Mark 16:9-20 - Grace To You vs. the Evidence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- James Snapp Jr. exposes some of the false claims being spread by Grace to You about Mark 16:9-20. The video ends with a call to John MacArthur and Grace to You to retract the false claims and to stop spreading the false claims.
Thanks again brother James for your hard work! Let us hope that these precious verses recover the respect that they deserve
Your research on Scripture is highly appreciated. I love hearing alternative perspectives. Thank you!
Thank you pastor James Snapp! I've been researching also on this topic and all the evidence points to the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
Good work. This massive deception is creeping in like never before. Crazy how much overwhelming proof there is for God's Word yet they act as if there's none.
Murray jumpscare
Why would the Holy Spirit preserve the true ending of Mark in Vaticanus and Siniaticus and keep them hidden from the world for 1500 years? ... It was not until the the middle of the 1800's that those two documents were made available to the world!
Why would the world add to the Bible in so many manuscripts ?
John MacArthur also teaches false prophecy pertaining to the 70th week of the 70 week prophecy, attributing the 70th week as still yet future. The truth is, ALL 70 weeks were fulfilled as of 34AD
Thank you for defending scriptures!
Textual critics don't have a consistent methodology. Just doubt and disdain for the Word of God
The method is disingenuous. That's pretty much how they dated the Gospels to be after 60/70AD.
1. Presuppose naturalism is true, hence you reject any sort of prophetic message
2. Discover an event that corresponds with a prophecy
3. Pressuppose the prophecy is already false and attribute the text to be written after the event has taken place
4. Still believe that your scholarship title means anything despite using little to no critical analysis
simply perfect!... thank you, and grace to you, brother Snap .... 10 years.... that's a long time... i wouldn't hold my breath, though, after all these years...... but it is astonishing that they have not corrected this.... do they care at all about facts and truth ... and integrity ? does it take 10 years to correct obvious falsehoods...? what kind of "grace" is this....? :)
Helge Evensen, The ball is in Grace To You's court. It shouldn't take 10 years to retract this level of absurd falsehoods. I hope those who watch this video will show it to Grace To You personnel, and say, "So when are you going to retract the demonstrably false claims that you have been distributing for the past 10 years?"
Even if the Grace to You staff knows MacArthur is wrong, they will never challenge him because he is one of those media preachers who is treated as if he is God on Earth among us! Plus these preachers do not make any money on using the King James Bible for their commentaries as publishers pay them well to push the modern versions.
What shocks this writer is the standing ovation that MacArthur got from his Congregation. Am I led to believe that NOT ONE OF THEM questions his claims/ He has vacillated on Scripture on so many occasions.
Do they NOT BELIEVE that scripture Let God BE TRUE, and EVERY MAN a LIAR?
Even the New King James is specific about what Manuscripts OMIT Mark 16:9ff.
John MacArthur claims knowledge that is above the Holy Spirit. It is because it teaches they Mark 16 teaches salvation comes by Belief and Baptism. This is opposed to his pet beliefs so he seeks to discredit it.
Don’t confuse us with the facts!! Haha 😆 Thanks! I’ve learned a great deal from you.
Good stuff! Keep it coming.
I agree with one of the others here that it comes down to money. No one makes any money on bibles unless it is changed. I think the Word says something about such a thing and making merchandise. This is abhorrent to me, and yet most simply accept it.
The last 12 verses of Mark are omitted from only 2 MSS, codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus. Every other extant MSS which contains the gospel of Mark has the Last 12 verses of Mark. Tatian's Diatessaron which was in wide circulation by 170 AD contains the last 12 verses of Mark. The evidence for the last 12 verses of Mark is ancient and vast. By my calculation, that is 255 years before codex Sinaiticus was truncated at Mark 16:8.
The last 12 verses are in the Peshitta (the Syriac version of the New Testament in the Syriac dialect of Aramaic). “The Peshito is referred by common consent to the second century of our era and is found to contain the verses in question” John Burgon Dean of Oxford college 1881.
When one reads the Gospels it’s obvious that Jesus raised his disciples and then sent them out to declare that the Kingdom of God has arrived, He also commanded them to pray for the sick and cast out devils. This was recorded in several places in the Gospels so this is consistent with Jesus exhortation in the longer version of Mark’s Gospel. To suggest otherwise is extremely misleading and misguided, shame on MacArther! What’s he going to do when he stands before the throne of God 😖
McArthur' s teachings were also refuted by Dr. Jack Deere
To end at verse 8 makes no sense, “…for they were afraid.” Only one New Testament book doesn’t end with an Amen. And of course the mathematical proof is really good, so many heptadic features.
After Diocletian's persecution ended and Constantine gained power and made Christianity a sanctioned religion there was a hiatus from persecution until his 50 MSS were supplied by Eusebius. After that anyone who clung to the traditional text were persucuted and killed and their MSS burned. Which helps to explain why there aren't any ancient traditional greek MSS surviving. This caused the Italian Christians to flee to the vadios (the valleys of the Italian Alps) where they held out against Roman empire's persecution (which morphed into the Roman Catholic Church) for 1000 years. These Waldensian (vadios) Christians faithfully preserved the traditional text in the italic version until the Reformation and beyond. Martin Luther used there vernacular bible to help construct his German bible. God did indeed preserve his word to all generations. Psalm 12:6-7.
Thank you for exposing the truth.
No, you've just found someone you agree with
It's confirmation bias
@@tomtemple69 In other words you are saying he is a liar. Is that just your opinion or do you have supporting arguments you like to share with us so we can examine them?
