Huge thank you to my contributors for your support! www.patreon.com/islamcritiqued. See playlist for this series here: th-cam.com/play/PLVwt18wNX1gyTduw5kv97K8CcA9NqGhgO.html Citations: “Finally the fact that there is such a controversy on the ending of Mark throws the whole book into question just on this fact alone.” www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/how_reliable_is_nt.htm First, Mark may have intended to write more but been prevented from doing so (by his death or arrest?). Second, Mark may have written a longer ending to his gospel, including one or more resurrection appearances, and this ending may have been lost in the course of transmission. Third, Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8. This third possibility is becoming more popular and is the most likely. Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask-and find answers to.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189-190. First, it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the uncialsא and B), as well as several others. Second, Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending. Third, two other endings to the gospel exist: a shorter ending (attested in the uncials L, Ψ, C, 099, 0112, and some other witnesses), and the longer ending combined with an interpolation (attested in the uncial W and mentioned by Jerome). The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth, the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8: Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an expressed subject), although “the women” is the subject in verse 8; Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1; and “when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week” (v. 9) sounds strange after “very early on the first day of the week” (v. 2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics, then, we do not think that verses 9-20 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel. -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 188. Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask-and find answers to.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189-190. “It was standard literary practice in ancient writings to allude to well-known events that occurred after those being narrated in the text, without actually narrating those later events. The best-known example of this technique is the Iliad. Thus, the fact that the appearances of the risen Jesus are not narrated in Mark does not necessarily mean that the author believed that they did not occur or wanted to suppress the tradition that they did. The decision not to narrate them, however, does have the effect of emphasizing the absence of Jesus in the time of the author and audiences (cf. 2:19-20*).” -Collins, A. Y., & Attridge, H. W. (2007). Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (p. 797). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. “And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ).” -Mark 16:8 “…for they were afraid.” “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.” “Conclusions of this kind at the end of Mk are also found in other lit. (Horapollo 2, 80 οὗτος γάρ; Plotin. V 5, 13, 36f κρείττον γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ ποιούμενου· τελειότερον γάρ. [Pvan der Horst, JTS n.s. 23, ’72, 121-24]).” -William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 189. ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς” “for they were fishermen”-Mark 1:16 “ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα” “for she was twelve years of age” -Mark 5:42 “ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο” “for they were terrified” -Mark 9:6 “ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν” “for they feared him” -Mark 11:18 “ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα” “it was very large” -Mark 16:4 “ἐφοβήθη γάρ” “for she was afraid” -Gen 18:15 (LXX) “ἐταράχθησαν γάρ” “for they were very afraid” -Gen 45:3 (LXX) “…I am impressed by the very little difficulty which classical scholars, whether in print or in conversation, seem to find in it [Mark’s Gospel ending with ‘γαρ’].” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 86. “…for they were afraid.” (ESV) “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” “οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἐφοβοῦντo” “and those who followed were afraid” -Mark 10:32 “ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” “for they were afraid” -Mark 16:8 “If no one…has seen any difficulty in this absolute use of the verb at 10:32, why should the same word cause difficulty at 16:8?” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 87. 1. Mark intended to proceed further, but was prevented for some reason (i.e. death). 2. Mark did proceed further, but at a very early date, the longer ending was lost. 3. Mark ended his work intentionally at 16:8. “There is no evidence of any kind whatever on behalf of either of the first two possibilities.” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 87.
Hi there. May i ask a question not related to your video please. Thanks for all youre videos. Has there been a misinterpretation into the bible from ancient sanskrit *i am* the son of god or *you/we* are the son of god ... indicating everyone
@weeb boo _" its more funny when Muslims like the commentator Muslim Muslim accuse me of fallacy like ad Honheim"_ My person favorite are comments like "You're an idiot and liar. All you do is engage in insults and ad hominem. What a moron you are" when in fact I haven't posted a single insult. :)
@@ibnabdulaziz3652 _" No Muslim cares about your greek man made books. "_ And yet you feel you are qualified to critique them when you don't even care enough to read them. Very interesting.
@@ibnabdulaziz3652 if we take what you say about your god as being correct, there is a question I have for you. If he is perfect in his lonesomeness, why did he create anything? Does he have a need to be worshiped, which would make him imperfect? In his lonesomeness, he would have no need for creation and no purpose for it. In his lonesomeness, he would have no knowledge of justice or love or hope or good or bad because he would have nothing, not even himself to compare with. Your unholy book, the quran, describes your unholy godling in terms that, in the bible, describes one being who is called the evil one, the father of liars and a murderer from the beginning, otherwise know as satan the devil. You expect us to bow down before an evil being who is full of hatred for all mankind and is false in every way? I don't you understand the folly of your position and the stupidity of your claims. You have been lied to by those who are the servants of your false god and his false prophet. If you do understand that you server the father of liars and realise that your false god is the evil one, then whatever you have to say can and should be rejected out of hand. I was going to respond to an earlier comment of yours, but you saved me the trouble by actually showing that your god is simplistic and evil. Thank you for this as it means that I do not actually have to point this oiut in detail now, you have already done it for us.
NIV, esv nw translation footnote!!! These are added verses Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46;11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4;Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission. Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53-8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision.
The fact that the many modern translations note this absence from the earliest manuscript proves how seriously they take the Scripture. It shows due diligence, if nothing else. Does the Qur'an boast of the same due diligence? The closest thing to due diligence would be the hadith which notes Aisha's confession that a goat ate some of their revelation on stoning and adult breastfeeding.
Very nice ending to the video. A couple of complimentary observations: 1) The very fact that we can have an intelligent discussion about what the original text was, proves that the sort of massive corruption to the text that Muslims need is impossible. 2) At 1:50 you note that Jermone and Eusebius supported the shorter ending. It may be lost on Muslims that this shows early Christians were concerned about having the original text. In other words, this is proof that efforts were made to ensure reliable transmission of the text. (Muslims and others sometimes claim early Christians had no concern for maintaining the original text and "lost" it as a result. 3) Note that Mark is clearly aware of the Resurrection (v. 6 "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here.") and even the post resurrection appearances (v. 7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”) Sometimes people foolishly claim Mark didn't know of these and it was later development, but that is clearly not the case. 4) The shorter ending supports an early date for the gospel's composition. Mark didn't need to narrate the appearances, because they were within the living memory of his audience. 5) If we take Mark 1:1 at a title for the work ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"), which is very common in ancient literature, then the short ending makes good sense. This is the beginning of Jesus' story; you - the living Church - are the continuation; you are the living witnesses to the risen Lord. The Gospel overcomes fear.
Miko, there have been a ton of videos produced on this topic. I have some here, in this series (see playlist in pinned comment) as well as Wood, he's talked about this a hundred times. If that's not enough, I am producing a video on this again, from another perspective, in the future.
@Miko Orthodox Deuteronomy 18:18 is about JESUS CHRIST. JOHN 1:45; JOHN 5:45-46. LUKE 7:16. LUKE 24:27; LUKE.24:44. ACTS 3:22; ACTS 7:37. muhamMAD wasn't a Jew. Look for muhamMAD in the BIBLE is like looking for pork in Muslim Halal restaurants or a pig in Muslim Mosques.
No way, this is tortured logic - Because I can show that 'Because they were afraid' could be used as an ending that means that it definitely was the ending? How is that logical? Because textual critics prefer a certain 2 poor and erroneous manuscripts, again using the nonsense logic that "the more mistakes and the more that's missing = the more authentic". The only thing textual critics have in their support is a facade of intellectualism and 'scholarly authority'. The more you look into them and their theories the more convinced you will be that they are neither devout nor logical.
Regarding Mark 16:9-20, you seem to be misinformed on a number of points. I will be happy to debate you, anywhere, any time, defending the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. (Well maybe not midnight tomorrow in Auckland. But still.) Why no mention of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus? Why no mention of the anomalies on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that are on their pages at the end of Mark? (Does one really have to ask?)
"Why no mention of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus?" I did not say it is not an early addition. I said I don't think it's original. "I will be happy to debate you, anywhere, any time..." Do your thing man, I have more than enough to fill my schedule.
Jimmy, I know that you, as a member of the 7th and 8th states of the Australian Federation, think that such things are of great doctrinal importance (Austen), but are they really? Will it make any profound change in the Salvation through Jesus Christ? Or is it a storm in a tea cup that just distracts from the Message of the Good News of Jesus Christ? If it is of great doctrinal import then make your case here. If it is mayhaps an interesting but non-essential point of view, then why worry about? We have enough with going into all the world, preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ and making disciples in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Don't you think? Your former compatriot, The Fool (Ray Comfort) has got this action of preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ well down pat. Should you not be following his example and doing likewise?
Hill Strong, I don't think we have met. As for making any profound change, etc., well, the person making the video surely had some reason to do so. If you think it's not worthwhile, take that up with him. I'm just pointing out that he is not well-informed on the subject, and somehow avoided mentioning important evidence that doesn't help his position. Of course this is a non-essential matter. But is that an excuse for sloppiness? What kind of attitude says, "This is a non-essential matter, so it's okay to give the audience a totally wrong impression"?? If you think only videos about essential matters should be critiqued, why not back up a bit and question the person who made the video about the non-essential subject in the first palace. Seriously, do you think your objection make any sense at all?
James Snapp I agree James. I read a book a number of years ago (around 15 at this point) that clearly showed the authenticity of 9-20. The main reason it is thought that 9-20 isn’t authentic is it isn’t included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate manuscripts that are predated by several thousand fragments of Mark that contain 9-20.
@@PNZV A principle of critical manuscript analysis is that the "harder" reading is usually right. What would have to happen for a bunch of versus to not get truly lost but actually REJECTED by important manuscripts? The end of Mark contains nothing unique or controversial. Why are some early fathers convinced it isn't original? The additions make sense in terms of scribes wanting to bring the three synoptic gospels fully into parallel, by borrowing from others, to give a fuller reading, especially if it was for reading out loud. But the loss makes not sense if it WAS original. That's all. The gospel does say it's about the BEGINNING of the gospel of Jesus Christ. With an ending at 8, you have a clear delineation: what Jesus did before and including resurrection, and what Jesus has been doing sense. The story of Jesus after the resurrection is, to Mark, a story that hasn't ended yet.
How about a fourth option? You know, the one where it doesn’t make God out to be a liar because He promised to preserve His WORDS (all of them) from this generation forever. (Psalm 12:6-7) so the ending of Mark 16:9-20 are included in the word of God. We have the King James Bible preserved from the Greek majority text of manuscripts, numbering thousands more than a few corrupted ones from Alexandria.
Great video, and your assessment of why they make these claims, as a defense, rings true. It's amazing the lengths they will go and the hoops they will jump through to support their pre-conceived beliefs. As Messiah caused me to understand, "Before a person can reach the truth of a matter, they must first be truthful with themselves", which apparently is a very difficult thing for some to do. Peace.
You mentioned Eusebius (263-339 AD) and Jerome (347-420 AD), but you didn’t mention Irenaeus. Irenaeus specifically quoted Mark 16:19 in Book 3 of Against Heresies, around the year 180. What are the dates of your supposedly ‘oldest and best’ manuscripts that have Mark ending at verse 8 again?
I didn't say the tradition wasn't early. I said I don't believe it's original. Lightfoot discusses specifically this issue in his work. See page 81 in the Gospel Message of St Mark.
There is significant evidence for all there of the primary options. I would suggest it is unwise to elevate one piece of evidence as definitive, but instead look at the preponderance of evidence. If that leads you to the longer ending, no problem. If that leads someone else to the shorter ending, also no problem. This is a purely academic discussion as no doctrine depends in the slightest on our choice of ending.
@Qui Creva Sp For some, if not most charismatics who fully ignored the context to whom Jesus was speaking does change the Gospel. They use the longer ending of Mark as a means to gain superpower through believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Dean John William Burgon wrote a book in 1871 called...........The last twelve verses of Mark. Its about 350 pages long and the evidence he provides is overwhelming in favor for the last twelve verses
Don't the dead sea scrolls post-date the Old Testament texts sometimes by a period of 500 years (for the Pentateuchal text)? And... they vary from the Masoretic text by a fair amount. Thoughts?
