Does the Church still possess miraculous gifts today?

[StanJ]

I just want to repeat that I do believe in the gifts. Just not in there ''on hand readiness''. It is as and when God deems fit.
But with respect to this line. It just does not make sense Stan. Why would I want to speak in tongues right now and then have the Holy Spirit help me interpret it, if I can already speak in English? At least speaking in English leaves the oness of interpretation on God and not me increasing the risk of an incorrect interpretation.

I think being ready for the word God wants us to do is pretty much the norm as far as us walking in the spirit. Being faithful of course is a different issue altogether.
Because as Paul said, the tongues is to get the attention of the unbelievers that are in attendance. Once they have heard it and are still, they are ready for the interpretation. As Paul also wrote In 1Corinthians 14, the spirit of the Prophet is subject to the prophet. I trust you understand what that means?

 

[Wormwood]

Not at all WW, the point is that a proper translation will not show what you indicated. I do have faith that the Greek when properly translated conveys the proper understanding, NOT the ESV. It is obviously not worth us continuing to dicker about it.

Okay, we can move on, but just as a side note, I love the ESV. I think it is a far better translation than the NIV. The NIV's egalitarian focus, use of atonement rather than propitiation in the translation of hilaskomai and its use of "sinful nature" for sarx and other such means of the interpreter imposing their will on the text makes it a lesser translation in my book. I prefer a more literal word for word translation rather than the thought for thought translation. Allow the reader to imply meaning rather than having that meaning forced on the reader by the interpreter. At least that is my opinion. ESV is the best translation available in my humble opinion .

I appreciate your humor, but deflecting and not answering my points is not how to do it.

Well, the sentence I was responding to with the humor was not making a point. I was responding to your sentence, "Of course it's debatable, isn't that what we're doing? " just adding a little humor to your humor.

Therefore these tongues were called heterai (Strong's #2087) glossai (Acts 2:4), unusual tongues that were different from any previously known. This sense of the unusual in kainos comes out very clearly in a passage from Xenophon: "Either a new [kaines] rule beginning or the customary one remaining."

Even in the English it makes sense because Jesus would have said other tongues or languages and not new tongues.

I read through the commentators comments on these words that you listed. Thank you for the reference. I understand and agree with his statements, but I just do not agree that he is saying what you are contending. I agree that heterai refers to a qualitative newness (as I have pointed out in the lexicons I have referenced). The difference is, that this does not imply a "tongue" that must, therefore would not have existed previously. In fact, neos would have been a better choice of word for that. As the commentator you reference points out, "Neos refers to something new in time." Thus if this was a brand new language that just came into existance that Paul or Luke was referencing, why not use this word? No, these "tongues/languages" had a qualitative difference, not a newly created dialect (as neos would infer). The qualitative difference was that these tongues were fluently spoken by someone who had never learned them (i.e. miraculous...they come from the speaker through God's Spirit rather than from man's education). Thus, they are "new" in the sense that they are not of normal quality in that they are learned languages that are brought about by time and education. They are a "gift" and are spoken by miraculous power and in this sense they have a new quality about them. So, I agree with the way the term "new" is defined, but not your conclusion as to how that must be interpreted. If they were an entirely new dialect that had never before been heard on earth, then it would seem neos would be the appropriate word (new in time). However, these are qualitatively new tongues in that they are spoken through miraculous powers..but it doesnt mean they were without human meaning.

Faith does not require understanding or actual insurance is that what we are believing or doing is what God wants.

I strongly reject this definition of faith. Faith is pretty much the opposite of that definition. Faith is knowing what God wants and obeying it even though it doesnt make sense. Faith is hearing the Word of God and trusting it even though it may lead to heartache and loss. Faith is trusting God's word over my intuition and feelings. Show me where faith is ever defined as doing something with no understanding or assurance that God actually approves of the act. Rather, faith is knowing what God approves of and doing it because He is God and he commands it. By your rationale, I can claim that faith means jumping off a building and trusting that God will make me fly, even though I have no actual assurance that God wants me to jump off a building. That may be faith in something, but it is not faith in God. What you are describing is more of a confidence in self that God will respond to personal determination, regardless of whether or not that determination is based in the actual will of God. No, God responds to those who act according to his will, and not assume their actions will be God's will even though there is no justification for it. That is presumption, not faith.

The Bible says the prayer of faith will heal the sick so if one does not exercise Faith even if they have the healing gift then the person they pray for it won't be healed.

Yes, but that faith is based on something God has said, namely, that he hears us when we call and he answers and has the power to heal. God never said, "Start making noises and trust that I am the one making those noises. Then trust whatever thoughts come to your mind are my thoughts and are interpretations of those noises." Again, this is presumption, not faith. If God works this way, what use is the Bible? Why not just have faith that whatever I think and say is actually what God thinks and says? This leads us the stance of some on this board that believe the Bible plays second fiddle to their own personal inclinations and promptings. I know you dont believe this so I am surprised you would give credence to this line of thinking.

None of us including yourself can be responsible for people who do it wrong in terms of our faith. Many people do many things wrong and say many things wrong.

But dont you see the problem here, Stan? How can anyone say someone is wrong? If "faith" is just trusting whatever I say is God speaking, then who can ever say another person is wrong? After all, who are you to judge another man's faith (if we define faith this way)? How can I say someone is wrong when they are boldly trusting that their gut feeling is the voice of God in interpretation of their utterings? If God has made it that this is what faith is and how we express it, then we cant ever say anyone is wrong, unless they are flatly contradicting Scripture. Yet, this is just not how faith works and there is no precedent for God's gifts being given by those who simply believe they have the gift and start acting as if whatever they say is God speaking. Again, the gift of healing doesnt work this way! If this is how faith works, then why not stand up in a funeral service and command the dead to live!? If this is what faith is and what God desires, then certainly that will cause the dead man to rise up! But if he doesnt, then what do we say? Clearly God was not urging you to raise the dead man...how do we know? Because he didnt live again. Yet there is no such litmis test for tongues, so people do it and attribute their thoughts to God, while, more than likely it is not God's thoughts at all, but their own. The dead are not being raised when they command it so why should we assume their "interpretation" of tongues is from God? Again, lets be consistent with our understanding of gifts! If tongues is given by the faith that we have it and just doing it, then why not work miracles the same way? Command the lame to walk and surely God will respond to your faith in trusting that God is going to do it because you are saying it. No, they dont do that in the charismatic churches I have seen....why not? I think we both know why.

 

[StanJ]

Okay, we can move on, but just as a side note, I love the ESV. I think it is a far better translation than the NIV. The NIV's egalitarian focus, use of atonement rather than propitiation in the translation of hilaskomai and its use of "sinful nature" for sarx and other such means of the interpreter imposing their will on the text makes it a lesser translation in my book. I prefer a more literal word for word translation rather than the thought for thought translation. Allow the reader to imply meaning rather than having that meaning forced on the reader by the interpreter. At least that is my opinion. ESV is the best translation available in my humble opinion .

You call this moving on?
There a lot of people that like the ESV, but I prefer the NASB if I'm going to read a Bible that is translated in formal equivalence. The NIV is a functionally equivalent translation which means it takes into effect are modern colloquialisms and sayings. A formal equivalency is based on literal word for word translation more than equivalent meaning. The problem is between any two languages there cannot be a word-for-word translation. I'm personally and bilingual I speak both French and English and I can assure you that you cannot translate English to French or French to English word by word. If I were to give you a phrase in French and ask you to translate it word for word into English it would make no sense. The whole point is we have to be able to trust the scholars that are doing the translation and we also have to trust the Linguistics behind that translation. I for one trust the NIV much more than any other translations that now exists. There are many that I also use including the NASB, NET, NRSV and MOUNCE. I find that the ESV uses English that is much older then we use today and much closer to the English of the KJV.

I read through the commentators comments on these words that you listed. Thank you for the reference. I understand and agree with his statements, but I just do not agree that he is saying what you are contending. I agree that heterai refers to a qualitative newness (as I have pointed out in the lexicons I have referenced). The difference is, that this does not imply a "tongue" that must, therefore would not have existed previously. In fact, neos would have been a better choice of word for that. As the commentator you reference points out, "Neos refers to something new in time." Thus if this was a brand new language that just came into existance that Paul or Luke was referencing, why not use this word? No, these "tongues/languages" had a qualitative difference, not a newly created dialect (as neos would infer). The qualitative difference was that these tongues were fluently spoken by someone who had never learned them (i.e. miraculous...they come from the speaker through God's Spirit rather than from man's education). Thus, they are "new" in the sense that they are not of normal quality in that they are learned languages that are brought about by time and education. They are a "gift" and are spoken by miraculous power and in this sense they have a new quality about them. So, I agree with the way the term "new" is defined, but not your conclusion as to how that must be interpreted. If they were an entirely new dialect that had never before been heard on earth, then it would seem neos would be the appropriate word (new in time). However, these are qualitatively new tongues in that they are spoken through miraculous powers..but it doesnt mean they were without human meaning.

So you missed the part that states; unusual tongues that were different from any previously known. ?

Sorry but NEW means exactly the same in this context. Translators have to use the word that most closely resembles the Greek and in some cases the English doesn't always work very well and less it's read in context. New tongues, in context, means new tongues, never before heard. I fail to understand how you can agree with the commentary but not with the end result? Seems to me that is more an indication of stubbornness than anything else?

I strongly reject this definition of faith. Faith is pretty much the opposite of that definition. Faith is knowing what God wants and obeying it even though it doesnt make sense. Faith is hearing the Word of God and trusting it even though it may lead to heartache and loss. Faith is trusting God's word over my intuition and feelings. Show me where faith is ever defined as doing something with no understanding or assurance that God actually approves of the act. Rather, faith is knowing what God approves of and doing it because He is God and he commands it. By your rationale, I can claim that faith means jumping off a building and trusting that God will make me fly, even though I have no actual assurance that God wants me to jump off a building. That may be faith in something, but it is not faith in God. What you are describing is more of a confidence in self that God will respond to personal determination, regardless of whether or not that determination is based in the actual will of God. No, God responds to those who act according to his will, and not assume their actions will be God's will even though there is no justification for it. That is presumption, not faith.

Seems Google did not convey what I actually spoke and now I forget what I actually said. I guess I need to proof read more. It's funny that you actually think you understand something that I know don't.
Anyway I agree with what you say above but I can't really clarify what I was trying to say now. Sometimes Google Voice works really well and other times it's a mess. I find it also will change the sentence 1520 seconds after I smoke it... As it just did here LOL! I said spoke and it accepted it and put that down and then changed it to smoke!

Yes, but that faith is based on something God has said, namely, that he hears us when we call and he answers and has the power to heal. God never said, "Start making noises and trust that I am the one making those noises. Then trust whatever thoughts come to your mind are my thoughts and are interpretations of those noises." Again, this is presumption, not faith. If God works this way, what use is the Bible? Why not just have faith that whatever I think and say is actually what God thinks and says? This leads us the stance of some on this board that believe the Bible plays second fiddle to their own personal inclinations and promptings. I know you dont believe this so I am surprised you would give credence to this line of thinking. [/size]

Faith is a little more simplistic than that in my opinion. We have faith before we even are saved. This is what the Bible tells us. The best that I can express it is that it is an innate belief that God exists and what he says is truth. This is why I got saved because I believed what he said and that I must be born again. Of course it develops into something much more comprehensive as we walk in Christ and Hebrews does express it well when it says; Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. and because I memorized this a long time ago in the King James version, I seem to prefer this rendering above any others!

But dont you see the problem here, Stan? How can anyone say someone is wrong? If "faith" is just trusting whatever I say is God speaking, then who can ever say another person is wrong? After all, who are you to judge another man's faith (if we define faith this way)? How can I say someone is wrong when they are boldly trusting that their gut feeling is the voice of God in interpretation of their utterings? If God has made it that this is what faith is and how we express it, then we cant ever say anyone is wrong, unless they are flatly contradicting Scripture. Yet, this is just not how faith works and there is no precedent for God's gifts being given by those who simply believe they have the gift and start acting as if whatever they say is God speaking. Again, the gift of healing doesnt work this way! If this is how faith works, then why not stand up in a funeral service and command the dead to live!? If this is what faith is and what God desires, then certainly that will cause the dead man to rise up! But if he doesnt, then what do we say? Clearly God was not urging you to raise the dead man...how do we know? Because he didnt live again. Yet there is no such litmis test for tongues, so people do it and attribute their thoughts to God, while, more than likely it is not God's thoughts at all, but their own. The dead are not being raised when they command it so why should we assume their "interpretation" of tongues is from God? Again, lets be consistent with our understanding of gifts! If tongues is given by the faith that we have it and just doing it, then why not work miracles the same way? Command the lame to walk and surely God will respond to your faith in trusting that God is going to do it because you are saying it. No, they dont do that in the charismatic churches I have seen....why not? I think we both know why.

It's funny how many people ask me that? As a matter of fact my kids asked me that this weekend and I said to them, "I just know". Definitely isn't a matter of just believing what God is telling me, but it's a matter of believing that God is confirming what his word already States. This is why I believe in the importance of the Bible so much. David said; "They word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee." It's also why I believe we should read it without any filter whatsoever in terms of Doctrine or Dogma. I thankfully to learn how to read the Bible without preconceived ideas in my head. Many it appears do not.
There is also a lot to be said for experiencing what you see the Bible is telling you. In this regard it is apparent that you have not experienced this so it's awfully hard to relate to it, and I understand that, but just because you can't relate to it and therefore glean some kind of reality from the experience, doesn't mean the experience is not real. From my experience, what God's word says IS very real because it has happened to me. The word of God has been confirmed in my life and in my heart. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, don't judge a book by its cover. Many people seem to do that. Also many people seem to judge experiences within the church / Body of Christ as not applicable to them because they have never experienced it. Well I can tell you that just before those Disciples of Jesus met Paul in Acts 19, they probably thought that their experience was all there was. They learned a little bit did they not?

 

[Wormwood]

You call this moving on?

Well, it was moving away from the whole, "antecedent refers to which pronoun" discussion.

There a lot of people that like the ESV, but I prefer the NASB if I'm going to read a Bible that is translated in formal equivalence. The NIV is a functionally equivalent translation which means it takes into effect are modern colloquialisms and sayings.

Yes, I like the NASB as well. I think the ESV and NASB are very similar translations. I understand the differences in the translations and I dont hate the NIV...I just think some of its efforts to convey various phrases in the Greek, though well meaning, are incorrect. Thus, the translator often acts as a commentator. Much of the "commentary" from the NIV translators is good, but there are some areas that I strongly disagree with them and just prefer something like the ESV because it leaves more of the interpretation up to the reader rather than the translator supplying it for them. The ESV does not use older English. It was translated in 2001. The NASB was translated in 1971 and revised in 1995. The ESV is also listed at a lower reading level than the NASB (8th grade vs. 11th grade).

So you missed the part that states; unusual tongues that were different from any previously known.

No, I didnt miss that. 1) I have about 20 commentaries on Mark and not one of them argues that this phrase describes unintelligible babble or anything like what you are arguing. Rather, every commentary I have seen points to Acts as the examples of these "new tongues" which clearly described as the Apostles communicating in intelligible languages and 2) Mark didnt even write this passage so you are basing all this debate on a passage that is not even part of Mark's original text. Thus, I dont think I am the one being stubborn here. Haha.

The book of Acts provides examples of most of the signs that Jesus says would be performed by those who accepted the gospel. Healings, exorcisms, and tongue-speaking are frequent occurrences in Acts.
Allen Black, Mark, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Mk 16:17–18.

They shall speak with new tongues. This was the first intimation of the great miracle to be inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.

H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., St. Mark, vol. 2, The Pulpit Commentary (London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909), 348

.

16:17–18. Most of the signs listed here took place in the days of the apostles, and they are recorded in the Book of Acts. The

Rodney L. Cooper, Mark, vol. 2, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 277.

Most of the signs mentioned here are to be found either in the gospels or Acts (except that of drinking poison unharmed although it is mentioned in early tradition). It is important to realize that even this early church writer does not suggest that these signs happen always and for everybody.

D. A. Carson et al., eds., New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 977.

In sum, every commentator (that even bothers to comment on this added section of Mark) just simply points out that this is describing the events in Acts. The events in Acts are tongues spoken in the native languages of those listening which is a "sign" to them of something unusual going on. Paul also speaks of these same tongues as a "sign to unbelievers." I see nothing inconsistent or two different gifts at work here. I think it is unwise to base an entire argument out of an added section of Mark and the word kainos as verification that "tongues" has multiple meanings and one of which includes incoherent utterings.

Seems Google did not convey what I actually spoke and now I forget what I actually said.

Haha, I've had moments like that..and have more as I get older .

I find it also will change the sentence 1520 seconds after I smoke it...

Haha, well I will have to save this comment and any time we disagree in the future, I will kindly ask you to stop smoking your sentences! Hahahaha

The best that I can express it is that it is an innate belief that God exists and what he says is truth.

I agree with you that faith is not complex. God speaks and we trust. Even before we know God's Word, we can have faith based on His creation that he exists. Even in our daily lives, we can take by faith that God loves us and will use us. However, that is based on His revelation to us in His Word. His Spirit also confirms that love in our hearts. However, this does not translate to me saying words and then trusting it is God speaking. What kind of preacher would stand up before a congregation with no study or preparation and just start saying the first thing that jumps into his head and believe that all he says will be God's word? To me, this again sounds like presumption and arrogance, not faith. Yet, if God actually honors and speaks through such inpromptu outbursts, why not expect it from everyone, and not just the tongues speaker/interpreter? Why not preachers and teachers as well...if this is indeed how gifts operate? Yet we would seriously question any preacher who based their preaching and teaching on gut instincts and spontaneous thoughts, and rightly so. I think it sets a very unhealthy precedent in understanding the working of the Spirit and proper expressions of faith.

I thankfully to learn how to read the Bible without preconceived ideas in my head. Many it appears do not.
There is also a lot to be said for experiencing what you see the Bible is telling you. In this regard it is apparent that you have not experienced this so it's awfully hard to relate to it, and I understand that, but just because you can't relate to it and therefore glean some kind of reality from the experience, doesn't mean the experience is not real.

I appreciate your faith and your desire to walk with the Lord and honor him. I just have to respectfully disagree with you here. You say that you read the Bible without preconceptions, but then you go on to explain that your understanding of tongues is really based on your "experience" and I cannot understand it apart from that same experience. To me, this is the very definition of preconception. You have had some experiences and you interpret the Word based on a filter you have from those experiences. Since I have not had the experiences, then I am destined to not be able to understand the text. I just disagree here. I appreciate the fact that you have had powerful experiences with God and do not want to discount those. I just have to go with what the Word says here and not base my interpretation on a particular feeling or lack of feeling from some charismatic events.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, I like the NASB as well. I think the ESV and NASB are very similar translations. I understand the differences in the translations and I dont hate the NIV...I just think some of its efforts to convey various phrases in the Greek, though well meaning, are incorrect. Thus, the translator often acts as a commentator. Much of the "commentary" from the NIV translators is good, but there are some areas that I strongly disagree with them and just prefer something like the ESV because it leaves more of the interpretation up to the reader rather than the translator supplying it for them. The ESV does not use older English. It was translated in 2001. The NASB was translated in 1971 and revised in 1995. The ESV is also listed at a lower reading level than the NASB (8th grade vs. 11th grade).

The NIV had a committee of over a hundred and fifty people. Led by Dr. Moo, who is one of the most pre-eminent Greek Scholars of our day. Also both Mounce and his son worked on the translation. They in their own right are just as pre-eminent as Moo is. Dr. Wallace supports the NIV and that it scores High marks for readability. See the following; https://bible.org/article/net-niv-esv-brief-historical-comparison

No, I didnt miss that. 1) I have about 20 commentaries on Mark and not one of them argues that this phrase describes unintelligible babble or anything like what you are arguing. Rather, every commentary I have seen points to Acts as the examples of these "new tongues" which clearly described as the Apostles communicating in intelligible languages and 2) Mark didnt even write this passage so you are basing all this debate on a passage that is not even part of Mark's original text. Thus, I dont think I am the one being stubborn here. Haha.

It's not unintelligible Bible if people can interpret it. No more than people would be able to interpret a foreign language that they've never heard of which would also seem to be unintelligible babble. That argument really doesn't work and has more derogatory than anything else. By the way only used by people who are against speaking in tongues, so I'm surprised that you use it. As far as the texts and Mark are concerned you either accept the Bible and its entirety or you don't. You can't pick and choose what you're going to accept and what you're not going to accept. There are plenty of negative articles about all parts of the Bible. There are also writings that some say should have been included in the Bible. Are you going to start using those writings and start excluding certain things in our existing Bible to suit your purposes?

In sum, every commentator (that even bothers to comment on this added section of Mark) just simply points out that this is describing the events in Acts. The events in Acts are tongues spoken in the native languages of those listening which is a "sign" to them of something unusual going on. Paul also speaks of these same tongues as a "sign to unbelievers." I see nothing inconsistent or two different gifts at work here. I think it is unwise to base an entire argument out of an added section of Mark and the word kainos as verification that "tongues" has multiple meanings and one of which includes incoherent utterings.

Well all I can say is that's not my experience as I've already pointed out to you. What happened in Acts was the Holy Spirit enabling those God-fearing Jews to be able to understand what was being spoken in tongues. The men themselves are not speaking those languages they were praising God in tongues.
In any event all you're doing is regurgitating what you've already said so we're really not progressing anywhere.

However, this does not translate to me saying words and then trusting it is God speaking. What kind of preacher would stand up before a congregation with no study or preparation and just start saying the first thing that jumps into his head and believe that all he says will be God's word? To me, this again sounds like presumption and arrogance, not faith. Yet, if God actually honors and speaks through such inpromptu outbursts, why not expect it from everyone, and not just the tongues speaker/interpreter? Why not preachers and teachers as well...if this is indeed how gifts operate? Yet we would seriously question any preacher who based their preaching and teaching on gut instincts and spontaneous thoughts, and rightly so. I think it sets a very unhealthy precedent in understanding the working of the Spirit and proper expressions of faith.

Sure it does, because this is exactly the way God worked with the prophets in the Old Testament. Or do you actually think he controlled them as puppets?
As Paul says in this chapter 14 of First Corinthians, the spirit of the Prophet is subject to the Prophet. That means that the prophet decides when to open his mouth and speak out and trusts that God will fill it, just as Jesus taught in Luke 12:11-12. You're assuming that the Holy Spirit doesn't do this with preachers and teachers and I can tell you based on some sermons and teachings I've heard that they were definitely Holy Spirit inspired and not from some script. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't study the word of God and learn how to teach because Jesus gave those offices to the church. It does mean that in all things we should be mindful of the Holy Spirit and be sensitive to when he wants to intervene and use us to speak to his people. It is indeed a fine line that we have to walk but I can tell you that when I open my mouth in obedience and faith, God fills it with words I would never have thought of and that includes when I respond on forums like this. It's one of the reasons why I'vessels taken up voice typing because I find the the Holy Spirit allows me to articulate things much more coherently and cohesively when I speak them then into my tablet than if I type them. That of course depends on how well Google Voice pays attention to what I say. Sometimes it really does screw up! Not put that in your pipe and smoke it!

I appreciate your faith and your desire to walk with the Lord and honor him. I just have to respectfully disagree with you here. You say that you read the Bible without preconceptions, but then you go on to explain that your understanding of tongues is really based on your "experience" and I cannot understand it apart from that same experience. To me, this is the very definition of preconception. You have had some experiences and you interpret the Word based on a filter you have from those experiences. Since I have not had the experiences, then I am destined to not be able to understand the text. I just disagree here. I appreciate the fact that you have had powerful experiences with God and do not want to discount those. I just have to go with what the Word says here and not base my interpretation on a particular feeling or lack of feeling from some charismatic events.

Same here, but one of us has to actually STOP, or will be going in circles forever.
Actually I was taught about the holy spirit before I received His baptism. That's the reason why I support it so strongly because I saw it in the word before experienced it in my life. Not the other way around as you assert. I find it surprising to hear you say that you are destined to not be able to understand the text. That, in my mind's eye, simply negates your belief that the Holy Spirit can and does make God's word clear to us if we really seek clarity and understanding.
I'd like to tell you that perspective is everything in the Christian walk and that if one is not willing to even entertain a different perspective then one will never grow. The same can be said of us in all walks of life. I'm sure you and I will discuss this again in the future and that you will maybe be a little more receptive to this prospective as I pray that God will help you to see what I see. Thanks for being civil.

 

[Wormwood]

The NIV had a committee of over a hundred and fifty people. Led by Dr. Moo, who is one of the most pre-eminent Greek Scholars of our day. Also both Mounce and his son worked on the translation. They in their own right are just as pre-eminent as Moo is. Dr. Wallace supports the NIV and that it scores High marks for readability.

Yes, it is a good translation. However, I think there are some areas where the translation is lacking...plus I prefer the word-for-word approach. ESV is the best in my opinion in that regard.

As far as the texts and Mark are concerned you either accept the Bible and its entirety or you don't. You can't pick and choose what you're going to accept and what you're not going to accept. There are plenty of negative articles about all parts of the Bible. There are also writings that some say should have been included in the Bible. Are you going to start using those writings and start excluding certain things in our existing Bible to suit your purposes?

This is sheer nonsense. The very simple point is that textual studies have validated that the long ending of Mark was not something Mark wrote. We are talking about the text that was written by the inspired author. Mark did not write that ending. Pretty much every Greek scholar worth their salt would testify to as much. I am sure your favorite Greek scholars, Moo and Mounce would strongly attest to the fact that this ending was not written by Mark (after all, they are part of the team that put the footnote that says as much in the NIV). The earliest manuscripts for approximately the first 400 years do not have that long ending. The reason we have it in our Bibles is because it was included in earlier translations such as the KJV who did not have early manuscripts to work with in their translation. This isnt about adding or picking what you want for Scriptures. This is the simple question of, "Did the inspired author, Mark, write that?" The overwhelming answer is, "No." Such an ending does not even begin to show up in manuscripts until about 400AD. The evidence is overwhelming.

Sure it does, because this is exactly the way God worked with the prophets in the Old Testament. Or do you actually think he controlled them as puppets?

No, but I think prophets actually heard the audible voice of God, or actually saw a bush of fire. They didnt just start rambling to Pharaoh or to the kings of Israel, taking it by "faith" that God was speaking through them simply because they were convinced in their own mind. Again, that is not faith. It is presumption and manipulation in my book. If someone is going to claim to speak for God, they had better actually have heard him tell them something. If the OT teaches us anything, it is that God does not take kindly to people who prophesy presumptive and say things God never said.

As Paul says in this chapter 14 of First Corinthians, the spirit of the Prophet is subject to the Prophet. That means that the prophet decides when to open his mouth and speak out and trusts that God will fill it, just as Jesus taught in Luke 12:11-12.

That is not what it means. It means that there is no excuse to be out of control. A real prophet has really heard from God and they have control over their own faculties to relay that message. That passage does NOT teach that a person should just open their mouth and trust God will fill it. That is reading into the text on your part. It says no such thing.

As far as the Luke passage, Jesus is instructing his disciples that the Spirit would give them the wisdom they need in moments of incredible hardship and pressure. It is not saying that the average Joe should stand up in the gathering of believers and just say whatever strikes them and declare, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Again, this is not a "gift." It is just everyone in a congregation saying whatever strikes their fancy and declaring it to be God. This is so dangerous.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, it is a good translation. However, I think there are some areas where the translation is lacking...plus I prefer the word-for-word approach. ESV is the best in my opinion in that regard.

Well in just this regard then, I prefer the NASB.

This is sheer nonsense. The very simple point is that textual studies have validated that the long ending of Mark was not something Mark wrote. We are talking about the text that was written by the inspired author. Mark did not write that ending. Pretty much every Greek scholar worth their salt would testify to as much. I am sure your favorite Greek scholars, Moo and Mounce would strongly attest to the fact that this ending was not written by Mark (after all, they are part of the team that put the footnote that says as much in the NIV). The earliest manuscripts for approximately the first 400 years do not have that long ending. The reason we have it in our Bibles is because it was included in earlier translations such as the KJV who did not have early manuscripts to work with in their translation. This isnt about adding or picking what you want for Scriptures. This is the simple question of, "Did the inspired author, Mark, write that?" The overwhelming answer is, "No." Such an ending does not even begin to show up in manuscripts until about 400AD. The evidence is overwhelming.

Not what I was saying, I didn't disagree with you I just said it's part of the Bible that we use. It is no different than the fact that John didn't write the Gospel of John. Does that make it any less inspired or breathed of God? Moo also believes Peter didn't write 2nd Peter so does that make it any less inspired?

No, but I think prophets actually heard the audible voice of God, or actually saw a bush of fire. They didnt just start rambling to Pharaoh or to the kings of Israel, taking it by "faith" that God was speaking through them simply because they were convinced in their own mind. Again, that is not faith. It is presumption and manipulation in my book. If someone is going to claim to speak for God, they had better actually have heard him tell them something. If the OT teaches us anything, it is that God does not take kindly to people who prophesy presumptive and say things God never said.

Well that's an awfully big assumption seeing as though there's nothing in the Bible that tells us this. You mentioned a couple of exceptions but there's no indication that when God spoke to Samuel in the presence of Saul or David that either heard God speak to Samuel. There's no indication that when God spoke to Moses in front of Pharaoh the he or Aaron heard God speaking. The fact that there are false Prophets shown in the Old Testament is indicative of the fact that God didn't speak aloud.

That is not what it means. It means that there is no excuse to be out of control. A real prophet has really heard from God and they have control over their own faculties to relay that message. That passage does NOT teach that a person should just open their mouth and trust God will fill it. That is reading into the text on your part. It says no such thing.

No, it says subject to that means that the prophet controls the prophecy. It's up to him to speak of and face knowing God will fill it with what he wants his people to know. Not reading anything into the text, I'm stating exactly what the text is saying without adding the word 'out'. Reread v29-31 for the context...its about control of gift along with orderly flow.

As far as the Luke passage, Jesus is instructing his disciples that the Spirit would give them the wisdom they need in moments of incredible hardship and pressure. It is not saying that the average Joe should stand up in the gathering of believers and just say whatever strikes them and declare, "Thus sayeth the Lord." Again, this is not a "gift." It is just everyone in a congregation saying whatever strikes their fancy and declaring it to be God. This is so dangerous.

That's exactly what it's saying WW, read it again. I have no idea how you could read this any other way?

V12; for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

 

[Jun2u]

Amazing how professing Christians speak of the things of God not knowing what they are really talking about. What is so amazing is that they do it so eloquently and convincingly.

In fact, the tongues phenomenon was a test to Ancient Israel as it is also a test for us today.

We read in Deuteronomy 28:49 that “if you disobey God the LORD will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue/language you will not understand; and then continue to say that nation will destroy you.”

In Isaiah 28, God is setting up a picture about Israel and the ten tribes have become fascinated by the Assyrians whose tongue/language they did not understand. They wanted to be like Assyria. They were enamored and entranced by the beautiful horses they had, the fine clothing their princes wore and so on, so God brought judgment on Israel in Isaiah 28 verse 11, “for with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people.” What God is talking about that this nation of Assyria whose language they did not understand would be the very nation that would destroy Israel. And in fact, in the year 709 B. C, the ten tribes were completely destroyed by the Assyrians a nation whose language they did not understand. This prophecy of Isaiah 28 was the first fulfillment of the prophecy of Deuteronomy 28 that we've just looked at.

Now, there still remains the nation of Judah. Jeremiah 5 is speaking, in the first instance, of Judah but is also the passage speaking to the local congregations of our day. All of these early chapters of Jeremiah are ultimately speaking about the situation of today using Judah as an illustration and there God said in verse 15: “Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.”

Now the nation of Judah this literally became true because they were physically enamored by the Babylonians just as Israel was enamored and attracted to the Assyrians. So Judah wanted to be like the Babylonians and it was the Babylonians, a wicked nation, destroyed Judah, and absolutely destroyed the temple and Jerusalem anticipating what God has set up for our day.

I Corinthians 12; 13; and 14 particularly, God spoke of a minor situation that prevailed just at the church of Corinth and we don't read this as happening in any other churches. But in the church of Corinth there were some who did receive divine messages from God, frequently in the form of a prayer as they were praying, and there were others given by God the ability to interpret these messages that came as a heavenly language so that the whole congregation could be edified because, after all, this came from God.

This was all possible BEFORE the Bible was completed but when God completed the Bible a few decades later, this particular phenomenon of tongues CEASED to exist because God said we are not to add to the prophecy of this book else we would be subject to the plagues written in it. That means no more divine messages coming from God in an “unknown” or a “known” language. There would be no more visions, no more voices to be heard that came from God which WAS possible BEFORE the Bible was completed.

Now God set up the testing program. In Israel's day they looked at the Assyrians and wanted to follow the Assyrians' gods and the Assyrians destroyed them whose language they did not understand. In Judah's day they looked at the Babylonians and wanted to be like them in many ways but was destroyed by them whose language they did not understand.
Here God placed in the Bible all this information about 1 Corinthians 14. The phenomenon of 1 Corinthians 12; 13; and 14 has NOTHING to do with the book of Acts. When the Apostles spoke in foreign languages in Acts 2 that was simply a SIGN to indicate that the Gospel was to go out into all the world in EVERY language, and was not something that was repeated again, and again, and again. And, there was no one to interpret. It was an entirely different kind of phenomenon and it was just temporary but 1Corinthians 14 continued until the Bible was completed because that was always possible. God wrote about it extensively setting up the test and God does this all the time throughout the Bible. We read about He would set up a testing arena to test how are we going to do, obey God or obey our own intuition, our own desire, our own philosophy or whatever.

So people in our day beginning about fifty or so years ago decided we want more spiritual experience, we want more proof in our life that we have been in-filled by the Holy Spirit, and their eyes latched on to 1Corinthians 14. Oh, I see if we're filled with the Holy Spirit then obviously God can speak in a heavenly language to us even as we are praying and there will be others who can interpret so we will have direct evidence in our life that we are a child of God. They took the bait! They were looking at this phenomenon exactly like Israel looked at the Assyrians and wanted their kind of a gospel or their kind of a religion or like Judah did when they looked at the Babylonians and wanted their kind of a religion. In todays scene they want something more substantive, we want to be able to have proof right now that the Holy Spirit has come upon me.

This is what Satan has latched on to because this whole business of desiring to speak in an unknown language is a violation of Revelation 22 verse 18 that we are not to add to the prophecy of this book. It is a direct violation but they did not pay attention and put it aside saying that it means something different and not talking about the Bible because they want the experience of speaking a heavenly language..

God will not accommodate mankind to his sin. God is not going to give man's desire that they will receive a message in a heavenly language. But here is Satan the anti-Christ who comes as an angel of light and here is his opportunity to come like an angel of light and he will accommodate these people who want their own kind of manifestation of the presence of the Holy Spirit. So amongst those who speak in tongues are those who actually have a true supernatural experience, and because words flow out they think God is speaking, and they are convinced that now they are a child of God. This really became a test in many circles whether you were a true believer or not. In fact this phenomenon has spread all over the world like wild fire so that virtually every denomination those that are false churches as well as those that have been true churches have catered to this and along with this of course came signs and wonders, and miracles, and all kinds of activity that the Bible NEVER, NEVER did teach.

AND, THAT IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY OF DEUTERONOMY 28 THAT IF YOU DID NOT FOLLOW MY LAWS THEN I WILL COME AGAINST YOU WITH A NATION WHOSE LANGUAGE YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND!

To God Be The Glory

 

[StanJ]

I suggest you read Acts 2 again and see that Peter refers to what was going on as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel. Nothing at all about what you're saying here. Paul said to not forbid speaking in tongues and that he wished everybody could speak in tongues as much as he did. I'll trust Peter and Paul before I trust anything you have asserted in this convoluted post you just made.

 

[Wormwood]

Not what I was saying, I didn't disagree with you I just said it's part of the Bible that we use. It is no different than the fact that John didn't write the Gospel of John. Does that make it any less inspired or breathed of God? Moo also believes Peter didn't write 2nd Peter so does that make it any less inspired?

I do think there is a big difference here. First, I believe John did write the Gospel of John. I think most conservative scholars believe that. I also think Peter wrote 2 Peter. I believe you have a big problem with the concept of inspiration and infallibility if 2 Peter turns out to be a pseudopigrapha. If the opening statement of the book says it was written by Peter, but it was actually someone writing under an assumed name, then you immediately have to throw inerrancy out the window. If we cannot trust the self-proclamation of the authorship, then how can we trust anything else in the book?

Furthermore, I see the issue with the long ending of Mark as similar to the arguments KJV only advocates. Their argument is that the KJV is the real bible and anything that deviates from the KJV is corruption. This is just a silly argument. The inspiration comes from the authors who walked with Jesus and wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It doesnt come from someone stamping "Holy Bible" on a book. So, if Mark didnt write the long ending, it doesnt matter if the NIV decided to add it with a footnote saying Mark didnt write it. That doesnt make it inspired because it is in there anymore than the footnotes at the bottom of the page become inspired by virtue of them being included in binding of the book. I dont believe in inspired translations. I believe in inspired authors. The work of translators and textual critics is to try to figure out what the authors actually wrote and put together Greek and Hebrew texts based on what they believe those authors actually composed and then accurately translate those documents. Why would some scribe who lived in the 400s AD who felt that the short ending of Mark was too abrupt and decided to fix the ending suddenly become an inspired author because later scribes would mistakenly add his notes into their copies? The simple answer is, "it wouldnt."

Well that's an awfully big assumption seeing as though there's nothing in the Bible that tells us this.

Not an assumption at all. It is how prophecy is defined in the OT. In fact, God warns people not to prophecy if they have not heard him speak.



You see, God gets angry when someone says, "Thus sayeth the Lord" but he didnt say it. Why would He get angry if the person is just acting in faith that God will speak if they just start saying "God is now speaking?" Because when God speaks, people know it. It is not guesswork or something that you just pretend at. We see this all throughout Scripture. Moses hears an actual voice in a bush. Samuel hears a voice calling to him and he thinks it is Eli and Eli recognizes that God is speaking to him (because God speaks audibly to his prophets). The other prophets saw actual visions. Noah heard an actual voice that called him to build a very specific boat. Daniel had conversations with angels. The Apostles walked with Jesus. Paul had visions and conversations with the risen Lord. John was taken up into heaven and was told to write down what he saw. They didnt just assume God was speaking through their imagination, rather they actually heard from Him. To argue anything else is to basically claim that the prophets and NT writers were exaggerating their experiences. In fact, God says that prophesying or speaking out of your imagination and attributing it to God is what false prophets do and what brings God's judgment on them...

““Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’” (Ezekiel 13:2, ESV)

““And you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own hearts. Prophesy against them” (Ezekiel 13:17, ESV)

It is a very dangerous thing to say God has spoken when he hasnt. The words of God are not derived out of the imaginations of men. That is the stuff of false prophets and cult leaders.

“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.” (2 Peter 1:16–18, ESV)

That's exactly what it's saying WW, read it again. I have no idea how you could read this any other way?
V12; for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

Yes, the Holy Spirit is promised to give them wisdom to say the right words under trial and persecution. This is not saying, "Open your mouth and just trust whatever you say is a prophetic "thus sayeth the Lord."" This has to do with standing up under persecution and trial (for the Apostles) and not the average Christian assuming they are prophets by just saying whatever comes to their mind. Dont you see how incredibly dangerous and presumptive this is? I mean, we must ALL be prophets because we can all just say, "Thus sayeth the Lord!..." and trust whatever we say is God speaking. Really? I mean, how do you actually know if anyone has a "gift" if the gift is simply the presumption to stand up and assume whatever you say is God. Honestly, Stan, this makes a mockery out of the NT in my opinion and puts the Bible on par with the musings of any Tom, Dick and Harry who stands up in a charismatic meeting to spout off whatever impromptu ideas they conjure up in that moment. No thank you. I revere God and his Word too much to play games with speaking on His behalf. Assuming my imaginations is the voice of God is both arrogant and dangerous. I think a lot of charismatic leaders are going to have to answer for the things they have said as being from God when they were their own inner impressions and desires.

 

[StanJ]

I do think there is a big difference here. First, I believe John did write the Gospel of John. I think most conservative scholars believe that. I also think Peter wrote 2 Peter. I believe you have a big problem with the concept of inspiration and infallibility if 2 Peter turns out to be a pseudopigrapha. If the opening statement of the book says it was written by Peter, but it was actually someone writing under an assumed name, then you immediately have to throw inerrancy out the window. If we cannot trust the self-proclamation of the authorship, then how can we trust anything else in the book?

So you're saying that you're guided by what the majority of scholars think about the ending of Mark? So if the majority would think that the 2nd Peter was not written by Peter would you also support that point of view? There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.
https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/who-wrote-2-peter
Also read Dr. Moo's book on 2nd Peter and Jude. Here is a link about the Gospel of John. http://www.lazaruscomeforth.com/lazarus-the-beloved-disciple/

https://bible.org/seriespage/1-background-study-john , also highlights all possibilities. I have no problem believing in the inspiration of scripture nor do I have a problem with rightly identifying who actually wrote what. Identifying who wrote them doesn't mean they're not inspired. of course once you start down this road then you really have no reason to doubt any reasonable scenario. As I said originally what is written and Mark is just as significant and true as what is written by others in the New Testament regardless of who actually wrote them.

Furthermore, I see the issue with the long ending of Mark as similar to the arguments KJV only advocates. Their argument is that the KJV is the real bible and anything that deviates from the KJV is corruption. This is just a silly argument. The inspiration comes from the authors who walked with Jesus and wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It doesnt come from someone stamping "Holy Bible" on a book. So, if Mark didnt write the long ending, it doesnt matter if the NIV decided to add it with a footnote saying Mark didnt write it. That doesnt make it inspired because it is in there anymore than the footnotes at the bottom of the page become inspired by virtue of them being included in binding of the book. I dont believe in inspired translations. I believe in inspired authors. The work of translators and textual critics is to try to figure out what the authors actually wrote and put together Greek and Hebrew texts based on what they believe those authors actually composed and then accurately translate those documents. Why would some scribe who lived in the 400s AD who felt that the short ending of Mark was too abrupt and decided to fix the ending suddenly become an inspired author because later scribes would mistakenly add his notes into their copies? The simple answer is, "it wouldnt."

I'm not really following your rationale here but the point that I agree with is that yes inspiration comes from God by of the people he inspired to write it. Saying that a different writer would not have been inspired is simply conjecture. The people that are usually identified as being alternate authors in the New Testament are definitely committed disciples and not all of the writers of the New Testament were apostles, so where do you draw the line?
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

Not an assumption at all. It is how prophecy is defined in the OT. In fact, God warns people not to prophecy if they have not heard him speak.
You see, God gets angry when someone says, "Thus sayeth the Lord" but he didnt say it. Why would He get angry if the person is just acting in faith that God will speak if they just start saying "God is now speaking?" Because when God speaks, people know it. It is not guesswork or something that you just pretend at. We see this all throughout Scripture. Moses hears an actual voice in a bush. Samuel hears a voice calling to him and he thinks it is Eli and Eli recognizes that God is speaking to him (because God speaks audibly to his prophets). The other prophets saw actual visions. Noah heard an actual voice that called him to build a very specific boat. Daniel had conversations with angels. The Apostles walked with Jesus. Paul had visions and conversations with the risen Lord. John was taken up into heaven and was told to write down what he saw. They didnt just assume God was speaking through their imagination, rather they actually heard from Him. To argue anything else is to basically claim that the prophets and NT writers were exaggerating their experiences. In fact, God says that prophesying or speaking out of your imagination and attributing it to God is what false prophets do and what brings God's judgment on them...

This is all conjecture on your part WW, and you haven't provided a single word of scripture that substantiates your personal opinion. Why would somebody have to say 'thus saith the Lord', if it was an actual audible voice and those around would have been able to actually hear it? There is no doubt as to how the Holy Spirit came upon prophets in the Old Testament, and that it was different than how the Holy Spirit comes upon us in baptism in the New Testament. That of course is the difference and why it is called the New Covenant. God deals with us differently under this New Covenant than He did under the old Covenant.
Paul himself said he didn't know how Jesus revealed Himself to him, and neither did John in Revelation. Are we to discount what Paul wrote Because there's no proof that it was an actual voice? Is an actual audible voice the only thing that can substantiate that God really 'speaks' to somebody?
You seem to be confusing physical reality with spiritual reality? When the Bible says 'for him who has ears to hear let him hear', is that an actual audible voice, or a call to be spiritually attentive to what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us? Do you think that it's a coincidence that most people who hear from God or where prophets were older? Do you not think that implies years of becoming attuned to God spirit so that it does indeed become real in our lives to the point where we instantly recognize God's voice? In fact does a Spirit actually have a voice? You seem to ignore the fact that many things that are allegory in the Bible don't necessarily mean that they are actually physical.

It is a very dangerous thing to say God has spoken when he hasnt. The words of God are not derived out of the imaginations of men. That is the stuff of false prophets and cult leaders.
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.” (2 Peter 1:16–18, ESV)

My previous answer addresses this as well.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is promised to give them wisdom to say the right words under trial and persecution. This is not saying, "Open your mouth and just trust whatever you say is a prophetic "thus sayeth the Lord."" This has to do with standing up under persecution and trial (for the Apostles) and not the average Christian assuming they are prophets by just saying whatever comes to their mind. Dont you see how incredibly dangerous and presumptive this is? I mean, we must ALL be prophets because we can all just say, "Thus sayeth the Lord!..." and trust whatever we say is God speaking. Really? I mean, how do you actually know if anyone has a "gift" if the gift is simply the presumption to stand up and assume whatever you say is God. Honestly, Stan, this makes a mockery out of the NT in my opinion and puts the Bible on par with the musings of any Tom, Dick and Harry who stands up in a charismatic meeting to spout off whatever impromptu ideas they conjure up in that moment. No thank you. I revere God and his Word too much to play games with speaking on His behalf. Assuming my imaginations is the voice of God is both arrogant and dangerous. I think a lot of charismatic leaders are going to have to answer for the things they have said as being from God when they were their own inner impressions and desires.

I'm pretty sure that the words "what you should say at that time" are fairly self-explanatory. You can talk yourself out of the reality of those words by trying to justify what you already believe in your mind but it doesn't change the fact of what Jesus said.

“WHEN you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or WHAT you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at THAT time WHAT you should SAY.”

Your words here indicate a person who obviously has never experienced nor exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you don't take my word for it then there's nothing really more we can discuss.

 

[Wormwood]

So you're saying that you're guided by what the majority of scholars think about the ending of Mark? So if the majority would think that the 2nd Peter was not written by Peter would you also support that point of view? There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.

Well, my view is not simply based on majority opinion. My view is that textual criticism shows overwhelmingly that Mark's long ending didnt show up in history until long, long after Mark was dead and gone. However, early church leaders did attribute 2 Peter to Peter...although there was debate about the authorship. In my view, while there is interesting and some compelling information to conclude that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, the arguments are not overwhelming (as is the case with the long ending of Mark). I believe that if it is ever proven beyond a resonable doubt that 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter, then I would then conclude it is not inspired and therefore not Scripture. If its claims of authorship and that the author walked with Jesus and heard the voice on the mountain were fabricated, then nothing in the book can be considered historically accurate and therefore true.

Identifying who wrote them doesn't mean they're not inspired. of course once you start down this road then you really have no reason to doubt any reasonable scenario.

It does if they are lying and saying they are Peter and they walked with Jesus, when, in fact, they did not. If i write a letter to you and say, "I am the Apostle Paul" and you know I am not, then why would you trust anything I have to say? Inerrancy says that the book is without error. If Peter didnt write it, then the book has errors and I simply reject the notion that God's Word contains errors.

As I said originally what is written and Mark is just as significant and true as what is written by others in the New Testament regardless of who actually wrote them.

I disagree. What made these books "significant" is that they were written by eyewitnesses and people who either walked with the Lord or spoke with those who did. If it is determined that portions of Mark were written by someone 400 years removed from the actual events, then it pretty much robs them of their authority the claims of inspiration upon which the canon was based. In fact, this is precisely the reason why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected as authoritative. They were written under assumed names by people who claimed to walk with Jesus or the Apostles but did not. They were written 200 years after the fact and thus were written with an agenda and not from the perspective of an eyewitness who was relating their experiences. If what you are saying is true,then why not accept something someone wrote today as part of the Holy Bible? I mean, if connection to Jesus or the Apostles has nothing to do with inspiration, then why dont we add to the Bible yearly?

Saying that a different writer would not have been inspired is simply conjecture.

Well, I guess you have to make the case of why someone 400 years removed from Mark adding information to the Gospel could be considered inspired. The only reason we think that is because translations like the KJV include the long ending because they thought Mark actually wrote it. Believe me, if those translators knew that it was added to Mark 400 years later, they would have never included it in "Mark's" Gospel. In sum, if Mark didnt write it, its not part of Mark's Gospel!

This is all conjecture on your part WW, and you haven't provided a single word of scripture that substantiates your personal opinion.

What? I quoted two passages from Ezekiel (which clearly states false prophets are those who prophesy from their own imaginations), one from 2 Peter and referenced numerous other passages such as the calling of Samuel, Moses, the revelation of John, the vision of Paul, the angelic visits to Daniel, the personal experiences of the Apostles, etc. Look at pretty much every OT prophet and their book begins with their calling...which usually involves a heavenly vision, an angelic visitation, a dream, or an audible voice. Allow me to add a few more...

“And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people: “ ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’” (Isaiah 6:8–9, ESV)

“Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”” (Jeremiah 1:4–5, ESV)

“In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the Chebar canal, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.” (Ezekiel 1:1, ESV)

“When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.”” (Hosea 1:2, ESV)

“The vision of Obadiah. Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom: We have heard a report from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: “Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!”” (Obadiah 1, ESV)

“Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.”” (Jonah 1:1–2, ESV)

“In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: These people say the time has not yet come to rebuild the house of the Lord.”” (Haggai 1:1–2, ESV)

“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are saying to you, ‘You shall not serve the king of Babylon,’ for it is a lie that they are prophesying to you. I have not sent them, declares the Lord, but they are prophesying falsely in my name, with the result that I will drive you out and you will perish, you and the prophets who are prophesying to you.”” (Jeremiah 27:14–15, ESV)

If anyone is basing their opinoin on "conjecture" it is you. Show me ONE passage where a person is called to speak for God by simply saying whatever they think and taking it by faith that whatever they just said is God's Word! There is no place in the Bible that says such a thing. However, true prophets are shown to have real interactions with God and God "sends" them with a very specific message. In fact, pretty much every prophetic book speaks of the "word of the Lord" coming to the prophet and usually gives an exact date when the "word" came and often that word was accompanied by visions, angelic visitors and some very specific instructions for the prophet to carry out. These were not just inner musings, but specific declarations from God that were exact and precise statements that were to be declared word for word.

You seem to be confusing physical reality with spiritual reality? When the Bible says 'for him who has ears to hear let him hear', is that an actual audible voice, or a call to be spiritually attentive to what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell us?

Well, those words were said by Jesus, and yes, he spoke with an audible voice. He was the Word made flesh and his words were direct words from the Father...given audibly and not by inner musings and interpretations.

Your words here indicate a person who obviously has never experienced nor exercised the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you don't take my word for it then there's nothing really more we can discuss.

It always comes down to this. If you just had my experience, then you would agree with my interpretation. Sorry. I dont read the Bible that way. The Bible never teaches that we should presume to speak for God and ONLY shows those that spoke for God heard directly from Him. So, until you can provide Scriptural evidence that what you are saying is true, then no, I cannot base my relationship with God and speaking on His behalf for others based on your personal feelings on the subject. I think the Bible is sufficient and no where does God tell me in his Word to start making up words or noises and presume they are God's declarations. He has given me declarations and they are written in Scripture and in that Scripture we are told that false prophesy is that which is born out of man's imagination.

 

[StanJ]

Well, my view is not simply based on majority opinion. My view is that textual criticism shows overwhelmingly that Mark's long ending didnt show up in history until long, long after Mark was dead and gone. However, early church leaders did attribute 2 Peter to Peter...although there was debate about the authorship. In my view, while there is interesting and some compelling information to conclude that 2 Peter was not written by Peter, the arguments are not overwhelming (as is the case with the long ending of Mark). I believe that if it is ever proven beyond a resonable doubt that 2 Peter could not have been written by Peter, then I would then conclude it is not inspired and therefore not Scripture. If its claims of authorship and that the author walked with Jesus and heard the voice on the mountain were fabricated, then nothing in the book can be considered historically accurate and therefore true.

Those are still opinions regardless of what you want to call them. I guess my point is if we're going to use the Bible as our source for debating then we have to accept everything that's there as applicable to being scripture. Paul didn't say that the New Testament was inspired he said all scripture which at that time was basically the Old Testament. Peter confirmed what Paul said but also apply that to scripture that was being written at the time. So we either use within our current Bible to substantiate what we believe or we don't. You can decide but for me I accept everything in the Bible the truth. The Reasonable Doubt part of 2nd Peter has already been established and the Reasonable Doubt part about John has already been established so are you going to start not believing 2nd Peter or the Gospel of John because Reasonable Doubt as to the authorship has been established?

It does if they are lying and saying they are Peter and they walked with Jesus, when, in fact, they did not. If i write a letter to you and say, "I am the Apostle Paul" and you know I am not, then why would you trust anything I have to say? Inerrancy says that the book is without error. If Peter didnt write it, then the book has errors and I simply reject the notion that God's Word contains errors.

Then I suggest you read 1st Peter and 2nd Peter carefully and see who the authors are claiming to be. One is Peter one is Simeon Peter. Again the point was addressing your concerns about validity by saying that it wasn't in the earlier manuscripts. The following link has more details on the matter including dissenting opinions; http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
What do you mean by " inerrancy says"? There are plenty of errors in the Bible so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Inspiration does not necessarily mean that there are no errors in the Bible, it just means that the teachings that are in the Bible are inspired or of God. There are definitely errors in the Bible when it has to do with numbers etc... but it's really not a big deal unless someone wants to make it one.

I disagree. What made these books "significant" is that they were written by eyewitnesses and people who either walked with the Lord or spoke with those who did. If it is determined that portions of Mark were written by someone 400 years removed from the actual events, then it pretty much robs them of their authority the claims of inspiration upon which the canon was based. In fact, this is precisely the reason why the Gnostic Gospels were rejected as authoritative. They were written under assumed names by people who claimed to walk with Jesus or the Apostles but did not. They were written 200 years after the fact and thus were written with an agenda and not from the perspective of an eyewitness who was relating their experiences. If what you are saying is true,then why not accept something someone wrote today as part of the Holy Bible? I mean, if connection to Jesus or the Apostles has nothing to do with inspiration, then why dont we add to the Bible yearly?

So you're assuming that the part of Mark you don't like wasn't witnessed or related by those who had? Actually it hasn't been established that these remarks were written four hundred years after the actual events, it is indicated that they didn't appear in manuscript until sometime in the second century. Where do you get this four hundred years from? We're not talking about the Gnostic Gospels or anything else right now we're discussing what is in the Bible. Using examples that are irrelevant doesn't really help this conversation to be productive now does it? I'm sure I could find all kinds of issues to deflect from the topic but I would rather try to stay focused on the topic. Again if the end of Mark 16 is so conclusively not scripture is then why is it still in our Canon of scripture? I think that's something you actually have to investigate and find out for on your own before making concrete assumptions.

Well, I guess you have to make the case of why someone 400 years removed from Mark adding information to the Gospel could be considered inspired. The only reason we think that is because translations like the KJV include the long ending because they thought Mark actually wrote it. Believe me, if those translators knew that it was added to Mark 400 years later, they would have never included it in "Mark's" Gospel. In sum, if Mark didnt write it, its not part of Mark's Gospel!

Again you haven't substantiated this whatsoever so I'm not sure why you're stating it like it is a fact when it is not? The KJV is indeed over 400 years old but the latest translations are nowhere near that so I'm really not sure what your point is Kama because they all accept or contain the ending of Mark 16. Some explain it and some don't. The International Standard Version in 2014 also includes this.

What? I quoted two passages from Ezekiel (which clearly states false prophets are those who prophesy from their own imaginations), one from 2 Peter and referenced numerous other passages such as the calling of Samuel, Moses, the revelation of John, the vision of Paul, the angelic visits to Daniel, the personal experiences of the Apostles, etc. Look at pretty much every OT prophet and their book begins with their calling...which usually involves a heavenly vision, an angelic visitation, a dream, or an audible voice. Allow me to add a few more...

I didn't say the Bible was conjecture I said you have made conjecture. But again putting that scripture doesn't actually show that God spoke audibly at least not so that people nearby could understand. Now some people think that God is very audible to get them and some people don't and having actually exercise the gift of tongues and interpretation I can tell you that God will give you a thought or a few words and as you open your mouth he feels it. Now that may be foreign to you and it may also be unacceptable but that's the way it is. Many things about God's ways are foreign and unacceptable until we actually do them.
Exactly why would God need to use prophets if he could audibly speak to everybody? Perhaps you think all prophets had eidetic memory? Sorry but your rationale was just not making any sense to me.

It always comes down to this. If you just had my experience, then you would agree with my interpretation. Sorry. I dont read the Bible that way. The Bible never teaches that we should presume to speak for God and ONLY shows those that spoke for God heard directly from Him. So, until you can provide Scriptural evidence that what you are saying is true, then no, I cannot base my relationship with God and speaking on His behalf for others based on your personal feelings on the subject. I think the Bible is sufficient and no where does God tell me in his Word to start making up words or noises and presume they are God's declarations. He has given me declarations and they are written in Scripture and in that Scripture we are told that false prophesy is that which is born out of man's imagination.

Well I don't understand where you get this because the word Prophet means spokesman of God. Doesn't that mean that prophets speak for God? I'm not quite sure on how you say you can't base your relationship on this? Isn't your relationship based on a personal relation with Jesus? Do you not hear God speaking to you from time to time? The scripture actually says that a false prophet is somebody whose prophecy does not come true. Has nothing to do with an imagination especially if the false prophet is a schizophrenic and does hear voices.

 

[Jun2u]

I suggest you read Acts 2 again and see that Peter refers to what was going on as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel. Nothing at all about what you're saying here. Paul said to not forbid speaking in tongues and that he wished everybody could speak in tongues as much as he did. I'll trust Peter and Paul before I trust anything you have asserted in this convoluted post you just made.

Of course ancient Israel is related to the local congregations of our time. In fact, if you didn't know it then you know it now that everything in the Bible inter-relates because the Bible is God's word and is one cohesive whole.

Didn't you think I would know of the prophecy of Joel before I posted? How could you, you can't read my mind?

Paul did say not to forbid speaking in tongues ONLY because he knew God was still adding to His word in the form of messages through tongues, dreams, visions, and angel visitations because He had more to say. Once God was finished adding to His word He warned in Revelation 22:18 that we are not to add anything to His finished word for in doing so we will bring eternal damnation to ourselves. Just as He did with ancient Israel and Judah.

I can understand your consternation. You are probably wondering if your salvation is legit seeing you were saved in a church that believes in the Gospel of the Bible PLUS whatever the church leaders received as revelations in a heavenly language, which is contrary to Revelation 22:18.

But there is good news. Today is still the day for salvation.

