Sir, you are a gentleman that I would like to speak with. I have spent time in the study of textual criticism, both lower criticism and higher criticism. I hold to a very conservative position in Bibliology. I like this video very much.
Thank you Dr White for eruditely explaining this matter. Those Christians claiming to have been 'lied to' are being precious. Most bible translations explain the nature of such contentious sections of scripture including 16:9-20.
And Codex Alexandrinus, which is mostly Byzantine in the Gospels, contains the longer ending with an addendum of the middle ending in there, but it is a sui generis text.
Re: 4:20 -- it shouldn't take much pondering of Jerome's comments, compared with Eusebius' statements in Ad Marinum, to see that Jerome's comments are not his own independent statements; they are part of Jerome's Laton epitome of part of Eusebius' earlier work. (See Roger Pearse's "Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems & Solutions)
I think most people have the ending of Mark wrong. Mark ended where it intended to end setting up the women to give their oral testimonies to the resurrected Jesus. Mark was written in Rome, by Mark from a vary of eyewitness testimonies, particularly Peter's. It was designed to be read in the Roman church. However, at the end it Mark was leading up eyewitness testimony by the women, most who were still alive and in the Roman church.
I agree with Dr. James White on many things but in regards to the longer ending of Mark I am inclined to believe it to be in fact the Word of God as many of the things like picking up snakes and drinking poison happened in the Acts of the Apostles.
And that could be the very reason why someone thought it would be a good idea to add it to the gospel of Mark, considering it's not actually in the older manuscripts. As James White said in the video, it's a very complex issue, so much so that WHOLE BOOKS have been written about the last few verses of Mark's gospel. So, we can't apply a simplistic approach which is possibly emotionally based, rather than researching, and applying textual critical argumentation to determine where the truth might lie. So many scholars have tried to do so, and STILL haven't come to a general consensus. 😊😊
Wasn't there something towards the end of Acts when Paul got bit in the hand (if I'm not mistaken) by a snake and didn't die and they people there thought he was God because he didn't die?
@@TexRed1845 Yeah, and do your exegesis properly, and you won't take a phrase or two in a historical narrative passage to determine the reading from a different author of a different book. That is my take on it. I also must say that though I am not bothered by the Bible putting it in brackets, or having it included in footnotes, it seems that the very few manuscripts that do contain the longer ending often leave the sincere reader feeling that it is a rather weird ending. Bible printers can keep the ending, but they had better footnote it that it is found in nowhere near the majority of manuscripts.
ok, so which is it? Also, the reverse is true. If one simply wants to delete scripture bc they don’t like the verses, they don’t even need to try to prove these verses do not belong for any other reason than they simply can’t stand them and they want them out of their face. Two can play the poopy talk game, if one can.
99.9% of the Greek manuscripts have the long ending. Only 2 faulty manuscripts completely omit it. The Codex Vaticanus leaves an empty space for the long ending. The only other manuscript that completely leaves it out has numerous errors. I'm going with the long ending being valid.
Yikes! I tend to go with the Robinson - Pierpont Majority Text position. But, I'm a rank amateur at textual criticism, knowing just enough to get myself into trouble. 😁 If it wasn't for the weird ending grammatically that the shorter ending of Mark has, I wouldn't bother with the traditional ending. So, for now, I go with the longer ending, but with the old Roger Maris season homerun record asterisk. Yes, I love the KJV. But, knowing the history of the TR editions, there is no way I could be KJV-Only or TR-Only. So I lean Majority Text. That means I use the KJV, the NKJV, and either the ESV or the NASB 77 for Bible Study. I do plan to check out the LSB, but that's going to be it for newer Bible Translations. I'm to old to keep up with all of them!
While I disagree with Mr White on Calvinism, I agree with him on Textual Criticism, I’ve been an avid student of textual criticism for over 20 years. We all continue to learn, hence we are all LEARNERS/Students, never experts!!!