Allah didn't preserve any pro Islamic biblical references alluded to in the qur'an. The one thing I think some scholars are mistaken in assuming to be true, though, is that the LORD'S Sayings as recorded by the evangelists will reflect the those writers' styles. If the LORD mentioned the things in the longer ending, then Mark's style could have no bearing on a saying of another he merely represents as historical fact. There is good evidence for the thought of a final leaf being set aside from the main pile of leaves to be bound together, and some copying only the content minus one last half empty leaf, while others saw it and that it continued the text of the leaves gathered together. That would make the simplest explanation of two versions, without positing a spurious addition there likely was no motive for. Also, sometimes prophets died and their disciples added to a narrative further divinely inspired text, like GOD moving to a second pen after the expiry of another pen. Islam makes rules that facilitate there being noone to update the testament of Muhammad, but no such concern exists for true inspiration. All messengers are of one SPIRIT. That sort of worry of muslims makes it seem like Allah's word is muhammad's.
As a Christian interested in this topic I found this website discussing it in great detail. I will say that even if the 9-20 verses should be included, it doesn’t change anything. The information can be found in other parts of the Bible, which this site explains. apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
Yep, the question of the original ending is purely an academic one. There is no doctrinal issue on the line here. All Christians (regardless of position) would do well to remember that.
Dr. L.D. Hurst (RIP) Noted that it was called a gospel in verse one. It's a gospel. Seems very odd that the "good news" would end with "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Does not take anything away from the overwhelming importance of Mark.
The “cliffhanger” ending is not an uncommon feature in Mark’s gospel. Also, written within a couple of generations of Jesus’ resurrection, Mark would have felt no need to give further detail, and I think that fits his style. Thanks for your comment!
Mark is the only gospel that accurately capture the mentioning of Peter by Jesus after his resurrection... Mark was closely associated with Peter so only in his Gospel you can see Jesus mentioning Peter even after he denied Jesus... "Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."
The Muslims make a good point. Since God's word is perfect, any errors or additions call the whole book into question. Additionally, the various Bible translations all have different wording, so which is the one God authored? The answer is, none of them were authored by any God. They all are just works of men compiled from a bunch of manuscripts. While Muslims are wrong about their Quran being perfect, they at least have the right idea that God's word would be perfect.
“Since God's word is perfect, any errors or additions call the whole book into question” you have to justify your presupposition that scribes copying biblical texts should not be succeptible to the same sorts of mistakes as scribes copying non-biblical texts. Then explain how you expect this preservation to be accomplished, perhaps a divine hand was supposed to come out of heaven and slap the scribes when they were about to make an error. Or perhaps a lighting bolt?
@@IslamCritiqued Scribes when writing text inspired by God would be completely different from scribes copying uninspired text. Completely different. "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." - Proverbs 30:5 "And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times." - Ps 12:6 "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." - Ps 18:30 Now, do you expect God's inspiration to have the same flaws as mere human writings? Judging from some of the atrocities middle-eastern Gods have been reported to do, I would expect God to favor the lightening bolt instead of just a slap. :D
@@IslamCritiqued I'm not talking about men copying manuscripts. I'm talking about God inspiring a writing. If God inspires it, the person writing it will 100% accurate. I agree with you that if man is just copying manuscripts that it would have errors, since it's not inspired.
You missed a golden opportunity to end the video on the word "because" and have alternative longer versions of the video appear on other channels with a disclaimer that some other versions of the video end at 10:57 with the word "because". This postmodern irony might just have melted too many Muslims' minds though. haha 😆😆😆😅 On a serious note, great video. The nice thing about Mark is that he used the rabbinic teaching technique of hinting to get the reader/listener to think.
That’s the precise analogy I scrapped from the script (trying to keep things short). A Muslim could take my video, add several alternate endings, and that would do nothing to corrupt the original itself.
What controversy? Even to a beginner in Koine Greek, the difference between the ending and the rest of Mark jumps out at you. The ending isn't Mark. That need not mean it is not inspired; that's another issue entirely.
"What controversy?" For a survey, see Stephen Lynn Cox, A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993).
Sam Shamoun writes "Unfortunately, in his last two debates, one with the two atheists, and the other with the former Mormon-former Christian, James White denied the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, causing people who listened/listens to him to doubt its textual veracity. And in his debate with the former Mormon, White even came out and said that he doesn't accept that John 7:53-8:11 was written by John. It truly saddens my heart to hear White do this since people think that White is a scholar when it comes to the textual transmission of the New Testament, and will, therefore, believe anything and everything he says. The fact is that he is not a scholar and simply parrots the misinformation that he has picked up from others in this field who, for some reason, fail to provide the whole story, and therefore fail to give an accurate picture of of the textual pedigree for Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Therefore, if you truly love God's Word and truly want the facts, and not simply blindly follow what some apologist or so-called textual scholar says, then you need to read and watch all of James E Snapp Jr's information on the authenticity of these two portions of Scripture. You need to begin watching his videos found on his youtube channel: th-cam.com/video/UhGuN4nh5gs/w-d-xo.html There you will find his thorough refutation of the misinformation spread by folks like Michael Kruger, John MacArthur etc., concerning Mark 16:9-20, and watch his video concerning John 7:53-8:11 being a floating pericope, which is an argument White used to cast doubt on its authenticity. You also need to read his online books on these two sections of Scripture: www.amazon.com/s… And you need to further follow his superb blog and read all of his posts on Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11: www.thetextofthegospels.com/ FYI, Snapp IS NOT a King James Only advocate, nor a Textus Receptus or Majority Text exponent. He's simply a top-notch scholar in the field of textual transmission who has done a service to the body of Christ by refuting the lies, distortion of facts, and misinformation that are being spread by folks like White, whether intentionally or unintentionally. You also need to contact Jonathan Sheffield who is on FB and get his material on Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11: th-cam.com/channels/qjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg.html And you can accuse me of bashing the man but I have to be honest to God and tell you that when it comes to the transmission of the New Testament text, PLEASE STOP LISTENING TO WHITE! He will badly misinform you. Ben Malik P.S. I forgot to mention Taylor DeSoto and his fantastic work as well. Here are his blog: www.agroschurch.com/ And youtube pages: th-cam.com/channels/YVwXzBdyvpXZqTCeGWpU9A.html th-cam.com/channels/iuLphDeynSsdQz32XvyiBQ.html
I am aware that there are different opinions on this issue. I suggest you evaluate the evidence for yourself. James White was not cited in this video, so I'm not sure why your opening quote is even relevant. Sheffield and I have been in contact for sometime. I appreciate his perspective. Please don't feel the need to provide me with such basic information such as the links...etc. Thanks for your comment.
On the weight of the evidence, with the time I've recently spent in the Orthodox liturgy, the evidence for an authentic John 7:53-8:11 is pretty overwhelming. However, I can't say the same for Mark's long ending. The same reason (leccionary purposes) that the adulteress would get moved around and accidentally omitted are why a long ending for Mark would be composed by a scribe.
Interesting but I do have a question: Are the Muslims who use the Mark 16:9-20 as "proof" of corruption inferring that we can only trust the older manuscripts which all include Mark 9: 1-9 and Mark 16: 5-7?
Hey Islam Critiqued, I know you are mostly focused on Christian apologetics and examining Islamic source material. But I wonder if you have anything to say about the Sunni vs. Shi'a divide, both politically and theologically. As someone who was never a Muslim, but just finds the religion interesting, it seems like the Shi'a tacitly prefer Ali & Hussein to Muhammad as a role model, but they can't really come out and say it.
I had a really interesting conversation awhile back with someone in India about the veneration of the early Muslims in various Shia and Sunni traditions. But I don't think that, in any case, their veneration exceeds Muhammad. Some Shia depictions of Ali are quite unique, however.
@@hoopoe3093 Only that in Nigeria, Islamic clerics have been lying about the oneness in the Islamic faith, doctrine, theology for ages-- until the internet and recent violence between the major sects got them busted of course. The struggles of Christianity is an open book. Why the cover-ups in Islam. Why the lies?
Sorry Colin. Modern textual criticism is a very slip slope towards unbelief. If we believe in inspiration we must also believe in preservation. Your first premise that the abrupt ending at verse 8 of Mark 16 suits Mark's style of writing is an assumption - an idea, that is all. As for the so called ancient manyscripts, Codix Siniaticus and codix Vaticanus are unreliable as witnesses as they frequently dissagree with each other, The vast majority of manuscripts (Majority Text) which admittedly date much later have these verses in them. Modern version use the Nestland / Aland critical text as the basis of the NT. However this text itself is based on a revision of the NT greek by two 19th century critics Westcot and Hort both who were secretly apostates with Jesuit leanings who never the less elevated the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus as prmimary witnesses, even though for 1800 years the church as whole ignored them. We now have a very confused situation of hundreds of English transations which seem cater for every modern whim. Modern textual critics like Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger are frequently quoted by Islamic scholars as their critiscm of the NT Greek text supports the claim that the Bible has indeed been changed. Frankly I dont believe modern critiscm is scholarly at all. There are plently of conservative scholars equally qualified in the field of NT manuscript studies that have shown the bible in the Received Text (Greek Byzantine text) is wholly tust worthy and attested to by the vast majority of the ancient sources such as the earliest ancient translations (Pershito, Syriac for example) and also nearly all the church Fathers who quoted extensively from the NT Greek as seen in majority text. Modern English versions which elevate Vaticanus and Sinuiaticus preferences these verses as in doubt or left in brackets. This is highly regretable and based on apostate disbelieving textual criticsm. Unfortunately the main strean colleges have followed the Nestle Alland text of the United Bible socities which itself is based on the faulty logic of earlier dissbelieving apostates Westcot and Hort. Jesus said Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will never pass away. But according to modern critics that doesn't count! The end result is that the NIV the most popular Englisht transation in print today has 200 verses that are different or changed compared to the KJB. No wonder the Islamic critics of the Bible are having a field day.
I simply disagree. Your view is not sufficiently nuanced. My statement about Mark's abrupt ending is not an assumption. Mark is even capable with raising important questions and leaving them unanswered (Mark 4:35-41). There's too much to respond to, I don't have time so I'll leave it there. But note that ANY bible you read today is the product of some sort of text criticism.
Yes I think thats his point but Muslims are using it as "proof" of corruption etc. Some Muslims are not understanding that if corruption is going on why are their no attempts by modern scholars in hiding it? The Holy Bible is an open book. Personally, I believe that Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the Gospel.
Nice video. I'm sure your videos are very helpful for those that seek truth with a sincere heart but I fear a lot of muslim will keep on saying that if it has not been preserved to the letter it must be corrupted. Let's hope that all the work that's being done by scholars on the quran open their eyes and change their minds about that. If Paul was saved by our lord while he was persecuting the church there is hope for everyone. Let's keep on praying that one day we can see them come to Christ and call them brothers and sisters!
"lot of muslim will keep on saying that if it has not been preserved to the letter it must be corrupted." This is certainly one point I have made in the past as well as this video. Muslims love to dabble in Biblical text criticism while turning a blind eye to the same for the Quran.
_"If Paul was saved by our lord while he was persecuting the church there is hope for everyone. Let's keep on praying that one day we can see them come to Christ and call them brothers and sisters!"_ Well put! I would simply add "and working" after praying - it is our job and privilege to spread the Gospel.
Your comment illustrates perfectly the type of Muslim I describe in this video- turning a blind eye to quranic text criticism and the thousands of variants in quranic manuscripts, many of them are now online for public viewing. You’ve been lied to.
