1. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    01 Jul '05 23:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I don't think you're correct. It doesn't say "these signs might follow" or "these signs will sometimes follow" but that "these signs shall follow". Those that believe will do the following things. That is what it says.

    [b]"...if [they that believe] drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."


    If these signs shall accompany those who believe; and you for instance believe; then these signs shall accompany you. Right?[/b]
    the context:
    16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and
    upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

    16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
    gospel to every creature.

    16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
    believeth not shall be damned.

    16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall
    they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 16:18 They
    shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall
    not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
    recover.

    16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up
    16:20 explains he was telling them to use "signs" convince
    into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

    16:14 gives the speaker,, who he is speaking to and whan he spoke.
    16:15 he tells them to preach to every living creature ( monkeys?, ants?)
    16:16 tells what they should preach ( maybe depends if he speaking about every living creature or his preachers)
    16:17-18 he tells his preachers (or every living creature) to use certains "signs" in his name
    16:19 shows its his "last words"
    16:20 says the preached and then performed the signs as verification.

    bet I got a lot of that wrong lol
  2. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    or different places
    tinyurl.com/2tp8tyx8
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    02 Jul '05 00:27
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    the context:
    16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and
    upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

    16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the
    gospel to every creature.

    16:16 He that believeth and is baptized sh ...[text shortened]... and then performed the signs as verification.

    bet I got a lot of that wrong lol
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I did look at the rest of Mark again, and I may have been mistaken. It seems as though these signs may only to have taken place after Jesus' disciples preached at that time, and not for all believers forever. It's not clearly written.

    I apologize for mischaracterizing Mark if that's what I did.
  3. Joined
    29 Apr '05
    Moves
    520
    02 Jul '05 00:28
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Thanks to Shav and Frogstomp for pointing this out.

    Mark 16:17-18

    [b]16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

    16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall r ...[text shortened]... it seems to me. Maybe have some serpents available...this implies the snake is poisonous right?
    This is from the NET Bible:

    "The Longer Ending of Mark

    9[[ 16:9 Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons. 16:10 She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 16:11 And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

    16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. 16:13 They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;10 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them;11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.]]"


    "9tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (Í B 304 sys sams armmss Eus Eusmss Hiermss), including two of the most respected mss (Í B). The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending (L Y 083 099 0112 579 al); k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 (A C D W [which has a different shorter ending between vv. 14 and 15] Q Ë13 33 2427 Ï lat syc,p,h bo); however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark. There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”

    sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of Mark. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.
    10tn Grk “tongues,” though the word is used figuratively (perhaps as a metonymy of cause for effect). To “speak in tongues” meant to “speak in a foreign language,” though one that was new to the one speaking it and therefore due to supernatural causes. For a discussion concerning whether such was a human language, heavenly language, or merely ecstatic utterance, see BDAG 201-2 s.v. glw'ssa 2, 3; BDAG 399 s.v. e{tero" 2; L&N 33.2-4; ExSyn 698; C. M. Robeck Jr., “Tongues,” DPL, 939-43.
    11tn For further comment on the nature of this statement, whether it is a promise or prediction, see ExSyn 403-6."

    sn means "study notes"
    tc means "text critical notes"
    tn means "translator's notes"
    map means "map notes"
  4. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    02 Jul '05 00:57
    Originally posted by Langtree
    Understand, this is a controversial issue. I'm not saying discard Mark 16:9-20, but be aware of the problem. I have a Bible published in 1952, by Thomas Nelson & sons that excluded the above mentioned verses. The first problem it isn't certain when the verse 9-20 appeared. Secondly, and this is my bone of contention. Verse 18 teaches that one can pick ...[text shortened]... r, Mary and others fit this category. I hope this helps you a little bit. All the best, Tigran
    did you look in the footnotes?

    here's who took them out :

    In 1937, it was decided that a revision would be done and a panel of 32 scholars was put together for that task. The decision, however, was delayed by the (The economic crisis beginning with the stock market crash in 1929 and continuing through the 1930s) Great Depression. Funding for the revision was assured in 1936 by a deal that was made with Thomas Nelson & Sons.

    when restored: and then it had been relagated to footnotes:

    1971 saw a revision of the New Testament. This revision restored John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 to the text (in 1946 they were footnotes).


    had nothing at all to do with authenticity.
  5. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    02 Jul '05 01:08
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I did look at the rest of Mark again, and I may have been mistaken. It seems as though these signs may only to have taken place after Jesus' disciples preached at that time, and not for all believers forever. It's not clearly written.

