Absolutely belongs in Mark's Gospel. 100% certain. No gospel ends with "they were afraid," and doesn’t even mention Christ's victory over death.

Great explanation. Kjv only here but appreciate your videos.

Great to hear from a fellow Pentecostal. Keep up the good work! Hopefully you will be blessed with better equipment soon, I heard you talking about the computer issues you are having, you deserve it!

Baptists tend to look for reasons to not include it because it says that baptism is necessary for salvation

Good job, brother. Although I am a Reformed Baptist like James White, and although I agree with him on most theological and apologetic issues, I think he is wrong when it comes to textual criticism.

Hello Pastor Dwayne, could you do a video on the Codex Sinaiticus. What it is and how it was discovered. And how many manuscripts are Codex Sinaiticus. And all they complete manuscripts of the NT. Also a video on the Codex Vaticanus with the same information.

I recommend Nicholas Luns book on the subject goes through all the arguments from a linguistic point of view as well as manuscript and father's refutes every point can't recommend this book highly enough

@6:36 - I believe the phrase you are looking for there is "etymological fallacy". :-)

afternoon brother from Arizona

I think Mark 16: 17-20 is very legitimate. We can’t have every scenario written, but we can give general possibilities. Everyone wants to quote Paul. Didn’t he get bit by a snake traveling to Rome. I know many Christians who don’t want to believe Mark but, Will believe John 8:1-11. If you tell them that story doesn’t show up till the 9 century and don’t understand the story is culturally wrong. I believe the story is ok because it’s something Jesus would do. However, he was a guilty party short.

You must tell us the story behind the purple button up

While I respect James Whites knowledge on translation, Biblical history and I agree with him on cultural and political issues. Where I part ways with him is his reform theology and his cessationism. I have real issues with them because of their unbelief. The two men on the road to Emmaus seen Jesus after his resurrection and I am sure He looked in a different form after His torture and crucifixion. Even Mary Magdalene did not recognize Him until after Jesus spoke her name probably because after all Jesus went through He looked quite different. People like White and MacArthur don't like Mark 16:9-20 because of their theology. Moses handled a staff that turned into a snake then picked up the snake by the tail and it turned back into a staff. Even the NLT footnote said the majority of manuscripts have Mark 16:9-20.

Christ rising from the dead is “strange.” Perhaps James White would like to read the Jefferson Bible. It’s a lot more “normal.”

Pentecostal and Dispensational🤔😱 Awww, you are in the theological dawg house now.

A little tug on Superman’s cape I see :)

Pick up serpents is strange, Greek/Hebrew Definitions. Strong's #3789: ophis (pronounced of'-is) probably from 3700 (through the idea of sharpness of vision); a snake, figuratively, (as a type of sly cunning) an artful malicious person, especially Satan:--serpent. This describes every one of us when we first come to Christ Drink any deadly thing to drink figuratively, to receive into the soul what serves to refresh, strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend) πίνω pínō, pee'-no; a prolonged form of πίω píō pee'-o; which (together with another form) πόω póō po'-o; occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses; to imbibe (literally or figuratively):-drink. Thayer's Greek Lexicon [?](Jump to Scripture Index) STRONGS G4095: πίνω; imperfect ἔπινον; future πίομαι (cf. Winer's Grammar, 90f (86)), 2 person singular πίεσαι (Luke 17:8 ((see references in κατακαυχάομαι))); perfect 3 person singular (Revelation 18:3) πέπωκε R G, but L T WH marginal reading plural πέπωκαν, for which Lachmann's stereotyped edition; Tr text WH text