You can see about 4,000 of the Quranic variants here, catalogued with images: th-cam.com/video/cjWfusEwLa4/w-d-xo.html. Here are Islamic scholars saying they don't have an Uthmanic manuscript: th-cam.com/video/PYO6vvVaBOg/w-d-xo.html. It's as if you're TRYING to match what I describe in the video: a Muslim who pretends to be onboard with Biblical text criticism, while choosing to remain completely ignorant of the same with respect to the Quran. It's so sad to see Muslims whose minds are still stuck in the dark ages of Islam where authorities could tell them anything they wanted without their claims being questioned. On the homage that so many Muslims pay to Ehrman, see here: th-cam.com/video/gGAz-gt7hRo/w-d-xo.html. And no, ultimately his problem was with evil and suffering. You can't even get that right. Now let's talk about why he thinks Muhammad is a false prophet and why he isn't a Muslim.
Hello Mediaeval. I would simply recommend you evaluate the evidence for yourself. It's an interesting topic but I'm not committed to persuading anyone one way or another. I simply presented my views here, and am concerned mostly with how this topic interacts with Muslim claims about Biblical corruption.
I have a message that I’m sharing where I can, some may not want to hear this, but I ask that we stay polite and seek truth together. 😊 Love is an action. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, father the orphan, and protect the defenseless and vulnerable. Read the Word for yourself, not only relying on others for guidance. Pray for guidance.Yahushua/Yeshua - His Hebrew name who is usually called (Jesus) taught to keep the whole Word. Including the Law/Torah. Matthew 5:17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19 Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [h]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [i]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Read 1 John. John tells us that sin is lawlessness, and that we must keep the commandments. Trust in the atonement of Yahushua/Yeshua who is usually called Jesus, and keep God (YHWH)'s whole Word/commandments. Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Revelation 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Go to parableofthevineyard youtube channel for information about the bible and good bible studies. I'm in no way paid or sent by him for advertising. I just have learned a lot from his content. He's just a man who is trying to learn as well. :) Yeshua died so we may be resurrected to eternal life.....
@@IslamCritiqued well yes it is. Mathew, Luke and John were added later to make the whole thing look like a coherent story and that the story is historical. When it really isn't. It's a fable. Christians and Muslims trade accusations that the other's holy book has been tampered with and is therefore unreliable. In fact both of them have been "tampered" and rearranged to suit the agenda of those who rearranged them. At least with the Qur'an it is still possible to study it in its original language.
Can you or have you done any videos on how the Quran is disconnected from the covenants, promises, atonement concept of the Torah? For example, the promises of blessings through the promised seed, the prophecy of the one who will strike the head of the serpent, the idea of atonement, etc
@@IslamCritiqued it just drives me nuts how muslims say they adhere to the laws of moses and yet Islam doesn't flow from the promises, the covenant or idea of a messianic figure to come. Anyway, keep up the good work brotha!
I think surah 7:157 might not actually be about muhammad: alladhīna (Those who) -yattabiʿūna תבע تبع (follow/ seek) -"you will seek Me", John 7:36 l-rasūla (the Messenger) l-nabiya (the Prophet,) -messenger/ apostle/ sent one, John 6:44 -prophet, John 6:14 l-umiya امم עמ אמה (the unlettered/ of the people) alladhī (whom) -"unlettered" may come from John 7:15-17 yajidūnahu وجد (they find him) maktūban (written) fi (in)-l-Tawrāti (theTorah) wal-Injīli (and the Gospel) -in the Torah, John 5:39 yamuruhum امر אמר (He commands them/ says/ gives orders) bil-maʿrūfi عرف ערפ (to the right/ reasonable/ exchange) wayanhāhum نهي (and forbids them) ʿani (from) l-munkari نكر נכר (the wrong) wayuḥillu حلل חלל הלל (and he makes lawful/ cleanses) lahumu (for them) l-ṭayibāti (the pure things/ good) wayuḥarrimu حرم חרמ (and makes unlawful/ forbids) ʿalayhimu (for them) l-khabāitha (the impure things) -makes things lawful, John 5:17, Mark 7:19, Surah 3:50 wayaḍaʿu ودع ~ילד (and he relieves/ delivers) ʿanhum (from them) iṣ'rahum اصر אסר (their burden/ binding) wal-aghlāla غلل (and the fetters/ yoke) allatī (which) kānat (were) ʿalayhim (upon them) -Jesus relives burdens, Matthew 11:28-30, 23:4 -Jesus sets people free, John 8:36 - the Lord breaks chains, Ps 107:14. ( -Jesus also calms the storm, Mark 4:35 - 41 see Psalm 107:29, Surah 10:22) fa-alladhīna (So those who) āmanū امن אמנ (believe/ trust) bihi (in him)-waʿazzarūhu عزر עזר (and honor him/ help him) wanaṣarūhu (and help him/ are Nazarene/ Christian) -Jesus is believed in, John 6:40, John 3:16 wa-ittabaʿū תבע تبع (and follow/ seek) l-nūra נור نور (the light) -unzila נזל نزل (has been sent down) maʿahu (with him) ulāika (Those are) humu (they) l-muf'liḥūna צלח פלח فلح (the successful ones /bring forth/ worship/ serve) -"you will seek Me", John 7:36 -follow the light, John 8:12, Isiah 42:3, 60:1 -sent down, John 6:33 - -serve, John 6:27-29, pelach Daniel 7:14
One scholarly theory is that a large percentage of the Quran was originally written about Jesus and only later modified to support the newly created Islam, so you could well be right.
Mark 16:9-20 is the autographic text and is self-authenticating. I believe if we let scripture interpret scripture, we will see that it is authentic. In Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;" The Holy Spirit, through Mark, sets out to declare to the world in written form, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Holy Spirit tells us what the purpose of Mark's gospel is and that is to give a gospel account. In 1 Corinthians 15 the Holy Spirit, through Paul, tells us the content of a gospel message. =======-== 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. ========== Then in Galatians Chapter 1 the Holy Spirit through Paul pronounces curses on anyone who preaches another gospel. Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. If Mark 16:9-20 is removed, Mark fails to be a gospel message as the accounts of the disciples seeing the risen Lord are missing. The Holy Spirit cannot lie, therefore, the visible resurrection accounts are absolutely necessary for a gospel message by definition. Mark 16:9-20 is the autographic text and is self-authenticating. If you reject the longer ending as authentic, are you not calling the Holy Spirit a liar? Also, if you remove the longer ending of Mark you also break the flow of the gospels. The last word in each gospel is as follows" Mathew - "Amen" Luke - "Amen" John - "Amen" Mark ending at verse 8 - "Afraid" or Mark ending at verse 20 - "Amen" Mark 16:9-20 is autographic and to that I say "Amen"
You say, "that the longer ending is in some other manuscripts". That is true, as for the Greek manuscripts the longer ending is found in 1653 Greek manuscripts and not found in only 3 Greek manuscripts. That is over 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts have it. You then state that, "Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending." For a refutation of your position, I would ask you to read, Dean Burgeon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark starting on page 60 thru page 76, also read, Wilbur Pickering and James Snapp's writings on the issue. If Mark 16-9-20 is not original and the original text ended at verse 8, then there must have been an almost universal recension of the text that has left no trace of its occurrence in history. The probability of that happening is basically zero as Pickering states.
Normally I am pleased by your studies when it comes to Scripture and context, particularly in the Old Testament and your treatment of the Hebrew texts. However, in this case, Brother, I find your wave of the hand and poof, the last 12 verses were inserted by “scribes” reasoning to be less than stellar. You sought to prove by the writing style of Mark that he could end the chapter on a Greek word if he chose to. But the deeper question you should be seeking is this: where is the resurrection? How do you justify to call Mark a Gospel, when the Gospel involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Unfortunately, textual critics judge the Word of God, rather than allowing the Word of God to judge them. The modern Critical Text is defective. It is from the Critical Text that virtually all modern Bible version are based. The fact is, Mark 16:9-20 has been deleted from the text in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And despite the fact that thousands of manuscripts, in addition to hundreds of ancient NT texts in various languages contain these verses, the rationale goes... because the two “Oldest and Best” manuscripts do not have the reading, we must throw away historical proofs that these verses are authentic to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. What happens instead, is the “missing” verses get added to footnotes of modern Bibles, thereby generating doubt in the reader, “Yea hath God said?” Is this really part of the Word of God? These are not just any ‘ol 12 verses, Brother. They describe in precise detail the resurrection of Jesus Christ and His Great Commission. The resurrection of Jesus Christ authenticates Christs own claims that he is the Son of God. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Again I ask, where is the resurrection of Christ in your Bible’s “Gospel of Mark”? All I see is a missing body. A missing body is no miracle, neither does it prove Christ has Risen. God bless you as you continue the Lord’s work and expose Islam and the greatest false prophet in history. Chris
Islam Critiqued Hearsay. Its like how the Quran reads, “Mark reports that a young man sitting reports that Jesus is not here, he is risen.” The eye-witness is key. Not second hand info. On another note: I agree that you have a soothing voice, like a lullaby. Lol
I posted the following when the video was released: A couple of complimentary observations: ... 3) Note that Mark is clearly aware of the Resurrection (v. 6 "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here.") and even the post resurrection appearances (v. 7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”) Sometimes people foolishly claim Mark didn't know of these and it was later development, but that is clearly not the case.
Act 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Peter says they were witnesses. The testimony of an angel does not count in this case. Not that is not valid. But Scripture confirms Scripture. Mark’s Gospel alone is sufficient in providing proof that the Apostles eye-witnessed the Resurrection and ascension of Christ. Unless you dump the last 12 verses.
@@IslamCritiqued are you acquainted with James Snapps Jr.? He has collected a lot of data on Mark 16: 8-20 and has a book on Amazon on that topic. As for textual criticism, though the majority are still adhering to what they are taught in Theology schools, more and more independent thinkers are coming to realize the flows in the Theories of Westcott and Hort and their followers. The Book that really changed my views on the Topic is "The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering. Also, another authority on the matter, though classic and a little outdated is "The Revision Revised" by John William Burgon.
@@Phoeniciarevived "More scholars supporting X" and "consensus is shifting to X" are the same thing. Are you actually trying to say that consensus is shifting or are your purposely misrepresenting "I found someone who disagrees" as being equivalent to "a larger and larger percentage of scholars are disagreeing."
I think that on-going miracles throughout history shows that Jesus is doing through His followers what He had promised. As people take God at His Word, miracles happen. My family has witnessed miracles, healings, revelations in understanding, answered prayers, now innumerable. These do not lessen the faith of Christians, but validates it. That there are so many modern Muslims who have seen the Lord in dreams and have come out of Islam despite the threat to their lives, validates "Lo, I will be with you, even to the close of the age." Some of these miracles the Muslims witness daily which is the ministry of David Wood, a man who was clearly out of his mind, attempting to murder his own father, who is now the leading evangelist to Muslims on TH-cam. David has two disabled children, despite, he is so convinced that the Gospel is true, he declares the risen living Savior. What I have concluded from the collaboration of all the many witnesses on TH-cam today to bring the Gospel to Muslims, is that "God is with them". They have untiring devotion and joy in the Holy Spirit, despite circumstances, they have joy without measure and God's peace within them. Many modern Christians have been called out of the world, whose minds and spirits have been reclaimed from drugs and alcohol, from crimes and all vices, and God is moving in them. These are proof positive of the Living Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Africa, the dead have been raised. But God does quieter miracles, helping the modern Christians in their research to reveal truths that other generations overlooked due to the on-going fulfillment in many of our lifetime, of the book of Revelation, of Israel being restored to the land. The God of Israel and that of Christians is the same God and many who are Jews are finding their Messiah and it is the Lord Jesus who we Christians indeed know, that He is with us. Christians are defeating arguments against the faith from all angles from overcoming the objections of Muslims to defending the biblical flood of Noah to showing how evolution is impossible, that biblical creation is a firm foundation to stand on. Jesus believed in Genesis and whereas we can believe it by faith, evidence of unfossilized dinosaurs is now seen, evidence of blood cells which cannot survive millions of years, is now known, found in their bones. Dinosaur mummies defy that the Earth is millions and millions of years old. All this because Christians continued to pray and believe and the Gospel is going forth now like never before and God is with His people.
Your first paragraph is EXACTLY what I'm reading in a book currently. There may be more to come on this channel in the future on Jesus' miracles in the Muslim world.