    I apologize for mischaracterizing Mark if that's what I did.
    I think you got it right, then I also think its how we can tell who is authorized by god to speak in his name.
  6. Joined
    29 Apr '05
    Moves
    520
    02 Jul '05 01:26
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    did you look in the footnotes?

    here's who took them out :

    In 1937, it was decided that a revision would be done and a panel of 32 scholars was put together for that task. The decision, however, was delayed by the (The economic crisis beginning with the stock market crash in 1929 and continuing through the 1930s) Great Depression. Funding for ...[text shortened]... to the text (in 1946 they were footnotes).


    had nothing at all to do with authenticity.
    So if people add to what the Bible says, it is true? No, in fact it doesn't matter what peoples' onions are about whether the passage is part of the Bible or not, only if it can proven whether it is or isn't. And as far as I know there is no way to prove it.
  7. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    02 Jul '05 01:29
    Originally posted by bobbob1056th
    ...in fact it doesn't matter what peoples' onions are...
    Opinions are like onions, everybody's got one and they all stink.
  8. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    02 Jul '05 01:45
    Originally posted by bobbob1056th
    So if people add to what the Bible says, it is true? No, in fact it doesn't matter what peoples' onions are about whether the passage is part of the Bible or not, only if it can proven whether it is or isn't. And as far as I know there is no way to prove it.
    That goes for the entire bible ,you might as well join the Agnostic ( oops forgot they haven't quite decided if they are a church) ,,,sorry
  9. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    02 Jul '05 01:46
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Opinions are like onions, everybody's got one and they all stink.
    mine dont : I got sweet onions.
  10. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    02 Jul '05 02:09
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Opinions are like onions, everybody's got one and they all stink.
    A Zen saying: "Don't seek the truth, just drop your onions."
  11. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    02 Jul '05 02:20
    Originally posted by vistesd
    A Zen saying: "Don't seek the truth, just drop your onions."
    Indeed. This from Mark Twain:

    "Loyalty to a petrified onion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul."
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    02 Jul '05 04:48
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Why would the Bible describe the signs of a true believer if we weren't supposed to trust the signs when we saw them or failed to see them?
    When you see the signs you may believe, when have to hear about
    them on the web....you make up your own mind on that one.
    Kelly
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    02 Jul '05 04:50
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Honestly? It's a rhetorical question, because I don't think people do these things. I merely want to point out to rational people that Christianity is incorrect if it claims the Bible is something that can be trusted in everything it says.

    Now, if someone actually thinks they can do these things, the way to check out their claim would be to run ...[text shortened]... s or that they cannot rely on the Bible as much as they otherwise might have thought they could.
    Have you read the book of Acts?
    Kelly
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    02 Jul '05 04:55
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Got it. It's not that "the Bible" is without error. It's only the "correct" parts of the Bible that are without error. It's not clear which are the "correct" parts of the Bible.

    Seems "the word of God" isn't as clear as many Christians seem to think it is. There seems to be plenty of room for genuine mistakes in understanding what it is God wants as opposed to people being willfully disobedient.
    We are looking at translations of the Word of God are we not, you
    don't think it is possible mistakes were made? I do know that some
    believe some versions are without error, but I don't believe that can
    be backed up looking at all the text. Which is why I like to study
    several versions looking into as many transslations I can get along
    with study aids too.
    Kelly
  15. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25780
    02 Jul '05 07:56
    I have never understood the passage we are discussing as being some kind of 'checklist', the way that ATY is suggesting. It's completely contrary to the New Testament as a whole to say that there are signs that you MUST have in order to be a true Christian. We are not saved by what we do.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree