How did Mark 16:18 get into the Book of Mormon?

[_Craig Paxton]

Biblical scholars agree that Mark 16 was a later addition to the ending of the book of Mark in the new testament and was not part of the original manuscript but added by later scribes. How do Mormon apologists pull this nail out of the coffin?

Mark 16:18
New Testament
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Mormon 9:24
Book of Mormon
And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;

The easy answer is that Joseph didn't know this fact when he made his fiction up...but how do LDS apologists explain this away?

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Shows how inspired Mormon, Moroni and the gang were to write this so well the faithful understand the truth and infidels find a way to ignore the truth. (bc space imitation)

[_sock puppet]

Biblical scholars agree that Mark 16 was a later addition to the ending of the book of Mark in the new testament and was not part of the original manuscript but added by later scribes. How do Mormon apologists pull this nail out of the coffin?

Mark 16:18
New Testament
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Mormon 9:24
Book of Mormon
And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;

The easy answer is that Joseph didn't know this fact when he made his fiction up...but how do LDS apologists explain this away?

...and the hits just keep on comin'.

[_bcspace]

One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".

[_Fence Sitter]

Biblical scholars agree that Mark 16 was a later addition to the ending of the book of Mark in the new testament and was not part of the original manuscript but added by later scribes. How do Mormon apologists pull this nail out of the coffin?

Mark 16:18
New Testament
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


Mormon 9:24
Book of Mormon
And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;

The easy answer is that Joseph didn't know this fact when he made his fiction up...but how do LDS apologists explain this away?

The 15th century spirit translators who translated the Book of Mormon had spirit copies of the Bible with them to use as a reference. Sometime it was just easier to copy straight out of the Bible than it was to actually translate and, given the poor grammar and spelling from that translation, it is clear there wasn't any editors around making sure there were no errors in the most correct book in the spirit world.

[_ludwigm]

One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".

... and You hand would break during copypaste the link.

Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Ma ... c_evidence

[_Tobin]

One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".

The problem I have with Craig is he just leaps off into la-la-land based on the most unfounded assertions and generalizations without examining them in the slightest. Bear in mind he has no proof of his assertions. Also, I can't believe all Biblical scholars (whoever they are?) agree on any single thing including this. That seems to be a laughable assertion all by itself.

[_Bazooka]

One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".

The problem I have with Craig is he just leaps off into la-la-land based on the most unfounded assertions and generalizations without examining them in the slightest. Bear in mind he has no proof of his assertions.

Really? That's a problem YOU ("I have met a space alien who stopped me having sex and murdering someone") have with Craig?

Also, I can't believe all Biblical scholars (whoever they are?) agree on any single thing including this. That seems to be a laughable assertion all by itself.

The second sentence is commenting on the first, right?

[_Craig Paxton]

One could probably start with the Wikipedia article on Mark 16 itself and have enough information to make a good case for Mark 16:9-20's inclusion. The article has a section entitled "Mark 16:9–20 in the manuscripts and patristic evidence".

Would you agree BC that IF it could be shown that Mark 16:9-20 was in fact a late scribal addition to the original manuscript that this would prove difficult for LDS apologists?

[_Craig Paxton]

The 15th century spirit translators who translated the Book of Mormon had spirit copies of the Bible with them to use as a reference. Sometime it was just easier to copy straight out of the Bible than it was to actually translate and, given the poor grammar and spelling from that translation, it is clear there wasn't any editors around making sure there were no errors in the most correct book in the spirit world.

I have got to stop reading anything you post Fence Sitter before I finish my morning coffee...I keep snorting coffee up my nose with laughter...