The best evidence for the longer ending of Mark not being part of the original is the Gospel of Mark itself. In chapter 16 verse nine, it states that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene who seven demons were cast out of her. It would be odd for Mark to introduce her a second time and in this way, ie: having seven demons cast out of her, when earlier in the chapter Mark simply addressed her is Mary Magdalene. Mark would only need to give this detailed description of her if she is being introduced to the reader for the very first time. Also, verse nine contradicts the previous verses which reveal there were multiple women running back from the tomb together, which Matthew’s gospel states Jesus met them all on the road back together, not just Mary Magdalene. The specific Greek word in verse nine for “first,” means chief, or first and only. And it isn’t until after Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb with Peter and John, and after they leave that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone. When you read all four of the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and the women running back to tell the disciples, there simply is no place where Jesus could’ve appeared first and alone to Mary Magdalene apart from the other women, because they were with her the entire time, both at the empty tomb and on the road back, which is when they all met Jesus together. In John’s Gospel, when he only mentions Mary arriving alone at the tomb, he does not say she was the only one there. He is simply singling her out, because later on Jesus is going to appear to her alone. But again, this does not happen on the way back to the disciples on the road, because other women are with her when Jesus appears to them. He doesn’t appear alone to her until after Peter and John leave the empty tomb. This is extremely strong evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not original.
There are strong internal reasons for the short ending in Mark. - the short ending mirrors the beginning - with the shorter ending the transfiguration is the middle term of the text - Mark as a narrator never uses "god" etc... So clearly the longer endings are from different minds than the first author.
Can you expound on this "- the short ending mirrors the beginning" What do you mean? How so? "- with the shorter ending the transfiguration is the middle term of the text" - So you mean in Mark's gospel "transfiguration" is right in the middle, if I understand you correctly? "- Mark as a narrator never uses "god" etc..." here's Mk 15:43: Yosef of Ramatayim came, a prominent councilor of the Sanhedrin, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God. (MRT) I see 43 occurrences of θεός in Mark. I don't know what you mean.
@@mrtdiver Yes Mark makes the transfiguration the center for the following reasons. Unless Mark chose other teaser texts for his specific client, the beginning, the end and the middle would be the rather likely chosen teaser texts. Mark as a narrator (why did i write _as a narrator?_ ), not his sock puppets, never uses god or lord. Yes he uses the kingdom of god, but not god. The kingdom of god is where mustard is the smallest seed and grows to be the tallest of the garden plants for birds to nest in. It is for infantile people but hard to enter for the rich and educated. And there are some who will not taste death, till they see the kingdom of bullshit come in all its glory/power. Mark has a very satirical approach to the kingdom of god. a) Beginning of the good news of Jesus the messiah b) They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. b) couters a)
6:32 - Codex W is "the archetype of the Byzantine text-type itself when it comes to the Gospels, although it has some interesting variants." Tell me another one. Right before telling folks they haven't been lied to.
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
These are all questions that we can address, but once you accept a traditionalist text position, why are you even talking about it? You can’t be convinced by anything. Your epistemology excludes any textual critical argumentation that could be derived from early translations or anything else. You have your text; it’s there, that’s it. There’s no reason to argue about it. But you just need to be open in telling people when you’re promoting this - I’m not basing this on textual critical argumentation; I’m basing this upon a theological paradigm that I’ve developed. 11:47
@@JamesSnapp I think you are far too belligerent Mr. Snapp. You call James White’s book a dumpster fire and 20 car pile up, but it’s just that you do not prefer the Alexandrian text. James White offered to debate you on I believe the theology of John 6. Watch his video on the TR with Stephen Boyce. I do not agree with White on everything but his textual studies in most areas are verifiable by other advocates.
The reason James White has an issue with Mark 16:9-20 is because of Mark 16:16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16 It’s plain and simple. He needs to build up a theology which has already been answered. If James White is right (which he’s wrong), then why is the ending of Mark 16:9-20 still in our bibles today? Again, the issue is that Mark 16:16 and other verses mess with his Calvinistic theology. It’s funny how he talks about “sola scriptura” and believing all scripture and using all scripture. Yet, in one of his videos, he says he would never teach Mark 16:9-20. But, truth is, he doesn’t really believe in “sola scriptura” nor the “totality of scriptures”.
@@Ephesians-yn8ux oh how so? You can't prove latter copies are not of older manuscripts for they used them more n wore them out. You also can't prove that the older are not latter but we're not renewed.
