Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,552
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: +
no edit summary
:Yes, it does include them. The highly respected [[ESV]] translation, for example, separates with "<nowiki>[[</nowiki>" and "<nowiki>]]</nowiki>" the later-added ending of {{bibleref|Mark|16|9-20}}. The ESV and virtually every other modern translation also points out that the earliest manuscrupts do not include this new ending.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:06, January 12, 2024 (EST)
:Yes, it does include them. The highly respected [[ESV]] translation, for example, separates with "<nowiki>[[</nowiki>" and "<nowiki>]]</nowiki>" the later-added ending of {{bibleref|Mark|16|9-20}}. The ESV and virtually every other modern translation also points out that the earliest manuscrupts do not include this new ending.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 18:06, January 12, 2024 (EST)
::It's a probabalistic matter. Various Bibles include the verses with notes about the earliest manuscripts. Whether or not the verses are Scripture nobody can say for sure. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:11, January 12, 2024 (EST)
::It's a probabalistic matter. Various Bibles include the verses with notes about the earliest manuscripts. Whether or not the verses are Scripture nobody can say for sure. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:11, January 12, 2024 (EST)
:::There are excellent reasons for including the Mark passages in question: [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/was-mark-16-9-20-originally-mark-gospel/ Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?]. So one can't be dogmatic about them not being Scripture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:17, January 12, 2024 (EST)