What I find a bit disingenuous is the references in the critical texts, or NKJV, which will state that the longer ending is not found in the oldest manuscripts but make no mention of the even earlier writings of church fathers that are almost certainly quoting from it.

Dwayne, I devote two chapters of New Testament Textual Analysis to Mark 16:9-20 - affirming it as original and explaining why it was excised in the early Alexandrian transmission-line.

It takes a lot of arrogance to ignore Mark 16:9-20. Even Metzger considered it canonical.

From my cessationist perspective, I see the list of signs in verses 17 and 18 as descriptive of what the apostles could expect to see from first-century converts, but that these signs eventually ceased. The whole point of the cessationist argument is that certain spiritual gifts ceased, and they can't have ceased unless they were given and used prior to their ceasing.

I personally consider the 'longer ending' of Mark valid; if Mark ends at 16:9 ("And they said nothing, to anyone, for they were afraid" - NKJV), we have people frightened because our Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead!

I want to know the ninja scribes who added it to the overwhelming number of Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and other manuscripts without being caught?

The best evidence for the value of this passage, to my eyes, is that for two thousands years, faithful disciples have trusted in their validity and laid hands on wounded, ill, lame or crippled people and saw them healed… in the name of Jesus. How could this be true of a text added by a scholar?

If Mark 16:9-20 is not scriptural then why is it still in our bibles? Textual critics have no weight to support their claim. I believe it's scriptural. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If it says "All Scripture", then its all.

I agree, that said some even reject John 6:4 because their position is the Messiah only had a 70 week ministry.

Kind Sir...Dwayne Green...3 hours ago; I replied another person's reply; to another's Comment. Because: all were giving different answers to your video's Sermon. So, here it's what I replied... Beware of ANY verses, in any bible! Because, after 4,400 yrs of men; writing scriptures. And the Translators, from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to Manuscript any to English; there is NO way to make them accurate! It just can't be done. Bible Scholars will say that! So, I believe the best way is: get our knees and pray to Jesus. Asking Him for "Wisdom Understanding and the Truth"! Because Jesus; is the ONLY "inerrant and Infallible" Being; there will ever be on this earth! Praise His Holy Name! And IF Jesus gives you those "Heavenly Miracles"; you will know which is Jesus' "Pure Golden" Truths! Or satan's "Fools Gold" LIES! Amen!

Do you have another video breaking down the different arguments for and against verses 9-20?

For a cessasionist interpretation you can listen to Jeff Riddle, Gavin Beers, Robert Mcurley, David Silversides

You are correct they have to reject mark 16:9-21 because they need it gone for Islam to be legitimate since it was supposedly the first gospel and then the resurrection can be denied.

I absolutely believe Mark 16:9-20 belongs. The best teaching on this is from the late Dr. Chuck Missler. He shows that the structure and design of these passages are supernatural. I agree that the cessationists like MacArthur dont like these verses. My New Living Translation has the short ending and long ending of Mark 16.

Yesterday in the live broadcast we had a conversation about Origen in the chat. You mentioned that Origen used an allegorical method of interpretation. I pointed out that Origen started with a more literal reading of scripture. In fact he made himself a eunuch, inspired by a literal reading of Jesus' comment that there are some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven [Matthew 19:12]. Eusebius recorded this in his church history, pointing out that Origen showed devotion but lacked wisdom in this instance. Origen wanted this to be a private matter, but was outed by his bishop, who didn't like him. I suspect that Origen became more allegorical after the scandal caused by this situation.

The footnote (from what I can tell on blueletterbible) in the LSB is "Later MSS add" so what is MacArthur trying to tell us? Stepping back from an "educated" standpoint and just view it from a secular standpoint, if this passage was added by later mss, than were other passages added earlier? If providential preservation is taking out of the equation, you are left with: 1. Original (with some confidence level of copying) 2. Added early (gross copy error or intentional for theological purposes) 3. Added later (gross copy error or intentional for theological purposes) There is this idea in "scholarly" Bible circles we can parse original vs. corrupt based on something, but not really sure if that is logical. The "something" is pretty subjective. If you go with a Mark Ward/James White ideology and apply it to say Hoimer's Odyssey, you would have to honestly state "Homer's" Odyssey is a story from the third century which might have some resemblance to earlier writing of unknown origins and authors. While this would be fine for Homer, not sure it really works for a book we derive doctrine from.