@@Ephesians-yn8ux it's also likely that they knew the fakes you claim are older were not used n decayed due to this fact. While the legit texts were wore out so quick the re copied. The KJV are the majority texts too, hinting they were not isolated corruptions to fool a few
@@Ephesians-yn8ux the Alexandrians in Acts opposed Stephen. The NIV are Alexandrian texts n gnostic cult who omit virgin birth n diety of Christ. Want verses?
Am I the only one who has seen this? The John passage essencialy a Bible study lf three verses we know are in the Bible. And right conclusion we would make from consulting them. And so, wether its in the Bible or not, we believe what it says, and so its equal.
Essentially * Whether * It's * As for the rest of your comment, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. What are you referring to in John's gospel, the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? Perhaps it actually happened, perhaps not. But it seems to be inserted into a passage where it doesn't fit. The text before and after that story makes better sense if you take the story out.
Compare John 7:53-8:11 to Jeremiah 17:13. Metzger says it's probably true, but it isn't in John's Gospel. The Jeremiah passage seems to be describing John 7-53-8:11. If Jesus is stooping to the ground and writing something in the dirt, which he is in John 7:53-8:11, it may be in the Old Testament prophets and Jeremiah 17:13 seems to be the one. Read several English versions for comparison.
God is sovereign and he knows the end from the beginning...EXCEPT when it comes to the KJV and what were considered Scripture up until 1880. Modern bibles are men saving the day and doing what God was unable to do on his own.
So before the KJV? Latin Vulgate? Why not stick with the Vulgate? The Geneva Bible? The Gutenberg Bible? The Tyndale Bible? Are we canonizing tradition based in time only? I'm confused as to the logic here (not trying to argue, genuinely interested as to what makes the KJV so special).
@@quantummechanist1 ...all the bibles you mentioned are respectable and similar...men fought and died for those bibles. I mean Tyndale was burned at the stake...to put his bible in the same category as the NIV is an insult. And its pathetic that you can't see that.
James makes his living off attacking and adding confusion to the word of God. He is not a soup winner, he only does seeds of doubt to believers. That is why the Muslims use this kind of critism done by James often to attack the bible and say it is corrupt. Why do the textual "scholars" like to attack the end of Mark? Because they also say it is the "oldest of the gospels", and that Matt and Luke are just embellishments. And since the resurrection is only on the end of Mark than the "rationalists" can say as James did in this video that all the endings of the 4 gospels are not on the originals. And like the Muslims deny the resurrection that is described in the ending of Mark that supposedly is not supposed to be there. I feel sorry for James on judgement day, but it shows how merciful God is to even blasphemers like James White, but James's head is so Big he won't repent and recant his lies because they are his money makers. If he did recant then he would most definitely looks his job at the Lockman Foundation, who makes their money off selling corrupt bibles.
First time on this channel.. really like it. Very good tact and professionalism in your information. Subbing
Sir, you are a gentleman that I would like to speak with. I have spent time in the study of textual criticism, both lower criticism and higher criticism. I hold to a very conservative position in Bibliology. I like this video very much.
Thank you Dr White for eruditely explaining this matter. Those Christians claiming to have been 'lied to' are being precious. Most bible translations explain the nature of such contentious sections of scripture including 16:9-20.
The earliest witness for the longer ending is the Tatians Diatessaron and irenues Against heresies 3,10,6
Epistula Apostolorum and the "Preaching of Peter" are even earlier. Less explicit, but they still are on the board.
And Codex Alexandrinus, which is mostly Byzantine in the Gospels, contains the longer ending with an addendum of the middle ending in there, but it is a sui generis text.
Re: 4:20 -- it shouldn't take much pondering of Jerome's comments, compared with Eusebius' statements in Ad Marinum, to see that Jerome's comments are not his own independent statements; they are part of Jerome's Laton epitome of part of Eusebius' earlier work. (See Roger Pearse's "Eusebius of Caesarea - Gospel Problems & Solutions)
I think most people have the ending of Mark wrong. Mark ended where it intended to end setting up the women to give their oral testimonies to the resurrected Jesus. Mark was written in Rome, by Mark from a vary of eyewitness testimonies, particularly Peter's. It was designed to be read in the Roman church. However, at the end it Mark was leading up eyewitness testimony by the women, most who were still alive and in the Roman church.
That is 100% speculation.
@@JamesSnapp yes. 100% speculation, but... your guess is as good as mine!
What is your theory about the ending of Mark, if I may inquire?
I agree with Dr. James White on many things but in regards to the longer ending of Mark I am inclined to believe it to be in fact the Word of God as many of the things like picking up snakes and drinking poison happened in the Acts of the Apostles.
And that could be the very reason why someone thought it would be a good idea to add it to the gospel of Mark, considering it's not actually in the older manuscripts.
As James White said in the video, it's a very complex issue, so much so that WHOLE BOOKS have been written about the last few verses of Mark's gospel.
So, we can't apply a simplistic approach which is possibly emotionally based, rather than researching, and applying textual critical argumentation to determine where the truth might lie.
So many scholars have tried to do so, and STILL haven't come to a general consensus. 😊😊
The Book of Acts contains no account of drinking poison.
Wasn't there something towards the end of Acts when Paul got bit in the hand (if I'm not mistaken) by a snake and didn't die and they people there thought he was God because he didn't die?
@@TexRed1845 Yes, correct.
@@TexRed1845 Yeah, and do your exegesis properly, and you won't take a phrase or two in a historical narrative passage to determine the reading from a different author of a different book. That is my take on it. I also must say that though I am not bothered by the Bible putting it in brackets, or having it included in footnotes, it seems that the very few manuscripts that do contain the longer ending often leave the sincere reader feeling that it is a rather weird ending. Bible printers can keep the ending, but they had better footnote it that it is found in nowhere near the majority of manuscripts.
This is new to me...
Which part? Textual Criticism is a huge subject.
ok, so which is it? Also, the reverse is true. If one simply wants to delete scripture bc they don’t like the verses, they don’t even need to try to prove these verses do not belong for any other reason than they simply can’t stand them and they want them out of their face. Two can play the poopy talk game, if one can.
"Codex W is the archetype of the Byzantine Text-type when it comes to the Gospels"?!
Whaa?? W's text is block-mixed.
a gospel never ends with εφοβουντο γαρ
It did in Mark.
99.9% of the Greek manuscripts have the long ending. Only 2 faulty manuscripts completely omit it.
The Codex Vaticanus leaves an empty space for the long ending.
The only other manuscript that completely leaves it out has numerous errors.
I'm going with the long ending being valid.
Yikes! I tend to go with the Robinson - Pierpont Majority Text position. But, I'm a rank amateur at textual criticism, knowing just enough to get myself into trouble. 😁
If it wasn't for the weird ending grammatically that the shorter ending of Mark has, I wouldn't bother with the traditional ending. So, for now, I go with the longer ending, but with the old Roger Maris season homerun record asterisk. Yes, I love the KJV. But, knowing the history of the TR editions, there is no way I could be KJV-Only or TR-Only. So I lean Majority Text. That means I use the KJV, the NKJV, and either the ESV or the NASB 77 for Bible Study. I do plan to check out the LSB, but that's going to be it for newer Bible Translations. I'm to old to keep up with all of them!
Please debate James Snapp.
Who is James Snapp?
While I disagree with Mr White on Calvinism, I agree with him on Textual Criticism, I’ve been an avid student of textual criticism for over 20 years. We all continue to learn, hence we are all LEARNERS/Students, never experts!!!
The best evidence for the longer ending of Mark not being part of the original is the Gospel of Mark itself. In chapter 16 verse nine, it states that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene who seven demons were cast out of her. It would be odd for Mark to introduce her a second time and in this way, ie: having seven demons cast out of her, when earlier in the chapter Mark simply addressed her is Mary Magdalene. Mark would only need to give this detailed description of her if she is being introduced to the reader for the very first time. Also, verse nine contradicts the previous verses which reveal there were multiple women running back from the tomb together, which Matthew’s gospel states Jesus met them all on the road back together, not just Mary Magdalene. The specific Greek word in verse nine for “first,” means chief, or first and only. And it isn’t until after Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb with Peter and John, and after they leave that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene alone. When you read all four of the Gospel accounts of the empty tomb and the women running back to tell the disciples, there simply is no place where Jesus could’ve appeared first and alone to Mary Magdalene apart from the other women, because they were with her the entire time, both at the empty tomb and on the road back, which is when they all met Jesus together. In John’s Gospel, when he only mentions Mary arriving alone at the tomb, he does not say she was the only one there. He is simply singling her out, because later on Jesus is going to appear to her alone. But again, this does not happen on the way back to the disciples on the road, because other women are with her when Jesus appears to them. He doesn’t appear alone to her until after Peter and John leave the empty tomb. This is extremely strong evidence that the longer ending of Mark is not original.
Nothing you said is a real contradictions. KJV is right. Mark said what he said
NIV omits virgin birth etc. Deity of Christ etc. You trust it. I don't. Fast n pray
There are strong internal reasons for the short ending in Mark.
- the short ending mirrors the beginning
- with the shorter ending the transfiguration is the middle term of the text
- Mark as a narrator never uses "god" etc...
So clearly the longer endings are from different minds than the first author.
Can you expound on this "- the short ending mirrors the beginning" What do you mean? How so?
"- with the shorter ending the transfiguration is the middle term of the text" - So you mean in Mark's gospel "transfiguration" is right in the middle, if I understand you correctly?
"- Mark as a narrator never uses "god" etc..." here's Mk 15:43: Yosef of Ramatayim came, a prominent councilor of the Sanhedrin, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God. (MRT) I see 43 occurrences of θεός in Mark. I don't know what you mean.
@@mrtdiver
Yes Mark makes the transfiguration the center for the following reasons. Unless Mark chose other teaser texts for his specific client, the beginning, the end and the middle would be the rather likely chosen teaser texts.
Mark as a narrator (why did i write _as a narrator?_ ), not his sock puppets, never uses god or lord.
Yes he uses the kingdom of god, but not god. The kingdom of god is where mustard is the smallest seed and grows to be the tallest of the garden plants for birds to nest in. It is for infantile people but hard to enter for the rich and educated. And there are some who will not taste death, till they see the kingdom of bullshit come in all its glory/power.
Mark has a very satirical approach to the kingdom of god.
a) Beginning of the good news of Jesus the messiah
b) They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.
b) couters a)
6:32 - Codex W is "the archetype of the Byzantine text-type itself when it comes to the Gospels, although it has some interesting variants."
Tell me another one. Right before telling folks they haven't been lied to.
If the oldest bible in the world the ethiopian bible contains Mark 16: 9-20 im satisfied.
@mark7428 You're right. And He didn't "command" us to do those things at the end of Mark either. That's just a straw man.
Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Amen! People will burn for reading the heretical longer ending! Is that what you were trying to say?
Noice
3:35 - "Both Eusebius and Jerome" - since Jerome was abridging Eusebius' material, one might say, "Eusebius and Eusebius' echo."
Dude, what?
Test test is the working?? Test test
Nope. It's not.
Who cares? The ending of Mark contains just the great commission which also contained in Matthew.
Once again: I invite James White to debate on this topic with me, instead of spouting ridiculous claims such as the ones he spreads in this video.
By "ridiculous claims", do you mean facts?
These are all questions that we can address, but once you accept a traditionalist text position, why are you even talking about it? You can’t be convinced by anything. Your epistemology excludes any textual critical argumentation that could be derived from early translations or anything else. You have your text; it’s there, that’s it. There’s no reason to argue about it. But you just need to be open in telling people when you’re promoting this - I’m not basing this on textual critical argumentation; I’m basing this upon a theological paradigm that I’ve developed. 11:47
@@mrtdiver, My position is rather nuanced. Are you sure you're even aware of what my approach is??
@@JamesSnapp I think you are far too belligerent Mr. Snapp. You call James White’s book a dumpster fire and 20 car pile up, but it’s just that you do not prefer the Alexandrian text. James White offered to debate you on I believe the theology of John 6. Watch his video on the TR with Stephen Boyce. I do not agree with White on everything but his textual studies in most areas are verifiable by other advocates.