How can Muslims keep their god from looking foolish? Their god shows his foolishness all through the Qur'an. Just look at the differences between different accounts of the same event in the Qur'an and see how Allah cannot remember what he did, where he did it from, his own and other characters' words. Just look at the different accounts of Satan not bowing to Adam, or Moses and the burning bush or the different accounts of creation that actually tell the reverse order for creation with one saying that the heavens were made first and others saying that the earth was made first, some saying 6 days but another saying 8 days and then there is a hadith that says it was 7 days. I don't think Muslims even care if their god Allah looks foolish. The one they really idolise is the desert pirate Muhammad.
I looked into this once and it turns out that there's enough (I came across like 5-10) ancient sources that prove that Mark 16:9-20 was always in the Bible. If I remember correctly, Mark 16:9-20 is somehow linked to Papias, a Christian who was born as early as 70 AD. Mark 16:9-20 was also quoted in an ancient gathering of 80+ Christian leaders, and it was quoted with such confidence that it's clear that they all knew it was in the Bible. It seems that the only reason Mark 16:9-20 is said to not have been in ancient Bibles is because scholars place too much value in one particular manuscript that they believe is one of the oldest and best manuscripts, and that manuscript may even be a forgery (a 19th century man, Constantine Simonides, claimed to be the forger of that particular manuscript). The manuscript that I'm speaking of is called Codex Sinaiticus, and it doesn't even fully give the impression that Mark 16:9-20 wasn't in ancient Bibles, because it contains a blank spot in the place where Mark 16:9-20 is meant to be, which, even if it is an ancient manuscript, indicates clearly that the person who was working on this manuscript was copying from a Bible that *DID* have Mark 16:9-20, because why else would there be a space space where Mark 16:9-20 is supposed to be in that particular manuscript? You can inspect the manuscript's blank space here: www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0 Some evidence that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery is quite compelling. For example, the codex consists of white pages that can hardly be ancient, and yellow pages that could be either ancient or made yellow to merely appear ancient. It's difficult to assume that a manuscript with white pages is ancient, and it's suspicious that the pages that were "found" earlier are white, whereas the later pages are yellow, especially when considering that there's, if I remember correctly, only about 15 years between the discoveries of both parts of the manuscript. If the pages naturally became yellow so short after its white portion was "discovered," then it makes little sense that it had white pages in the first place. I think the following playlists are very insightful even if you don't fully agree with what's being said: th-cam.com/video/OVjOhDJ5HKo/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/4O557156hxg/w-d-xo.html
@@IslamCritiqued And the assumption that it's not original hinges on manuscripts that themselves aren't original. We have strong reasons to believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in Bibles that are older than those few that don't have Mark 16:9-20.
@@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435 _"We have strong reasons to believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in Bibles that are older than those few that don't have Mark 16:9-20."_ Not if you mean extant manuscripts. If you mean manuscripts lost to time, there were no doubt plenty on both sides - hence the debate in the writings of the Church Fathers.
The Gospel of Mark did not end at chapter 16 verse 8. Saint Irenaeus quotes ch 16 v 19 about the Lord Jesus ascending to Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and ascribes it to Mark near the end of Book III chapter X of his Against Heresies written in 190 AD more than a century BEFORE Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied out. We need to stop falling for this phony trap.
The gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 is complete as far as the life and ministry of JESUS is concerned. Verses 1_8 relates the ressurection of Jesus Christ. The angel told that Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified has been raised from the dead, go give the message to his disciples, including Peter who denied Jesus. Jesus will meet them in Galilee just as He prophesied before His death. So the redemption is attested and complete. Anyway the different Endings are in full agreement and totally in line with the teachings and deeds of Christ and the Apostles in every way, wrapping up the Apostolic Gospel. There is absolutely no contradictions, lies or strange message therein. There had been no coverings, toppings, erasures, writing over, changes made on the manuscripts. They are there in their original state for every body to see. Mark gospel is the only gospel where space is left at the end of the manuscripts. The early Christians knew the different Endings. Inspired teachings, preaching whether oral or in writing have always existed in the history of the church. Anointed servants of God, Apostles and Prophets in one way or the other have always been present in the church till this day !!
@@MWALIMUCHAKATV Loads of thanks for the link !! You made my day !! I am rejoicing and greatly encouraged to watch the unbiased and genuine explanation. It helps us to defend and proclaim the gospel with boldness. May the lord bless you!!!
I compliment you for your work. Having said that, critics of *mainstream* Christianity could quote the contradictions between the first three gospels and the fourth gospel. For those who are intellectually honest, it would be prudent to trust the first three gospels or the fourth gospel, but not all four. Serendipity suggests the fourth gospel, not Mark, is the main candidate for corruption.
Critics _can_ do all sorts of things; that doesn't mean the criticism is viable. The kinds of difference between John and e.g. Mark are the kinds of differences one expects from different eyewitness testimony about the same events. Also, Muslims need corruption of all 4 Gospels, not just John, for their story to be viable.
The "contradictions" are false dilemmas, because the people who present them desire contradictions so badly that they don't proceed to resolve the "problems" (i.e., non-problems) that they find. Intellectually honest people won't stop studying at a false dilemma, but at a real dilemma, and there are no real dilemmas in the Bible. The false dilemmas that you allude to seem to hinge on imposing mutual exclusivity where there is no reasonable possibility for mutual exclusivity. For example, when one Gospel mentions a detail that another does not, a disbeliever will be quick to claim "contradiction!" but the Gospels mention different, non-contradictory details because (1) they weren't all written for the same target audiences (e.g., if I remember correctly, one was Jew-centered, whereas another was gentile-centered), and (2) they're truthful witness accounts. When the renowned cold case detective James Warner Wallace applied the techniques of his field to the Gospels, he became so convinced that the Gospel writers wrote what they believed to be true that he's now a Christian apologist.
Those who raise objections to the gospels and the apparent contradictions forget one quite significant concept. Each of the gospels had a target audience and as such, things were either inserted or left depending on the significance to the audience. For example, if an audience requires that you mention two witnesses then you mention two witnesses. If the audience only requires that you mention at least one witness then you do not have to include the information that there were more than one witness - it is an irrelevancy to the audience. If women are mentioned as witnesses, then for some audiences it would require that this would have to be know fact all around and incontrovertible for it to be used. For other audiences, they don't care that it is women who are witnesses. Even in the letters of Paul, you have to understand the audience and the conditions he was speaking to. Some of the things he talks about still happens in various parts of the world today and are relevant to their situation but not at all relevant to say a western setting. It is very useful to have brothers and sisters from a cross-cultural perspective to understand some of the significance of what is being said. The controversies are due to the simplistic understanding by those raising the controversies and are, in essence, a distraction from the essential Message of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
No one did in Israel. Patronymics aren't surnames. And they weren't used on purpose--that would have falsely made a big deal about their status as a descendant of so-and-so. Notice that NONE of the early church fathers use more than one name, even when they have them. Even when it would have made things less confusing! We speak of St. Augustine, not Aurelius Augustinus, for a reason.
@@IslamCritiqued the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning And i know it from the most learned Christians scholars Like bart ehrman
That is a poor definition that you copied, word for word, from a Google search. That's not even relevant to new testament manuscripts. My guess is Ehrman is the only new testament text critic you know of. Regardless, he says, "The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the *essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants* in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament." -Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (p. 252). Also, Michael Holmes graduated from Princeton as well, studied under the same professor as Ehrman. Have you seen what he has to say?
@@IslamCritiqued haha Christians belief is not effected really? Your main belief is trinity which dsnt appears in the whole bible And the only verse which was near to the trinty is 1John 5:7 and it was also an later addition and thrown out of the bible Are u serious? If the basic belif of Christianity was clear and same Now u wouldn't have debates on Jesus is god or man Now u wouldnt have so many sects of Christianity .
Huge thank you to my contributors for your support! www.patreon.com/islamcritiqued. See playlist for this series here: th-cam.com/play/PLVwt18wNX1gyTduw5kv97K8CcA9NqGhgO.html
Citations:
“Finally the fact that there is such a controversy on the ending of Mark throws the whole book into question just on this fact alone.” www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/how_reliable_is_nt.htm
First, Mark may have intended to write more but been prevented from doing so (by his death or arrest?). Second, Mark may have written a longer ending to his gospel, including one or more resurrection appearances, and this ending may have been lost in the course of transmission. Third, Mark may have intended to end his gospel with verse 8. This third possibility is becoming more popular and is the most likely. Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask-and find answers to.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189-190.
First, it is missing from what are generally considered the two most important manuscripts (the uncialsא and B), as well as several others. Second, Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending. Third, two other endings to the gospel exist: a shorter ending (attested in the uncials L, Ψ, C, 099, 0112, and some other witnesses), and the longer ending combined with an interpolation (attested in the uncial W and mentioned by Jerome). The presence of these alternative endings suggests that there was uncertainty about the ending of Mark for some time. Fourth, the longer ending contains several non-Markan words and expressions. Fifth, the longer ending does not flow naturally after 16:8: Jesus is presumed to be the subject in verse 9 (the Greek does not have an expressed subject), although “the women” is the subject in verse 8; Mary is introduced in verse 9 as if she has not been mentioned in verse 1; and “when Jesus rose early on the first day of the week” (v. 9) sounds strange after “very early on the first day of the week” (v. 2). With the great majority of contemporary commentators and textual critics, then, we do not think that verses 9-20 were written by Mark as the ending for his gospel. -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 188.
Mark refrains from making very many editorial comments about the significance of the history he narrates. He lets his story speak for itself, forcing his readers to discover the ultimate significance of much of the story of Jesus. A somewhat enigmatic ending to the gospel suits this strategy perfectly. The reader knows that Jesus has been raised (v. 6). But the confusion and astonishment of the women (v. 8) leaves us wondering about just what it all means. And that is just the question Mark wants us to ask-and find answers to.” -D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 189-190.
“It was standard literary practice in ancient writings to allude to well-known events that occurred after those being narrated in the text, without actually narrating those later events. The best-known example of this technique is the Iliad. Thus, the fact that the appearances of the risen Jesus are not narrated in Mark does not necessarily mean that the author believed that they did not occur or wanted to suppress the tradition that they did. The decision not to narrate them, however, does have the effect of emphasizing the absence of Jesus in the time of the author and audiences (cf. 2:19-20*).” -Collins, A. Y., & Attridge, H. W. (2007). Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (p. 797). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
“And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid (ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ).” -Mark 16:8
“…for they were afraid.”
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.”
“Conclusions of this kind at the end of Mk are also found in other lit. (Horapollo 2, 80 οὗτος γάρ; Plotin. V 5, 13, 36f κρείττον γὰρ τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ ποιούμενου· τελειότερον γάρ. [Pvan der Horst, JTS n.s. 23, ’72, 121-24]).” -William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 189.
ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλιεῖς” “for they were fishermen”-Mark 1:16
“ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα” “for she was twelve years of age” -Mark 5:42
“ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο” “for they were terrified” -Mark 9:6
“ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν” “for they feared him” -Mark 11:18
“ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα” “it was very large” -Mark 16:4
“ἐφοβήθη γάρ” “for she was afraid” -Gen 18:15 (LXX)
“ἐταράχθησαν γάρ” “for they were very afraid” -Gen 45:3 (LXX)
“…I am impressed by the very little difficulty which classical scholars, whether in print or in conversation, seem to find in it [Mark’s Gospel ending with ‘γαρ’].” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 86.
“…for they were afraid.” (ESV)
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ”
“οἱ δὲ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἐφοβοῦντo” “and those who followed were afraid” -Mark 10:32
“ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ” “for they were afraid” -Mark 16:8
“If no one…has seen any difficulty in this absolute use of the verb at 10:32, why should the same word cause difficulty at 16:8?” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 87.
1. Mark intended to proceed further, but was prevented for some reason (i.e. death).
2. Mark did proceed further, but at a very early date, the longer ending was lost.
3. Mark ended his work intentionally at 16:8.
“There is no evidence of any kind whatever on behalf of either of the first two possibilities.” -RH Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1950), 87.
Hi there. May i ask a question not related to your video please. Thanks for all youre videos. Has there been a misinterpretation into the bible from ancient sanskrit *i am* the son of god or *you/we* are the son of god ... indicating everyone
@weeb boo _" its more funny when Muslims like the commentator Muslim Muslim accuse me of fallacy like ad Honheim"_ My person favorite are comments like "You're an idiot and liar. All you do is engage in insults and ad hominem. What a moron you are" when in fact I haven't posted a single insult. :)
Thank you my friend, IC, for what you do. God bless you always.
@@ibnabdulaziz3652 _" No Muslim cares about your greek man made books. "_ And yet you feel you are qualified to critique them when you don't even care enough to read them. Very interesting.
@@ibnabdulaziz3652 if we take what you say about your god as being correct, there is a question I have for you. If he is perfect in his lonesomeness, why did he create anything? Does he have a need to be worshiped, which would make him imperfect? In his lonesomeness, he would have no need for creation and no purpose for it. In his lonesomeness, he would have no knowledge of justice or love or hope or good or bad because he would have nothing, not even himself to compare with.
Your unholy book, the quran, describes your unholy godling in terms that, in the bible, describes one being who is called the evil one, the father of liars and a murderer from the beginning, otherwise know as satan the devil.
You expect us to bow down before an evil being who is full of hatred for all mankind and is false in every way? I don't you understand the folly of your position and the stupidity of your claims. You have been lied to by those who are the servants of your false god and his false prophet. If you do understand that you server the father of liars and realise that your false god is the evil one, then whatever you have to say can and should be rejected out of hand.
I was going to respond to an earlier comment of yours, but you saved me the trouble by actually showing that your god is simplistic and evil. Thank you for this as it means that I do not actually have to point this oiut in detail now, you have already done it for us.
a goat ate about 70% of sura 33 and muslims worry about a couple verses in Mark 16?
And these “couple of verses” contain information that was relied on by the other three gospels anyway.
@@aericabison23 according to the theories and vain thoughts of some.
Your voice is so calming I would fall asleep if your content wasn't so fascinating.
NIV, esv nw translation footnote!!!
These are added verses
Based on those master texts, it is evident that some verses of the Christian Greek Scriptures found in older translations, such as the King James Version, were actually additions made by later copyists and were never part of the inspired Scriptures. However, because the verse division generally accepted in Bible translations was already established in the 16th century, the omission of these verses now creates gaps in the verse numbering in most Bibles. The verses are Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46;11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4;Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. In this revised edition, those omitted verses are indicated by a footnote at the location of the omission.
Regarding the long conclusion for Mark 16 (verses 9-20), the short conclusion for Mark 16, and the wording found at John 7:53-8:11, it is evident that none of these verses were included in the original manuscripts. Therefore, those spurious texts have not been included in this revision.
Literally my thoughts
it's like theological asmr
Muslim need to look into the 200-plus missing verses from the Quran that a goat ate..
I am sure the goat kept what it ate free from corruption.
@@IslamCritiqued we can be sure that what came out from the sheep after he eaten it was a totally different Quran. Maybe a one of the dialects!?
@@sheikhsbier7641 the book of maybe = qur'an
I wonder if those eaten verses contained the code of conduct that is only detailed in the Hadiths.
The hadiths abrogate most of the Quran anyway... Why? Because Allah is the best of communicators... LOL
The fact that the many modern translations note this absence from the earliest manuscript proves how seriously they take the Scripture. It shows due diligence, if nothing else. Does the Qur'an boast of the same due diligence? The closest thing to due diligence would be the hadith which notes Aisha's confession that a goat ate some of their revelation on stoning and adult breastfeeding.
Very nice ending to the video. A couple of complimentary observations:
1) The very fact that we can have an intelligent discussion about what the original text was, proves that the sort of massive corruption to the text that Muslims need is impossible.
2) At 1:50 you note that Jermone and Eusebius supported the shorter ending. It may be lost on Muslims that this shows early Christians were concerned about having the original text. In other words, this is proof that efforts were made to ensure reliable transmission of the text. (Muslims and others sometimes claim early Christians had no concern for maintaining the original text and "lost" it as a result.
3) Note that Mark is clearly aware of the Resurrection (v. 6 "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here.") and even the post resurrection appearances (v. 7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”) Sometimes people foolishly claim Mark didn't know of these and it was later development, but that is clearly not the case.
4) The shorter ending supports an early date for the gospel's composition. Mark didn't need to narrate the appearances, because they were within the living memory of his audience.
5) If we take Mark 1:1 at a title for the work ("The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"), which is very common in ancient literature, then the short ending makes good sense. This is the beginning of Jesus' story; you - the living Church - are the continuation; you are the living witnesses to the risen Lord. The Gospel overcomes fear.
I love your 5th point!
@Miko Orthodox David Wood has a video concerning Deuteronomy 18
Miko, there have been a ton of videos produced on this topic. I have some here, in this series (see playlist in pinned comment) as well as Wood, he's talked about this a hundred times. If that's not enough, I am producing a video on this again, from another perspective, in the future.
@Miko Orthodox Deuteronomy 18:18 is about JESUS CHRIST.
JOHN 1:45;
JOHN 5:45-46.
LUKE 7:16.
LUKE 24:27;
LUKE.24:44.
ACTS 3:22;
ACTS 7:37.
muhamMAD wasn't a Jew.
Look for muhamMAD in the BIBLE is like looking for pork in Muslim Halal restaurants or a pig in Muslim Mosques.
It's worse than that- Muhammad doesn't fit the profile of a Biblical prophet AT ALL, in ANY way whatsoever.
No way, this is tortured logic - Because I can show that 'Because they were afraid' could be used as an ending that means that it definitely was the ending?
How is that logical?
Because textual critics prefer a certain 2 poor and erroneous manuscripts, again using the nonsense logic that "the more mistakes and the more that's missing = the more authentic".
The only thing textual critics have in their support is a facade of intellectualism and 'scholarly authority'.
The more you look into them and their theories the more convinced you will be that they are neither devout nor logical.
Regarding Mark 16:9-20, you seem to be misinformed on a number of points. I will be happy to debate you, anywhere, any time, defending the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. (Well maybe not midnight tomorrow in Auckland. But still.)
Why no mention of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus? Why no mention of the anomalies on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that are on their pages at the end of Mark? (Does one really have to ask?)
"Why no mention of Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus?" I did not say it is not an early addition. I said I don't think it's original. "I will be happy to debate you, anywhere, any time..." Do your thing man, I have more than enough to fill my schedule.
Jimmy, I know that you, as a member of the 7th and 8th states of the Australian Federation, think that such things are of great doctrinal importance (Austen), but are they really? Will it make any profound change in the Salvation through Jesus Christ? Or is it a storm in a tea cup that just distracts from the Message of the Good News of Jesus Christ?
If it is of great doctrinal import then make your case here. If it is mayhaps an interesting but non-essential point of view, then why worry about?
We have enough with going into all the world, preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ and making disciples in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Don't you think?
Your former compatriot, The Fool (Ray Comfort) has got this action of preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ well down pat. Should you not be following his example and doing likewise?
Hill Strong,
I don't think we have met. As for making any profound change, etc., well, the person making the video surely had some reason to do so. If you think it's not worthwhile, take that up with him. I'm just pointing out that he is not well-informed on the subject, and somehow avoided mentioning important evidence that doesn't help his position.
Of course this is a non-essential matter. But is that an excuse for sloppiness? What kind of attitude says, "This is a non-essential matter, so it's okay to give the audience a totally wrong impression"?? If you think only videos about essential matters should be critiqued, why not back up a bit and question the person who made the video about the non-essential subject in the first palace. Seriously, do you think your objection make any sense at all?
James Snapp I agree James. I read a book a number of years ago (around 15 at this point) that clearly showed the authenticity of 9-20. The main reason it is thought that 9-20 isn’t authentic is it isn’t included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate manuscripts that are predated by several thousand fragments of Mark that contain 9-20.
@@PNZV A principle of critical manuscript analysis is that the "harder" reading is usually right. What would have to happen for a bunch of versus to not get truly lost but actually REJECTED by important manuscripts? The end of Mark contains nothing unique or controversial. Why are some early fathers convinced it isn't original?
The additions make sense in terms of scribes wanting to bring the three synoptic gospels fully into parallel, by borrowing from others, to give a fuller reading, especially if it was for reading out loud.
But the loss makes not sense if it WAS original.
That's all.
The gospel does say it's about the BEGINNING of the gospel of Jesus Christ. With an ending at 8, you have a clear delineation: what Jesus did before and including resurrection, and what Jesus has been doing sense. The story of Jesus after the resurrection is, to Mark, a story that hasn't ended yet.
Keep up the good work and God bless...
How about a fourth option? You know, the one where it doesn’t make God out to be a liar because He promised to preserve His WORDS (all of them) from this generation forever. (Psalm 12:6-7) so the ending of Mark 16:9-20 are included in the word of God. We have the King James Bible preserved from the Greek majority text of manuscripts, numbering thousands more than a few corrupted ones from Alexandria.
A scribal addition, later removed, doesn't make God a liar.
I thought about this and you've posted a vid! haha
I’m a psycho. I mean- a psychic.
Great video, and your assessment of why they make these claims, as a defense, rings true. It's amazing the lengths they will go and the hoops they will jump through to support their pre-conceived beliefs. As Messiah caused me to understand, "Before a person can reach the truth of a matter, they must first be truthful with themselves", which apparently is a very difficult thing for some to do. Peace.
No one scholastic ever thought that the text before verse 8 was spurious.
You mentioned Eusebius (263-339 AD) and Jerome (347-420 AD), but you didn’t mention Irenaeus.
Irenaeus specifically quoted Mark 16:19 in Book 3 of Against Heresies, around the year 180.
What are the dates of your supposedly ‘oldest and best’ manuscripts that have Mark ending at verse 8 again?
I didn't say the tradition wasn't early. I said I don't believe it's original. Lightfoot discusses specifically this issue in his work. See page 81 in the Gospel Message of St Mark.
There is significant evidence for all there of the primary options. I would suggest it is unwise to elevate one piece of evidence as definitive, but instead look at the preponderance of evidence. If that leads you to the longer ending, no problem. If that leads someone else to the shorter ending, also no problem. This is a purely academic discussion as no doctrine depends in the slightest on our choice of ending.
@@IslamCritiqued,
Just saying "LIghtfoot said something" is not really an argument.
@Qui Creva Sp For some, if not most charismatics who fully ignored the context to whom Jesus was speaking does change the Gospel.
They use the longer ending of Mark as a means to gain superpower through believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Brother, I follow the longer version of Mark. Keep up the good work in your other videos.
You are correct. Saint Irenaeus quoted ch 16 v 19 in 190 AD
@@erics7992 Exactly. Plenty of patristic evidence for the "long" ending.
"an act of supreme self refutation" - nice phrase.
It came to me when I was in a cave wrapped in a blanket.
Dean John William Burgon wrote a book in 1871 called...........The last twelve verses of Mark. Its about 350 pages long and the evidence he provides is overwhelming in favor for the last twelve verses
Don't the dead sea scrolls post-date the Old Testament texts sometimes by a period of 500 years (for the Pentateuchal text)? And... they vary from the Masoretic text by a fair amount. Thoughts?
Good old Lightfoot still comes in handy.
I like his writing style.
Allah didn't preserve any pro Islamic biblical references alluded to in the qur'an.
The one thing I think some scholars are mistaken in assuming to be true, though, is that the LORD'S Sayings as recorded by the evangelists will reflect the those writers' styles. If the LORD mentioned the things in the longer ending, then Mark's style could have no bearing on a saying of another he merely represents as historical fact.
There is good evidence for the thought of a final leaf being set aside from the main pile of leaves to be bound together, and some copying only the content minus one last half empty leaf, while others saw it and that it continued the text of the leaves gathered together. That would make the simplest explanation of two versions, without positing a spurious addition there likely was no motive for.
Also, sometimes prophets died and their disciples added to a narrative further divinely inspired text, like GOD moving to a second pen after the expiry of another pen.
Islam makes rules that facilitate there being noone to update the testament of Muhammad, but no such concern exists for true inspiration. All messengers are of one SPIRIT.
That sort of worry of muslims makes it seem like Allah's word is muhammad's.
You need to ask a Muslim which VERSION of the Koran they have. The 1924 Hafs or one of the other 30 different versions
As a Christian interested in this topic I found this website discussing it in great detail. I will say that even if the 9-20 verses should be included, it doesn’t change anything. The information can be found in other parts of the Bible, which this site explains. apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704
Yep, the question of the original ending is purely an academic one. There is no doctrinal issue on the line here. All Christians (regardless of position) would do well to remember that.
Reasoned Answers apologetics videos I agree
Good comments.
Excellent.
God bless you my brother.!!!
Dr. L.D. Hurst (RIP) Noted that it was called a gospel in verse one. It's a gospel. Seems very odd that the "good news" would end with "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Does not take anything away from the overwhelming importance of Mark.
The “cliffhanger” ending is not an uncommon feature in Mark’s gospel. Also, written within a couple of generations of Jesus’ resurrection, Mark would have felt no need to give further detail, and I think that fits his style. Thanks for your comment!
Mark is the only gospel that accurately capture the mentioning of Peter by Jesus after his resurrection... Mark was closely associated with Peter so only in his Gospel you can see Jesus mentioning Peter even after he denied Jesus...
"Mark 16:7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."
The Muslims make a good point. Since God's word is perfect, any errors or additions call the whole book into question. Additionally, the various Bible translations all have different wording, so which is the one God authored? The answer is, none of them were authored by any God. They all are just works of men compiled from a bunch of manuscripts.
While Muslims are wrong about their Quran being perfect, they at least have the right idea that God's word would be perfect.
“Since God's word is perfect, any errors or additions call the whole book into question” you have to justify your presupposition that scribes copying biblical texts should not be succeptible to the same sorts of mistakes as scribes copying non-biblical texts. Then explain how you expect this preservation to be accomplished, perhaps a divine hand was supposed to come out of heaven and slap the scribes when they were about to make an error. Or perhaps a lighting bolt?
@@IslamCritiqued Scribes when writing text inspired by God would be completely different from scribes copying uninspired text. Completely different.
"Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." - Proverbs 30:5
"And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times." - Ps 12:6
"As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." - Ps 18:30
Now, do you expect God's inspiration to have the same flaws as mere human writings?
Judging from some of the atrocities middle-eastern Gods have been reported to do, I would expect God to favor the lightening bolt instead of just a slap. :D
You are confusing God making mistakes with his revelation and scribes making mistakes while copying manuscripts.
@@IslamCritiqued I'm not talking about men copying manuscripts. I'm talking about God inspiring a writing. If God inspires it, the person writing it will 100% accurate. I agree with you that if man is just copying manuscripts that it would have errors, since it's not inspired.
There you go. The authors were 100% accurate. The scribes made typical mistakes that scribes make. What’s the issue?
You missed a golden opportunity to end the video on the word "because" and have alternative longer versions of the video appear on other channels with a disclaimer that some other versions of the video end at 10:57 with the word "because". This postmodern irony might just have melted too many Muslims' minds though. haha 😆😆😆😅
On a serious note, great video. The nice thing about Mark is that he used the rabbinic teaching technique of hinting to get the reader/listener to think.
That’s the precise analogy I scrapped from the script (trying to keep things short). A Muslim could take my video, add several alternate endings, and that would do nothing to corrupt the original itself.
@@IslamCritiqued That's cool.
What controversy? Even to a beginner in Koine Greek, the difference between the ending and the rest of Mark jumps out at you. The ending isn't Mark. That need not mean it is not inspired; that's another issue entirely.
"What controversy?" For a survey, see Stephen Lynn Cox, A History and Critique of Scholarship Concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993).
Sam Shamoun writes "Unfortunately, in his last two debates, one with the two atheists, and the other with the former Mormon-former Christian, James White denied the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, causing people who listened/listens to him to doubt its textual veracity. And in his debate with the former Mormon, White even came out and said that he doesn't accept that John 7:53-8:11 was written by John. It truly saddens my heart to hear White do this since people think that White is a scholar when it comes to the textual transmission of the New Testament, and will, therefore, believe anything and everything he says. The fact is that he is not a scholar and simply parrots the misinformation that he has picked up from others in this field who, for some reason, fail to provide the whole story, and therefore fail to give an accurate picture of of the textual pedigree for Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.
Therefore, if you truly love God's Word and truly want the facts, and not simply blindly follow what some apologist or so-called textual scholar says, then you need to read and watch all of James E Snapp Jr's information on the authenticity of these two portions of Scripture. You need to begin watching his videos found on his youtube channel: th-cam.com/video/UhGuN4nh5gs/w-d-xo.html
There you will find his thorough refutation of the misinformation spread by folks like Michael Kruger, John MacArthur etc., concerning Mark 16:9-20, and watch his video concerning John 7:53-8:11 being a floating pericope, which is an argument White used to cast doubt on its authenticity.
You also need to read his online books on these two sections of Scripture: www.amazon.com/s…
And you need to further follow his superb blog and read all of his posts on Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11: www.thetextofthegospels.com/
FYI, Snapp IS NOT a King James Only advocate, nor a Textus Receptus or Majority Text exponent. He's simply a top-notch scholar in the field of textual transmission who has done a service to the body of Christ by refuting the lies, distortion of facts, and misinformation that are being spread by folks like White, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
You also need to contact Jonathan Sheffield who is on FB and get his material on Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11: th-cam.com/channels/qjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg.html
And you can accuse me of bashing the man but I have to be honest to God and tell you that when it comes to the transmission of the New Testament text, PLEASE STOP LISTENING TO WHITE! He will badly misinform you.
Ben Malik
P.S.
I forgot to mention Taylor DeSoto and his fantastic work as well. Here are his blog: www.agroschurch.com/
And youtube pages:
th-cam.com/channels/YVwXzBdyvpXZqTCeGWpU9A.html
th-cam.com/channels/iuLphDeynSsdQz32XvyiBQ.html
I am aware that there are different opinions on this issue. I suggest you evaluate the evidence for yourself. James White was not cited in this video, so I'm not sure why your opening quote is even relevant. Sheffield and I have been in contact for sometime. I appreciate his perspective. Please don't feel the need to provide me with such basic information such as the links...etc. Thanks for your comment.
Islam Critiqued is pretty clearly not Calvinist, so why do you think he'd really want to follow White against reason?
On the weight of the evidence, with the time I've recently spent in the Orthodox liturgy, the evidence for an authentic John 7:53-8:11 is pretty overwhelming. However, I can't say the same for Mark's long ending. The same reason (leccionary purposes) that the adulteress would get moved around and accidentally omitted are why a long ending for Mark would be composed by a scribe.
@@genli5603 I thought early manuscripts don’t have the women caught in adulatory
Interesting but I do have a question: Are the Muslims who use the Mark 16:9-20 as "proof" of corruption inferring that we can only trust the older manuscripts which all include Mark 9: 1-9 and Mark 16: 5-7?
No, the leap in logic is what I discuss in the video. They believe that since there's debate about the ending, the entire Gospel should be tossed out.
Great stuff!
Hey Islam Critiqued, I know you are mostly focused on Christian apologetics and examining Islamic source material. But I wonder if you have anything to say about the Sunni vs. Shi'a divide, both politically and theologically. As someone who was never a Muslim, but just finds the religion interesting, it seems like the Shi'a tacitly prefer Ali & Hussein to Muhammad as a role model, but they can't really come out and say it.
I had a really interesting conversation awhile back with someone in India about the veneration of the early Muslims in various Shia and Sunni traditions. But I don't think that, in any case, their veneration exceeds Muhammad. Some Shia depictions of Ali are quite unique, however.
Except for the whole violence thing where one group is still killing and persecuting another...
Except for the whole violence thing where one group is still killing and persecuting another...
@@hoopoe3093 Only that in Nigeria, Islamic clerics have been lying about the oneness in the Islamic faith, doctrine, theology for ages-- until the internet and recent violence between the major sects got them busted of course. The struggles of Christianity is an open book. Why the cover-ups in Islam. Why the lies?
"Why the lies?" It's how you stay Muslim. Lie to others, lie to yourself.
Sorry Colin. Modern textual criticism is a very slip slope towards unbelief. If we believe in inspiration we must also believe in preservation. Your first premise that the abrupt ending at verse 8 of Mark 16 suits Mark's style of writing is an assumption - an idea, that is all. As for the so called ancient manyscripts, Codix Siniaticus and codix Vaticanus are unreliable as witnesses as they frequently dissagree with each other, The vast majority of manuscripts (Majority Text) which admittedly date much later have these verses in them. Modern version use the Nestland / Aland critical text as the basis of the NT. However this text itself is based on a revision of the NT greek by two 19th century critics Westcot and Hort both who were secretly apostates with Jesuit leanings who never the less elevated the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus as prmimary witnesses, even though for 1800 years the church as whole ignored them. We now have a very confused situation of hundreds of English transations which seem cater for every modern whim. Modern textual critics like Bart Erhman and Bruce Metzger are frequently quoted by Islamic scholars as their critiscm of the NT Greek text supports the claim that the Bible has indeed been changed. Frankly I dont believe modern critiscm is scholarly at all. There are plently of conservative scholars equally qualified in the field of NT manuscript studies that have shown the bible in the Received Text (Greek Byzantine text) is wholly tust worthy and attested to by the vast majority of the ancient sources such as the earliest ancient translations (Pershito, Syriac for example) and also nearly all the church Fathers who quoted extensively from the NT Greek as seen in majority text. Modern English versions
which elevate Vaticanus and Sinuiaticus preferences these verses as in doubt or left in brackets. This is highly regretable and based on apostate disbelieving textual criticsm.
Unfortunately the main strean colleges have followed the Nestle Alland text of the United Bible socities which itself is based on the faulty logic of earlier dissbelieving apostates Westcot and Hort.
Jesus said Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will never pass away.
But according to modern critics that doesn't count! The end result is that the NIV the most popular Englisht transation in print today has 200 verses that are different or changed compared to the KJB. No wonder the Islamic critics of the Bible are having a field day.
I simply disagree. Your view is not sufficiently nuanced. My statement about Mark's abrupt ending is not an assumption. Mark is even capable with raising important questions and leaving them unanswered (Mark 4:35-41). There's too much to respond to, I don't have time so I'll leave it there. But note that ANY bible you read today is the product of some sort of text criticism.
So is the longer ending to mark in the bible
So are you saying Mark 16 ended at 8 and 9-20 were added later???
Yes I think thats his point but Muslims are using it as "proof" of corruption etc. Some Muslims are not understanding that if corruption is going on why are their no attempts by modern scholars in hiding it? The Holy Bible is an open book. Personally, I believe that Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the Gospel.
I cannot put it any more clearly than I do here: th-cam.com/video/OxuydzypIHM/w-d-xo.html
thank you for this video...
Nice video. I'm sure your videos are very helpful for those that seek truth with a sincere heart but I fear a lot of muslim will keep on saying that if it has not been preserved to the letter it must be corrupted. Let's hope that all the work that's being done by scholars on the quran open their eyes and change their minds about that.
If Paul was saved by our lord while he was persecuting the church there is hope for everyone. Let's keep on praying that one day we can see them come to Christ and call them brothers and sisters!
"lot of muslim will keep on saying that if it has not been preserved to the letter it must be corrupted." This is certainly one point I have made in the past as well as this video. Muslims love to dabble in Biblical text criticism while turning a blind eye to the same for the Quran.
_"If Paul was saved by our lord while he was persecuting the church there is hope for everyone. Let's keep on praying that one day we can see them come to Christ and call them brothers and sisters!"_ Well put! I would simply add "and working" after praying - it is our job and privilege to spread the Gospel.
Your comment illustrates perfectly the type of Muslim I describe in this video- turning a blind eye to quranic text criticism and the thousands of variants in quranic manuscripts, many of them are now online for public viewing. You’ve been lied to.
You can see about 4,000 of the Quranic variants here, catalogued with images: th-cam.com/video/cjWfusEwLa4/w-d-xo.html. Here are Islamic scholars saying they don't have an Uthmanic manuscript: th-cam.com/video/PYO6vvVaBOg/w-d-xo.html. It's as if you're TRYING to match what I describe in the video: a Muslim who pretends to be onboard with Biblical text criticism, while choosing to remain completely ignorant of the same with respect to the Quran. It's so sad to see Muslims whose minds are still stuck in the dark ages of Islam where authorities could tell them anything they wanted without their claims being questioned. On the homage that so many Muslims pay to Ehrman, see here: th-cam.com/video/gGAz-gt7hRo/w-d-xo.html. And no, ultimately his problem was with evil and suffering. You can't even get that right. Now let's talk about why he thinks Muhammad is a false prophet and why he isn't a Muslim.
@@hoopoe3093 _"What a total garbage! "_ Is this a public service announcement for what follows? ... Yep, seems so.
wow. i ahd to slow it down as it goes so fast
Use the playback speed control. =) I think it was a slow paced video. Thanks for your feedback!
What do you think of Burgon's defense of the longer ending? www.ccel.org/ccel/burgon/mark.i.html
Hello Mediaeval. I would simply recommend you evaluate the evidence for yourself. It's an interesting topic but I'm not committed to persuading anyone one way or another. I simply presented my views here, and am concerned mostly with how this topic interacts with Muslim claims about Biblical corruption.
Ubay's mushaf had 111 surahs not 114.
I have a message that I’m sharing where I can, some may not want to hear this, but I ask that we stay polite and seek truth together. 😊
Love is an action. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, father the orphan, and protect the defenseless and vulnerable.
Read the Word for yourself, not only relying on others for guidance. Pray for guidance.Yahushua/Yeshua - His Hebrew name who is usually called (Jesus) taught to keep the whole Word. Including the Law/Torah. Matthew 5:17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [g]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished! 19 Therefore, whoever nullifies one of the least of these commandments, and teaches [h]others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever [i]keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Read 1 John. John tells us that sin is lawlessness, and that we must keep the commandments. Trust in the atonement of Yahushua/Yeshua who is usually called Jesus, and keep God (YHWH)'s whole Word/commandments. Revelation 12:17 So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. Revelation 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Go to parableofthevineyard youtube channel for information about the bible and good bible studies. I'm in no way paid or sent by him for advertising. I just have learned a lot from his content. He's just a man who is trying to learn as well. :) Yeshua died so we may be resurrected to eternal life.....
How about the fact that Mark was the first gospel and the New Testament is rearranged to make it appear as though Mark is the second gospel?
I know!!! It’s a huge conspiracy.
@@IslamCritiqued well yes it is. Mathew, Luke and John were added later to make the whole thing look like a coherent story and that the story is historical. When it really isn't. It's a fable. Christians and Muslims trade accusations that the other's holy book has been tampered with and is therefore unreliable. In fact both of them have been "tampered" and rearranged to suit the agenda of those who rearranged them. At least with the Qur'an it is still possible to study it in its original language.
Wow! Why didn't you tell me any of this earlier? Such magnificent insight you have! Please, tell me more.
@@IslamCritiqued I know. That's the only answer you have. Silliness. Living in a glass house and throwing stones at the Muslims. Hypocrite.
No. It’s just that your comments are too stupid to warrant a serious reply.
Can you or have you done any videos on how the Quran is disconnected from the covenants, promises, atonement concept of the Torah? For example, the promises of blessings through the promised seed, the prophecy of the one who will strike the head of the serpent, the idea of atonement, etc
Sounds like a 50-video series you're requesting. =)
@@IslamCritiqued Time to get crackin!
@@IslamCritiqued it just drives me nuts how muslims say they adhere to the laws of moses and yet Islam doesn't flow from the promises, the covenant or idea of a messianic figure to come. Anyway, keep up the good work brotha!
I have a hard hitting video planned (not too far down on my list) about Muhammad contradicting the Torah.
@@IslamCritiqued Awesome!!
3:rd option; the verse actually refers to Jesus, not Muhammed. Only it would also not make Islam work out.
I think surah 7:157 might not actually be about muhammad:
alladhīna (Those who) -yattabiʿūna תבע تبع (follow/ seek)
-"you will seek Me", John 7:36
l-rasūla (the Messenger) l-nabiya (the Prophet,)
-messenger/ apostle/ sent one, John 6:44
-prophet, John 6:14
l-umiya امم עמ אמה (the unlettered/ of the people) alladhī (whom)
-"unlettered" may come from John 7:15-17
yajidūnahu وجد (they find him) maktūban (written) fi (in)-l-Tawrāti (theTorah) wal-Injīli (and the Gospel)
-in the Torah, John 5:39
yamuruhum امر אמר (He commands them/ says/ gives orders) bil-maʿrūfi عرف ערפ (to the right/ reasonable/ exchange)
wayanhāhum نهي (and forbids them) ʿani (from) l-munkari نكر נכר (the wrong) wayuḥillu حلل חלל הלל
(and he makes lawful/ cleanses) lahumu (for them) l-ṭayibāti (the pure things/ good) wayuḥarrimu حرم חרמ
(and makes unlawful/ forbids) ʿalayhimu
(for them) l-khabāitha (the impure things)
-makes things lawful, John 5:17, Mark 7:19, Surah 3:50
wayaḍaʿu ودع ~ילד (and he relieves/ delivers) ʿanhum (from them) iṣ'rahum اصر אסר (their burden/ binding) wal-aghlāla غلل (and the fetters/ yoke) allatī (which)
kānat (were) ʿalayhim (upon them)
-Jesus relives burdens, Matthew 11:28-30, 23:4
-Jesus sets people free, John 8:36
- the Lord breaks chains, Ps 107:14.
( -Jesus also calms the storm, Mark 4:35 - 41 see Psalm 107:29, Surah 10:22)
fa-alladhīna (So those who)
āmanū امن אמנ (believe/ trust)
bihi (in him)-waʿazzarūhu عزر עזר
(and honor him/ help him) wanaṣarūhu
(and help him/ are Nazarene/ Christian)
-Jesus is believed in, John 6:40, John 3:16
wa-ittabaʿū תבע تبع (and follow/ seek) l-nūra נור نور (the light) -unzila נזל نزل (has been sent down) maʿahu (with him) ulāika
(Those are) humu (they) l-muf'liḥūna צלח פלח فلح (the successful ones /bring forth/ worship/ serve)
-"you will seek Me", John 7:36
-follow the light, John 8:12, Isiah 42:3, 60:1
-sent down, John 6:33 -
-serve, John 6:27-29, pelach Daniel 7:14
One scholarly theory is that a large percentage of the Quran was originally written about Jesus and only later modified to support the newly created Islam, so you could well be right.
I praise Lord and King Jesus for your life and ministry.
Surah 5:116 already proves god of Koran is not all knowing but a misinformed man.
Mark 16:9-20 is the autographic text and is self-authenticating.
I believe if we let scripture interpret scripture, we will see that it is authentic.
In Mark 1:1,
"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;"
The Holy Spirit, through Mark, sets out to declare to the world in written form, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Holy Spirit tells us what the purpose of Mark's gospel is and that is to give a gospel account.
In 1 Corinthians 15 the Holy Spirit, through Paul, tells us the content of a gospel message.
=======-==
1 Corinthians 15:1-6
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,
which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you,
unless ye have believed in vain.
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried,
and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas,
then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep.
==========
Then in Galatians Chapter 1 the Holy Spirit through Paul pronounces curses on anyone who preaches another gospel.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
If Mark 16:9-20 is removed, Mark fails to be a gospel message as the accounts of the disciples seeing the risen Lord are missing. The Holy Spirit cannot lie, therefore, the visible resurrection accounts are absolutely necessary for a gospel message by definition.
Mark 16:9-20 is the autographic text and is self-authenticating. If you reject the longer ending as authentic, are you not calling the Holy Spirit a liar?
Also, if you remove the longer ending of Mark you also break the flow of the gospels. The last word in each gospel is as follows"
Mathew - "Amen"
Luke - "Amen"
John - "Amen"
Mark ending at verse 8 - "Afraid"
or Mark ending at verse 20 - "Amen"
Mark 16:9-20 is autographic and to that I say "Amen"
You say, "that the longer ending is in some other manuscripts". That is true, as for the Greek manuscripts the longer ending is found in 1653 Greek manuscripts and not found in only 3 Greek manuscripts. That is over 99.5% of all Greek manuscripts have it.
You then state that, "Jerome and Eusebius both state that the best manuscripts available to them did not contain this longer ending." For a refutation of your position, I would ask you to read, Dean Burgeon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark starting on page 60 thru page 76, also read, Wilbur Pickering and James Snapp's writings on the issue.
If Mark 16-9-20 is not original and the original text ended at verse 8, then there must have been an almost universal recension of the text that has left no trace of its occurrence in history. The probability of that happening is basically zero as Pickering states.
Normally I am pleased by your studies when it comes to Scripture and context, particularly in the Old Testament and your treatment of the Hebrew texts. However, in this case, Brother, I find your wave of the hand and poof, the last 12 verses were inserted by “scribes” reasoning to be less than stellar.
You sought to prove by the writing style of Mark that he could end the chapter on a Greek word if he chose to. But the deeper question you should be seeking is this: where is the resurrection?
How do you justify to call Mark a Gospel, when the Gospel involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day.
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Rom 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Unfortunately, textual critics judge the Word of God, rather than allowing the Word of God to judge them. The modern Critical Text is defective. It is from the Critical Text that virtually all modern Bible version are based.
The fact is, Mark 16:9-20 has been deleted from the text in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And despite the fact that thousands of manuscripts, in addition to hundreds of ancient NT texts in various languages contain these verses, the rationale goes... because the two “Oldest and Best” manuscripts do not have the reading, we must throw away historical proofs that these verses are authentic to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What happens instead, is the “missing” verses get added to footnotes of modern Bibles, thereby generating doubt in the reader, “Yea hath God said?” Is this really part of the Word of God?
These are not just any ‘ol 12 verses, Brother. They describe in precise detail the resurrection of Jesus Christ and His Great Commission. The resurrection of Jesus Christ authenticates Christs own claims that he is the Son of God.
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Matt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Again I ask, where is the resurrection of Christ in your Bible’s “Gospel of Mark”?
All I see is a missing body.
A missing body is no miracle, neither does it prove Christ has Risen.
God bless you as you continue the Lord’s work and expose Islam and the greatest false prophet in history.
Chris
"But the deeper question you should be seeking is this: where is the resurrection?" Mark 16:6.
And yes, occasionally we must encounter topics where disagreement exists.
Islam Critiqued
Hearsay. Its like how the Quran reads, “Mark reports that a young man sitting reports that Jesus is not here, he is risen.”
The eye-witness is key. Not second hand info.
On another note: I agree that you have a soothing voice, like a lullaby. Lol
I posted the following when the video was released:
A couple of complimentary observations:
...
3) Note that Mark is clearly aware of the Resurrection (v. 6 "You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here.") and even the post resurrection appearances (v. 7 "But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”) Sometimes people foolishly claim Mark didn't know of these and it was later development, but that is clearly not the case.
Act 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
Peter says they were witnesses. The testimony of an angel does not count in this case. Not that is not valid. But Scripture confirms Scripture. Mark’s Gospel alone is sufficient in providing proof that the Apostles eye-witnessed the Resurrection and ascension of Christ.
Unless you dump the last 12 verses.
More and more scholars are rejecting your theory and proving it is part of the gospel.
If you look at a survey on this topic, it's the other way around. So I'm not sure where you're getting that info.