Good quote @Ireanus
Well done
Who wrote mark 16-:9-20??
Very good review of the evidence, thanks. The Holy Spirit foresaw this: if you shorten Mark in this way you have exactly 666 verses. As for the various spurious texts, I always remember the false witnesses at Jesus's trial: their witness did not agree either.
How is the arbitrary partitioning of the text into verses relevant in the slightest?
@@Charles.Wright someone wrote a book about all the 3:16s in the Bible.
@@Jer20.9 - so, it's NOT relevant, is what you're saying?
It is arbitrary.
@@Charles.Wright if you want to think that the shortened version of Mark is exactly 666 verses and is just a coincidence, then I can't help you.
👍
What type of degrees do you hold? Where are you getting your internet sources from? Thank you,
Who cares HOW MANY degrees he has? Degrees disqualify you in my eyes as they all tend to believe the same propaganda of the Christian Left.
How long halt ye between two opinions!
Mark includes the Resurrection of Jesus Christ!
James,
Great information regarding textual evidence. We disagree when you begin to degrade the Christian character of another. Pastor John believes in the NASB as God's written word. I stand with you in doctrine, but our differences with the Modern Critical Text are not salvific in nature.
John MacArthur stood by faith in the word of God and defeated a corrupt nation, giving all glory to the true God, our savior Jesus.
"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." Gal. 5:15
God's best to you sir, in Jesus name.
The fact that Mac Arthur Has not admitted his error and still spreads misinformation says a lot about his christian character
thanks
Many people say Matthew 28:1-20 Added later. Is that true?
Nope ireneuas quoted it and tertullian plus acts 8 16 confirms our baptism
An excellent sermon from MacArthur.
I Just found out that there are older Document accounts of Mark 16:9-20 in a video from Matthew Everhard. older than that which Pastor Macarthur believes are the oldest, and by over 100 years! Justin Martyr 165 AD and Irenaeus AD 180, both mention the long version of Mark. This Proves that MacArthur's belief that the documents that he sites, as the oldest references of Marks original text, thus making the short version the original text, are in fact incorrect. The long Version Of mark seem to have been around much longer than he was aware of. Why the other manuscripts disregarded the full text is strange. Mark 16: 9-20 seems to me to be the more likely Original text by means of its age. Only God Knows, but we can always trust in the inerrant Word of God and that Every word was Inspired of the Holy Spirit. Including Mark 16:9-20! Remember, Pastor MacArthur is a Brother in Christ who is also not Perfect, just like us. We are all sinners, saved by The Grace of God. we all make mistakes. He is still one of the most Respected Preachers and Teachers of The Word of God, teaching it`s Unapologetic Truth and Accuracy, that there is. God Bless Pastor MacArthur.
Gospel of Mark: Longer or Shorter Ending? (Is 16:9-20 Authentic?)
ua-cam.com/video/NdxU0ZyWYsU/v-deo.html
john macathur is a freemason.
Greetings, Do you recommend Dean Burgons work?
Burgon's book is a good place to start. But I recommend also my own book on the subject, "Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20." The evidence has not stood still since the 1870s.
@@JamesSnapp I already got the Kindle book from Amazon and will start that this weekend.
Why your fixation on John MacArthur on this? James white has done multiple debates on this issue. Challenge James white from alpha and omega ministries to a debate.
Levi. I have challenged James White already. Plus, -- fixation, schmixashun! MacArhur and Grace To You have spread these falsehoods every day for the past ten years.
@@JamesSnapp You are just trying to correct some of the statements that John MacArthur made about the ending or are you defending the authenticity of the ending of Mark? Are you KJVO by any chance?
@@youngmoney4770, I am not, and never have been (and never will be) KJV-Only. I most definitely defend Mark 16:9-20, in other videos, and in my e-book Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20. It is available of Amazon, or, feel free to request a free copy on Facebook, or download it directly at Academia.edu . But this video is not addressing all of the misinformation that exists about Mark 16:9-20 -- just some of the the misinformation and falsehoods that Grace To You has spread in one particular talk.
@@youngmoney4770 I don’t think Dr. White would want to debate this with Pastor Snapp. He was reluctant to do the Longer Ending debate with Dr. Riddle, is my understanding.
@@youngmoney4770 I don't think it's necessary to cast dispersions on pastor Snapps character or to question his motives everything he has stated can be verified or disputed everything he has stated is out in the public domain you check with the early churches Ireanus and Tertullian codex sinaticus is available online and Vanaticus rather than critise research to see what he says is true. I have done my own research and found what he says is to be true.
I’m not convinced that you are being all inclusive with your colorful commentary..
Carl Cizek,
This is a nine-minute video and I state at the outset that I focus on /some/ of MacArthur's claims; there are other false statements of his that I did not address, in the interest of brevity.
There are other resources here at my UA-cam-channel that go into more detail about MacArthur's other misleading claims, as well as more details about the general question of the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20.
@@JamesSnapp your commentary is more opinionated then evidentiary..you overlook key notes of interest, drawing your own conclusions of John’s presentation. In other words you quote him them apply your context and evidence instead of cohering to his context.. thats not how you rebuttal.
To say 99% isn’t an abundance is to overlook the abundance..
@@carlcizek2189 . . . Are you insane, man? I provided pictures of the evidence. I provided links that prove empirically that MacArthur's claims are false. How can you possibly imagine that these are matters of opinion?
@@JamesSnapp
Sir. I think you missed my point...
@@carlcizek2189 , I don't think you have a point at all, just vague evasiveness. Which one of the claims I focused on in this video would you feel comfortable treating as if it is true???
First here