It's not in the concocted Alexandrian manuscripts which seemingly are not as old as we are led to believe.

Beware of the Alexandrian manuscripts

According to Moses, Solomon, and John it's a REALLY bad idea to "add to or take away from" the words of God; Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Revelation 22:18-19.

Whilst bracketing v9-20 and stating that 'some of the earliest mss conclude with 16:8' the CSB footnote says 'other mms include vv9-20'. Then it quotes a shorter ending found in some mss instead of vv8-20. What do you think of the alternative ending?

There are many things included in some Bibles that do not belong. The ending to the Lord's prayer in Matt. chapter 6 is one example. Red letter editions of the KJV put it in red even though Jesus did not say it there. It is imported from elsewhere. The explicit statement of trinity in 1 John 5:7 is another. Most modern translations do not contain it but it still rears its ugly head from time to time. The fact is, it could not have been written by the apostle John. It does not show up for HUNDREDS of years after the Bible was complete.

Hello, big fan here, can you recommend an English Bible translation that's based on the Byzantine Text-Type? I know about the KJV, NKJV and MEV, but ofc as you know that these are based on the Textus Receptus, which differs from the Byzantine Text-Type(e.g. Johannine comma). I couldn't find any based on the Majority Text.

The same can be said about about the last part of "Our father", the pericope adultare, the "forgive them, they don't know what they are doing" and the confession of the Ethiopian

In English the ending appears to be rushed and different in some way. Maybe you could speak to that for some of us who do not know greek?

My question is that they want to throw out Mark 16:9-20 yet John 8:1-11 they believe. Culturally it doe not fit because there was only there was only one standing and not two before the Lord? What is the difference. I believe that John 8:1-11 is more unreliable in sources than Mark 16:9-20

Chuck Missler believed it was original and he had some interesting reasons why. I would encourage you to look up what Missler had to say about it.

I believe a cessationist who acceoted vs. 9-20 (like Dr. Riddle, for example) would say that those signs only apply to the Apostles.

Read a little further Dwayne... it says "confirming the Word with signs following" We now have the complete cannon of Scripture. The signs legitimate were for "confirming the word" that is done now. It is an argument for cessationisim not continuationists.

A cessationist argument can be made. Firstly, the church is for almost its entire history cessationist. Church fathers, councils etc., can be used as evidence for the argument, as they suggest the gifts gradually ceased early on. In fact, the burden of proof is on those that argue the gifts continued. There are other arguments, too.

Do you prefer the longer or shorter reading?

It is a denial of the resurrection of our Lord. Let me think...who would want people to doubt our Lord rose from the dead? Who would want us to question the Word of God? Has God really said? These "scholars" are falling into Satan's trap.

Love people that put truth over their own already formed beliefs. You should hook up with Dr. Miles Jones of Writings of God. He has some good backup why they should be there, aswell as som scripture like John 4:6 that was deliberatly put in there to confuse.

I do not think mark would end with Mary was so a fried . It's good news jesus is alive he rose from the dead

I am not a scholar. I am an avid biblical reader and ponderer. I have been fir 33 years. Many years ago i sayd to myself, "Hump, something about Mark's post-resurrection account dirsnt smell right." Then about three years ago i ran upon the "scholars." Hump, me said. Thats odd, even the "scholars" think theres something weird here. (Remember, it was in part the 'scholarly class ' that eagerly crucified Christ. I dont follow scholars. Anyways, since Luke alone gives the expanded version of the two disciples on the way to Emmaus and in that version he says nothing of the eleven disbelieving their account it makes me wonder where Mark came up with that opinion? And also why does mark abbreviate that incredible account. Was he in a hurry? Did he run out of paper?

It seems to me that this position is very much pregnant in the calvinists circles. For example scholars like Ben Witherington and N. T. Wright are much more cool with the issue, less affirmatives

If I translated the Bible and didn't believe something should be in it, I wouldn't put it in there even with brackets around it.

It was Scripture until after 1611

How do I respect someone who leaves something in their Bible that they believe is a fraud?

I believe in the longer ending of Mark. I believe in the KJV. Calvinism is what's not in the Bible.

Why fight over man's legion of books? It's a history book, not the word of God.