1st to the 7th century. So it appears that those verse were dropped 700 years AFTER the book of Mark was written. So it does not affect the accuratey of the King James Bible.

Answer 3

You are referring to Mark 16:9-20 I believe it was. King James translation didn't have this part, but when they found the Dead Sea Scrolls, the NIV Bible was translated directly from our oldest copies. This part was added witht the footnote that it was not known why it was not in the KJV. The point is that this was not a big deal at all. It didn't change anything about the message of the Bible (except some lunes tend to think they should pick up snakes and drink poison now as an act of worship). It is also interesting to know that the KJV was interpreted more acurately than any book ever of a comparable time line. It was something like 99.7% accurate with mis-spellings being the only mistakes.

Answer 4

This is true; the last few verses of Mark are questionable. But don’t let this discourage you from believing in the bible. It was possible to discover this alteration and we did.

I absolutely guarantee that there is enough correct scripture in the KJV to get a man saved and this is what really matters.

You must do your homework, but you can indeed be certain of what the original scriptures say. Try to catch an hour of Dr. Gene Scott or his wife. They will take you through the original scriptures and through various translations until you can be certain that the verses are true to meaning.

Answer 5

Yes we do know what the Bible is. We know that the end of Mark most likely was not a part of the original manuscript. Therefore we know what the Bible actually is.

Answer 6

To be honest, I think the whole BIBLE is just another man's "produce to sell" Bible is just another book that have been picked from "israel, greeks" and some other countries, languages, etc the Bible was written for Jews not for us. So why should I bother to follow a book? I'll make my own book with a lot of common sense and I'm sure i can get a new religion with that.

Answer 7

I am a fundamentalist. If it is in the KJV then God intended for it to be there. He oversees His Word to bring it to us in a complete form for all things related to Himself and godliness. I know the passage you are referring to and I also know that it works. It is God's Word, it works and it is the book from which you will be judged. Since it is the legal document of heaven don't you think God is big enough to oversee its completion into a form that is valid? Of course He is. That is why you can trust it - because God does (or else He wouldn't use it as the book He will judge you out of).

Answer 8

I assume that a true fundie has studied enough to know there aren't even any original copies and the ones we do have have alterations from each other. Why they insist on believing is beyond me.

Answer 9

You get your knowledge from one source that says that. Other sources say no. Which one should we believe?

I am a fundementalist, as you so say. I beileve God, when he said in Psalms that he will perserve his word forever. And when you look into it and study and see which is the most reliable, you find it to be the KJV. God said its perfect, and I believe God can do anything.

Answer 10

Are you just finding that out.
I knew that 26 years ago.
You are learning though.