@@anthonytylernecerato4289 , WRONG, James R White is leaving a legacy of sloppiness and you are sadly caught in its wake.
The reason James White has an issue with Mark 16:9-20 is because of Mark 16:16.
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Mark 16:16
It’s plain and simple. He needs to build up a theology which has already been answered. If James White is right (which he’s wrong), then why is the ending of Mark 16:9-20 still in our bibles today?
Again, the issue is that Mark 16:16 and other verses mess with his Calvinistic theology.
It’s funny how he talks about “sola scriptura” and believing all scripture and using all scripture. Yet, in one of his videos, he says he would never teach Mark 16:9-20.
But, truth is, he doesn’t really believe in “sola scriptura” nor the “totality of scriptures”.
Mark 16:18a
I hear the longer version existed before the short version. Let no man deceive you
You heard wrong.
@@Ephesians-yn8ux oh how so? You can't prove latter copies are not of older manuscripts for they used them more n wore them out. You also can't prove that the older are not latter but we're not renewed.
@@Ephesians-yn8ux it's also likely that they knew the fakes you claim are older were not used n decayed due to this fact. While the legit texts were wore out so quick the re copied. The KJV are the majority texts too, hinting they were not isolated corruptions to fool a few
@@Ephesians-yn8ux the Alexandrians in Acts opposed Stephen. The NIV are Alexandrian texts n gnostic cult who omit virgin birth n diety of Christ. Want verses?
@@Charles-tv6oithe KJV is not the majority text. It contains around 1838 differences from the majority text.
Am I the only one who has seen this?
The John passage essencialy a Bible study lf three verses we know are in the Bible. And right conclusion we would make from consulting them. And so, wether its in the Bible or not, we believe what it says, and so its equal.
Essentially * Whether * It's *
As for the rest of your comment, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.
What are you referring to in John's gospel, the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery? Perhaps it actually happened, perhaps not. But it seems to be inserted into a passage where it doesn't fit. The text before and after that story makes better sense if you take the story out.
Compare John 7:53-8:11 to Jeremiah 17:13. Metzger says it's probably true, but it isn't in John's Gospel. The Jeremiah passage seems to be describing John 7-53-8:11. If Jesus is stooping to the ground and writing something in the dirt, which he is in John 7:53-8:11, it may be in the Old Testament prophets and Jeremiah 17:13 seems to be the one. Read several English versions for comparison.
Let's keep with the KJV and call it a day
God is sovereign and he knows the end from the beginning...EXCEPT when it comes to the KJV and what were considered Scripture up until 1880. Modern bibles are men saving the day and doing what God was unable to do on his own.
So before the KJV? Latin Vulgate? Why not stick with the Vulgate? The Geneva Bible? The Gutenberg Bible? The Tyndale Bible? Are we canonizing tradition based in time only? I'm confused as to the logic here (not trying to argue, genuinely interested as to what makes the KJV so special).
@@quantummechanist1 ruclips.net/video/MIbCayEtg_o/видео.html
@@quantummechanist1 ...all the bibles you mentioned are respectable and similar...men fought and died for those bibles. I mean Tyndale was burned at the stake...to put his bible in the same category as the NIV is an insult. And its pathetic that you can't see that.
@@shawnstephens6795 🤣🤣🤣
James makes his living off attacking and adding confusion to the word of God. He is not a soup winner, he only does seeds of doubt to believers. That is why the Muslims use this kind of critism done by James often to attack the bible and say it is corrupt.
Why do the textual "scholars" like to attack the end of Mark? Because they also say it is the "oldest of the gospels", and that Matt and Luke are just embellishments. And since the resurrection is only on the end of Mark than the "rationalists" can say as James did in this video that all the endings of the 4 gospels are not on the originals. And like the Muslims deny the resurrection that is described in the ending of Mark that supposedly is not supposed to be there.
I feel sorry for James on judgement day, but it shows how merciful God is to even blasphemers like James White, but James's head is so Big he won't repent and recant his lies because they are his money makers. If he did recant then he would most definitely looks his job at the Lockman Foundation, who makes their money off selling corrupt bibles.
🤣🤣🤣