@@IslamCritiqued are you acquainted with James Snapps Jr.? He has collected a lot of data on Mark 16: 8-20 and has a book on Amazon on that topic. As for textual criticism, though the majority are still adhering to what they are taught in Theology schools, more and more independent thinkers are coming to realize the flows in the Theories of Westcott and Hort and their followers. The Book that really changed my views on the Topic is "The Identity of the New Testament Text" by Wilbur N. Pickering. Also, another authority on the matter, though classic and a little outdated is "The Revision Revised" by John William Burgon.
I thought you were saying the scholarly consensus was shifting, as opposed to referring to specific authors. Thanks for your comment
@@IslamCritiqued Not consensus, but more scholars are actually favouring the Majority Text over the flawed Westcott and Hort views.
@@Phoeniciarevived "More scholars supporting X" and "consensus is shifting to X" are the same thing. Are you actually trying to say that consensus is shifting or are your purposely misrepresenting "I found someone who disagrees" as being equivalent to "a larger and larger percentage of scholars are disagreeing."
I think that on-going miracles throughout history shows that Jesus is doing through His followers what He had promised. As people take God at His Word, miracles happen. My family has witnessed miracles, healings, revelations in understanding, answered prayers, now innumerable. These do not lessen the faith of Christians, but validates it. That there are so many modern Muslims who have seen the Lord in dreams and have come out of Islam despite the threat to their lives, validates "Lo, I will be with you, even to the close of the age."
Some of these miracles the Muslims witness daily which is the ministry of David Wood, a man who was clearly out of his mind, attempting to murder his own father, who is now the leading evangelist to Muslims on TH-cam. David has two disabled children, despite, he is so convinced that the Gospel is true, he declares the risen living Savior. What I have concluded from the collaboration of all the many witnesses on TH-cam today to bring the Gospel to Muslims, is that "God is with them". They have untiring devotion and joy in the Holy Spirit, despite circumstances, they have joy without measure and God's peace within them. Many modern Christians have been called out of the world, whose minds and spirits have been reclaimed from drugs and alcohol, from crimes and all vices, and God is moving in them. These are proof positive of the Living Gospel of Jesus Christ. In Africa, the dead have been raised. But God does quieter miracles, helping the modern Christians in their research to reveal truths that other generations overlooked due to the on-going fulfillment in many of our lifetime, of the book of Revelation, of Israel being restored to the land. The God of Israel and that of Christians is the same God and many who are Jews are finding their Messiah and it is the Lord Jesus who we Christians indeed know, that He is with us. Christians are defeating arguments against the faith from all angles from overcoming the objections of Muslims to defending the biblical flood of Noah to showing how evolution is impossible, that biblical creation is a firm foundation to stand on. Jesus believed in Genesis and whereas we can believe it by faith, evidence of unfossilized dinosaurs is now seen, evidence of blood cells which cannot survive millions of years, is now known, found in their bones. Dinosaur mummies defy that the Earth is millions and millions of years old. All this because Christians continued to pray and believe and the Gospel is going forth now like never before and God is with His people.
Your first paragraph is EXACTLY what I'm reading in a book currently. There may be more to come on this channel in the future on Jesus' miracles in the Muslim world.
How can Muslims keep their god from looking foolish? Their god shows his foolishness all through the Qur'an. Just look at the differences between different accounts of the same event in the Qur'an and see how Allah cannot remember what he did, where he did it from, his own and other characters' words. Just look at the different accounts of Satan not bowing to Adam, or Moses and the burning bush or the different accounts of creation that actually tell the reverse order for creation with one saying that the heavens were made first and others saying that the earth was made first, some saying 6 days but another saying 8 days and then there is a hadith that says it was 7 days.
I don't think Muslims even care if their god Allah looks foolish. The one they really idolise is the desert pirate Muhammad.
I looked into this once and it turns out that there's enough (I came across like 5-10) ancient sources that prove that Mark 16:9-20 was always in the Bible. If I remember correctly, Mark 16:9-20 is somehow linked to Papias, a Christian who was born as early as 70 AD. Mark 16:9-20 was also quoted in an ancient gathering of 80+ Christian leaders, and it was quoted with such confidence that it's clear that they all knew it was in the Bible.
It seems that the only reason Mark 16:9-20 is said to not have been in ancient Bibles is because scholars place too much value in one particular manuscript that they believe is one of the oldest and best manuscripts, and that manuscript may even be a forgery (a 19th century man, Constantine Simonides, claimed to be the forger of that particular manuscript). The manuscript that I'm speaking of is called Codex Sinaiticus, and it doesn't even fully give the impression that Mark 16:9-20 wasn't in ancient Bibles, because it contains a blank spot in the place where Mark 16:9-20 is meant to be, which, even if it is an ancient manuscript, indicates clearly that the person who was working on this manuscript was copying from a Bible that *DID* have Mark 16:9-20, because why else would there be a space space where Mark 16:9-20 is supposed to be in that particular manuscript? You can inspect the manuscript's blank space here: www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0
Some evidence that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery is quite compelling. For example, the codex consists of white pages that can hardly be ancient, and yellow pages that could be either ancient or made yellow to merely appear ancient. It's difficult to assume that a manuscript with white pages is ancient, and it's suspicious that the pages that were "found" earlier are white, whereas the later pages are yellow, especially when considering that there's, if I remember correctly, only about 15 years between the discoveries of both parts of the manuscript. If the pages naturally became yellow so short after its white portion was "discovered," then it makes little sense that it had white pages in the first place.
I think the following playlists are very insightful even if you don't fully agree with what's being said:
th-cam.com/video/OVjOhDJ5HKo/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/4O557156hxg/w-d-xo.html
"Prove" may be too strong a word. I would simply recommend weighing the evidence for oneself and making a decision.
@@IslamCritiquedBe that as it may, there's certainly enough reason to dismiss claims against the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.
Some early manuscripts, yes. But that doesn’t mean it’s original.
@@IslamCritiqued And the assumption that it's not original hinges on manuscripts that themselves aren't original. We have strong reasons to believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in Bibles that are older than those few that don't have Mark 16:9-20.
@@ourbulwarkisjesuschrist9435 _"We have strong reasons to believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in Bibles that are older than those few that don't have Mark 16:9-20."_ Not if you mean extant manuscripts. If you mean manuscripts lost to time, there were no doubt plenty on both sides - hence the debate in the writings of the Church Fathers.
The Gospel of Mark did not end at chapter 16 verse 8. Saint Irenaeus quotes ch 16 v 19 about the Lord Jesus ascending to Heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and ascribes it to Mark near the end of Book III chapter X of his Against Heresies written in 190 AD more than a century BEFORE Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied out. We need to stop falling for this phony trap.
Source?
I'm guessing if I scroll down, I'll find some "copy and paste" comments.
3 from Sayed so far, which I deleted. If he wants to post real comments, I will not delete them.
Ok, we're up to 7-8 now.
How did you know?
@@IslamCritiqued James Hall is probably a prophet. We just need to see his hairy back mole to confirm.
@@ReasonedAnswers My husband has a hairy, huge black mole between his shoulderblades. Dead serious. No lie!
👌👍🙏
This one never bothered me. God could easily guide another writer to add it to the canon.
The gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 is complete as far as the life and ministry of JESUS is concerned.
Verses 1_8 relates the ressurection of Jesus Christ.
The angel told that Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified has been raised from the dead, go give the message to his disciples, including Peter who denied Jesus.
Jesus will meet them in Galilee just as He prophesied before His death.
So the redemption is attested and complete.
Anyway the different Endings are in full agreement and totally in line with the teachings and deeds of Christ and the Apostles in every way, wrapping up the Apostolic Gospel.
There is absolutely no contradictions, lies or strange message therein.
There had been no coverings, toppings, erasures, writing over, changes made on the manuscripts.
They are there in their original state for every body to see. Mark gospel is the only gospel where space is left at the end of the manuscripts. The early Christians knew the different Endings.
Inspired teachings, preaching whether oral or in writing have always existed in the history of the church. Anointed servants of God, Apostles and Prophets in one way or the other have always been present in the church till this day !!
th-cam.com/video/UhGuN4nh5gs/w-d-xo.html
@@MWALIMUCHAKATV
Loads of thanks for the link !!
You made my day !!
I am rejoicing and greatly encouraged to watch the unbiased and genuine explanation.
It helps us to defend and proclaim the gospel with boldness.
May the lord bless you!!!
I compliment you for your work.
Having said that, critics of *mainstream* Christianity could quote the contradictions between the first three gospels and the fourth gospel.
For those who are intellectually honest, it would be prudent to trust the first three gospels or the fourth gospel, but not all four. Serendipity suggests the fourth gospel, not Mark, is the main candidate for corruption.
Critics _can_ do all sorts of things; that doesn't mean the criticism is viable. The kinds of difference between John and e.g. Mark are the kinds of differences one expects from different eyewitness testimony about the same events. Also, Muslims need corruption of all 4 Gospels, not just John, for their story to be viable.
"Serendipity suggests the fourth gospel, not Mark, is the main candidate for corruption." I have no idea what that means.
The "contradictions" are false dilemmas, because the people who present them desire contradictions so badly that they don't proceed to resolve the "problems" (i.e., non-problems) that they find. Intellectually honest people won't stop studying at a false dilemma, but at a real dilemma, and there are no real dilemmas in the Bible. The false dilemmas that you allude to seem to hinge on imposing mutual exclusivity where there is no reasonable possibility for mutual exclusivity. For example, when one Gospel mentions a detail that another does not, a disbeliever will be quick to claim "contradiction!" but the Gospels mention different, non-contradictory details because (1) they weren't all written for the same target audiences (e.g., if I remember correctly, one was Jew-centered, whereas another was gentile-centered), and (2) they're truthful witness accounts. When the renowned cold case detective James Warner Wallace applied the techniques of his field to the Gospels, he became so convinced that the Gospel writers wrote what they believed to be true that he's now a Christian apologist.
Those who raise objections to the gospels and the apparent contradictions forget one quite significant concept. Each of the gospels had a target audience and as such, things were either inserted or left depending on the significance to the audience. For example, if an audience requires that you mention two witnesses then you mention two witnesses. If the audience only requires that you mention at least one witness then you do not have to include the information that there were more than one witness - it is an irrelevancy to the audience. If women are mentioned as witnesses, then for some audiences it would require that this would have to be know fact all around and incontrovertible for it to be used. For other audiences, they don't care that it is women who are witnesses.
Even in the letters of Paul, you have to understand the audience and the conditions he was speaking to. Some of the things he talks about still happens in various parts of the world today and are relevant to their situation but not at all relevant to say a western setting.
It is very useful to have brothers and sisters from a cross-cultural perspective to understand some of the significance of what is being said. The controversies are due to the simplistic understanding by those raising the controversies and are, in essence, a distraction from the essential Message of the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Well why dont the gospel writers have their last names.
Anachronistic question.
No one did in Israel. Patronymics aren't surnames. And they weren't used on purpose--that would have falsely made a big deal about their status as a descendant of so-and-so. Notice that NONE of the early church fathers use more than one name, even when they have them. Even when it would have made things less confusing! We speak of St. Augustine, not Aurelius Augustinus, for a reason.
After all its Still corrupted 😃😃😃
Define corruption, and tell me how you know.
@@IslamCritiqued the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning
And i know it from the most learned Christians scholars
Like bart ehrman
That is a poor definition that you copied, word for word, from a Google search. That's not even relevant to new testament manuscripts. My guess is Ehrman is the only new testament text critic you know of. Regardless, he says, "The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the *essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants* in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament." -Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (p. 252). Also, Michael Holmes graduated from Princeton as well, studied under the same professor as Ehrman. Have you seen what he has to say?
@@IslamCritiqued haha Christians belief is not effected really?
Your main belief is trinity which dsnt appears in the whole bible
And the only verse which was near to the trinty is 1John 5:7 and it was also an later addition and thrown out of the bible
Are u serious?
If the basic belif of Christianity was clear and same
Now u wouldn't have debates on Jesus is god or man
Now u wouldnt have so many sects of Christianity .
It is clear you have not done any research, and you’re just repeating typical Muslim catch phrases. Take care.