To God Be The Glory

 

[StanJ]

Of course ancient Israel is related to the local congregations of our time. In fact, if you didn't know it then you know it now that everything in the Bible inter-relates because the Bible is God's word and is one cohesive whole.
Didn't you think I would know of the prophecy of Joel before I posted? How could you, you can't read my mind?

I have no idea what you mean by Israel being related to the local congregations of our time? There's only one church and its head is Jesus Christ.
You seem to have asked and answered your own question here so I'm not really sure what you would like to hear or need to hear for that matter?

Paul did say not to forbid speaking in tongues ONLY because he knew God was still adding to His word in the form of messages through tongues, dreams, visions, and angel visitations because He had more to say. Once God was finished adding to His word He warned in Revelation 22:18 that we are not to add anything to His finished word for in doing so we will bring eternal damnation to ourselves. Just as He did with ancient Israel and Judah.

Revelation 22:18 is about the Book of Revelation the last revelation of Jesus Christ it is not about the Bible. When John wrote the Book of Revelation that's all he had he didn't have the rest of the Bible. The Bible was put together long after John died. You can go to the following link to get the details
http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

I can understand your consternation. You are probably wondering if your salvation is legit seeing you were saved in a church that believes in the Gospel of the Bible PLUS whatever the church leaders received as revelations in a heavenly language, which is contrary to Revelation 22:18.

The only consternation I have is how preposterous your reply is here. I've already explained your misunderstanding of Rev 22:18

 

[Wormwood]

Those are still opinions regardless of what you want to call them.

I agree with that. They are my opinions. They just arent based in popular opinion. They are based on my understanding of Scripture...right or wrong

The Reasonable Doubt part of 2nd Peter has already been established and the Reasonable Doubt part about John has already been established so are you going to start not believing 2nd Peter or the Gospel of John because Reasonable Doubt as to the authorship has been established?

I said "beyond a reasonable doubt." And, in my mind, there isnt sufficient evidence to doubt the authorship of either book. I think they are viable books of the Bible written by those authors..and if they were not, they would not be viable books of Scripture. They would be considered pseudopigripha.

What do you mean by " inerrancy says"? There are plenty of errors in the Bible so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Inspiration does not necessarily mean that there are no errors in the Bible, it just means that the teachings that are in the Bible are inspired or of God.

I hold to the view that the Scriptures are inerrant and are without error in their original manuscripts. God is not the author of falsehood. If the Holy Spirit inspired error, then how are we to trust the Scriptures or God? If the Bible has errors, who is to decide what is to be accepted? You? That makes you the authority to parse out what is true or false in God's Word and I am very uncomfortable with that. I like what Gleason Archer says on the topic of inerrancy...

If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents recovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to its trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested.

Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 23.

As for my dating of the long ending of Mark...

Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts,2 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.


(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript....



How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, ἁμαρτάνω, ἀπολογέω, ἀληθινός, ὑποστρέφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινός, ὅρος, προσλέγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16:14.


Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 102–104.

So, essentially the idea here is that there is some earlier indication that this ending was known about in the 2nd or 3rd century based on quotes from early Christians, but it really isnt found in any manuscripts until later. The earliest copies of Mark do not have the long ending and even those later copies that do have the long ending have scribal notes that state that the early Greek texts do not have the ending. Not to mention the internal evidence of the language and Greek usage are very different from the rest of the book. Origen and Clement of Alexandria (Origen died in 254) showed no knowledge of this ending at all. Stan, again, for someone who admires scholars like Mounce and Moo, I encourage you to write them on their assessment on this ending. I am sure that they will attest that the evidence is so overwhelming that Mark didnt write it that defies logic to argue otherwise.


Sorry, gotta run. Will write later. Have a blessed day.

 

[ezekiel]

You must to believed that you can forgive and there for forgive and if not take seven to touch them that the one that believes also makes the others gain faith. That all may healed and that God has done these things because its his power that goes forth and not yours. And forgive all for this is that Spirit that heals. It is not them but satan and all will be placed on him not them. Just a little faith will start a fire that will go forth.

21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

 

[StanJ]

I agree with that. They are my opinions. They just arent based in popular opinion. They are based on my understanding of Scripture...right or wrong.

You said;

Well, my view is not simply based on majority opinion. My view is that textual criticism shows overwhelmingly that Mark's long ending didnt show up in history until long, long after Mark was dead and gone.

Not all textual criticism supports this and I've already shown you that the verses in question were known sometime around the beginning of the second century which would be 101 AD and possibly even earlier.
The problem is the oldest manuscripts that we do have date back to the 300s so they are even newer than the patristic reports of what Mark 16 said.
We have no autographs and we can't really say exactly when these verses actually appeared, given that the oldest manuscripts we do have are only dated back to the 300s. I think you have to be a little more detailed as to what you mean by 'long, long after'.
Suffice it to say that with all the due diligence that has been afforded our current canon of scripture, I have no problem accepting Mark 16 as a legitimate part of the scripture just as I have no problem accepting Peter or John regardless of who wrote them.

I said "beyond a reasonable doubt." And, in my mind, there isnt sufficient evidence to doubt the authorship of either book. I think they are viable books of the Bible written by those authors..and if they were not, they would not be viable books of Scripture. They would be considered pseudopigripha.

Now you're just striving about words WW. I'm not willing to play semantics with you. Sufficient evidence isn't the same as Reasonable Doubt, and you should understand that given your country's legal system? In my opinion you have a slightly skewed view of what inspired means. It definitely does not mean that the actual authors we're not inspired or that transcribing errors could not happen. But obviously you're welcome to your own opinion. I'm sure we can both agree on John 20:30-31

I hold to the view that the Scriptures are inerrant and are without error in their original manuscripts. God is not the author of falsehood. If the Holy Spirit inspired error, then how are we to trust the Scriptures or God? If the Bible has errors, who is to decide what is to be accepted? You? That makes you the authority to parse out what is true or false in God's Word and I am very uncomfortable with that. I like what Gleason Archer says on the topic of inerrancy...

On what exactly do you base this view? Where does God guarantee that his word would be inerrant? Of course I'm not talking about what God commands or states, I'm talking about errors in transcription or designation. As in all things in the Bible, consensus is always used as a means to verify. Remember that it is written; "where two or more agree"

So, essentially the idea here is that there is some earlier indication that this ending was known about in the 2nd or 3rd century based on quotes from early Christians, but it really isnt found in any manuscripts until later. The earliest copies of Mark do not have the long ending and even those later copies that do have the long ending have scribal notes that state that the early Greek texts do not have the ending. Not to mention the internal evidence of the language and Greek usage are very different from the rest of the book. Origen and Clement of Alexandria (Origen died in 254) showed no knowledge of this ending at all. Stan, again, for someone who admires scholars like Mounce and Moo, I encourage you to write them on their assessment on this ending. I am sure that they will attest that the evidence is so overwhelming that Mark didnt write it that defies logic to argue otherwise.

As I stated above this is all a matter of perspective but what you feel or think qualifies as reliable manuscript seeing has the manuscript you refer to date to the 300s. I gave you several links to prove but apparently based on these comments you didn't meet them at all?
The following is another dissenting opinion, but feel free not to read it if you've already made up your mind.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=704

 

[Wormwood]

Not all textual criticism supports this and I've already shown you that the vs and question or knowing sometime around the beginning of the second century which would be like 101 AD.
The problem is the oldest manuscripts that we do have date back to the 300th so they are even newer than the patristic views of what Mark 16 said.

Stan, I have studied plenty about textual criticism. I have Metzger's textual criticism books, and I have the apparatus from the NA27 and NA28 that I am personally able to interpret and decipher. I also have dozens of commentaries. Every single one of these sources say the same thing....Mark did not write this section. Would you like me to quote them or will you just believe me that my opinion is based on very concrete evidence on what constitutes the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Scripture?

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I have studied plenty about textual criticism. I have Metzger's textual criticism books, and I have the apparatus from the NA27 and NA28 that I am personally able to interpret and decipher. I also have dozens of commentaries. Every single one of these sources say the same thing....Mark did not write this section. Would you like me to quote them or will you just believe me that my opinion is based on very concrete evidence on what constitutes the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of Scripture?

Sorry, I had not finished posting when I accidentally hit the post button.

These men are not all commentators WW. You seem to take personal offense when that was not intended. I gave you several links that show dissenting opinions and it appears you also didn't read them? So am I to take it that you don't look at other perspectives in these links? If that is the case then why bother even showing you links if you're not going to read them? At least I look at your links when you post them. In fact your opinion is based on other opinion not concrete evidence as you call it. Read the links I've already given you in this regard and then we can discuss it further.