John 16: 17,18

[kevin]

"17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. "

Does this literally mean that you should take up sepents???? speak with new tongues? heal the sick??

It does say "they shall" referring to them that believe....... My pastor says it doesn't mean serpents,, but has yet to explain it. And there are a few Churches in my area that do "take up the serpent" and are ridiculed by the more established Churches..
Comments please.

 

[Ronald]

"17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. "

Does this literally mean that you should take up sepents???? speak with new tongues? heal the sick??

It does say "they shall" referring to them that believe....... My pastor says it doesn't mean serpents,, but has yet to explain it. And there are a few Churches in my area that do "take up the serpent" and are ridiculed by the more established Churches..
Comments please.

First,(#1) Your question is on Mr.16:17-18.
(#2) Some Bibles do not include those verses.

Ask yourself, WHY?

 

[harold e. rice]

I was fortunate to pay a visit to the Isle of Patmos a few years ago and was elated to tour the Monastery of St. John on the Island. In a glass case in the monastery was a 3rd century copy of the book of Mark written on lambskin. I learned from the Monks and curators that Mark was the first Gospel written around 70 AD, forty some years after the death of Jesus. I was told that the original Gospel of Mark ended with the 16th chapter at the 8th verse. The 9th through the 20th verses were added many years later by copyist from the Catholic Church. I have done additional research and have found this to be true. Therefore we must conclude that none of the dialogue in Mark 16:9-20 came from Jesus or his followers but some unknown individual with a personal agenda.

BTW, the writer of this 1st Gospel never saw or talked to a man called Jesus. His information could have only been 2nd or 3rd hand.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, I think you ment Mark, which raises the whole question of the Marcan Appendix. To quote from the NET Bible

9tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses ..., including two of the most respected mss ... The following shorter ending is found in some mss: “They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.” This shorter ending is usually included with the longer ending ...; k, however, ends at this point. Most mss include the longer ending (vv. 9-20) immediately after v. 8 ...; however, Jerome and Eusebius knew of almost no Greek mss that had this ending. Several mss have marginal comments noting that earlier Greek mss lacked the verses, while others mark the text with asterisks or obeli (symbols that scribes used to indicate that the portion of text being copied was spurious). Internal evidence strongly suggests the secondary nature of both the short and the long endings. Their vocabulary and style are decidedly non-Markan (for further details, see TCGNT 102-6). All of this evidence strongly suggests that as time went on scribes added the longer ending, either for the richness of its material or because of the abruptness of the ending at v. 8. (Indeed, the strange variety of dissimilar endings attests to the probability that early copyists had a copy of Mark that ended at v. 8, and they filled out the text with what seemed to be an appropriate conclusion. All of the witnesses for alternative endings to vv. 9-20 thus indirectly confirm the Gospel as ending at v. 8.) Because of such problems regarding the authenticity of these alternative endings, 16:8 is usually regarded as the last verse of the Gospel of Mark.​

In other words, Mark 16:17-18 is inauthentic.

This is actually very good news. I doubt that many evangelists could pass the serpent-and-poison test. Rather than feeling pressured into trying, they now need do no more than note that the verses in question were forged. Of course, that makes the inerrancy argument a bit more difficult to sustain.

Note: In the NET quote, I replaced the manuscript references with ellipses (...) for readability. If you're interested, simply go to the website referenced.

 

[kevin]

Sorry about the typo was thinking Mark, type John.............

Thanks for the information, amazing how groups of dedicated, faithful people base much of their religion on this erronous information..... You got to admit it takes faith to reach down and pick up rattlesnakes in both hands. And I know some who do it.
Many thanks to all who replied.......

 

[Ronald]

Come to Sweetwater Texas for the "Rattlesnake Round-up" see all of the "Faith filled"
Cowboys/girls walking in the snake pit.

 

[hebrew]

Kevin,
Firstly, the previous comments from the other readers on your question is incorrect.
All scriptures in the bible is an inspriation from the Lord, IITim 3:16, IIPeter 1:20.
So for someone to say that the book of mark ended at the 8th verse is misinformed; as much misinformed as thinking that the real Jews are caucasian when they are dark-skinned people. Anyway, staying on the topic, to add or subtract from the bible is a sin. Rev 22:18-19. Moving on, taking up serpents DOES NOT MEAN LITERALLY TO PLAY WITH SNAKES, IT MEANS TAKING ON EVIL AND WICKEDNESS; AND THE LORD SHALL PROTECT THEM FROM SUCH THINGS WHILE DOING HIS WORK. Speaking with new tongues means being able to communicate and teach someone who speaks their native language whether it is spanish, french, etc. Acts 2nd chp. Back then, the spirit was on the prophets to heal the sick, as well as to speak another language without taking a class, through Jesus Christ. Now today, unless a prophet is a doctor, we cant heal the sick as such, but we can annoint the ill and pray over them. James 5:13

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Firstly, the previous comments from the other readers on your question is incorrect.

So there!

All scriptures in the bible is an inspriation from the Lord, IITim 3:16, IIPeter 1:20.

Let's see, now: The Bible is inspired because 2 Timothy, a 2nd century Biblical text of uncertain authorship, tells us so. Gosh, thanks.

So for someone to say that the book of mark ended at the 8th verse is misinformed; ...

No. It is widely accepted New Testament scholarship. You know nothing of textual criticism, and you seem intent on proving it.

...; as much misinformed as thinking that the real Jews are caucasian when they are dark-skinned people.

And you know even less about ethnicity and Israelite ethnogenesis.

 

[kevin]

Most people seem to think that God gave more power and insight to his believers in bibilical times... Is it not possible, even likely that he can and does do this today? I doubt that he has lost the ability to do so......Heal the sick, etc.

I'm far from being a Bible scholar, so does anyone have a listing of the men of God who raised the dead? Elijah was the first one I think. Jesus of course and at least some of his disciples.

 

[hebrew]

To Deut 32:8
See hear, the uderstanding of ethnicity and the beginning of all cultures started with the Torah, and the Tenach, which is the bible. I have the understanding of all nationalities throughout the earth through Christ which lies in the bible.

 

[Ceridwen018]

. I have the understanding of all nationalities throughout the earth through Christ which lies in the bible.

I'm not finding where in the bible it talks of different nationalities...

Rev 22:18-19. Moving on, taking up serpents DOES NOT MEAN LITERALLY TO PLAY WITH SNAKES, IT MEANS TAKING ON EVIL AND WICKEDNESS; AND THE LORD SHALL PROTECT THEM FROM SUCH THINGS WHILE DOING HIS WORK

.

Who is it that declares what is and what isn't metaphorical in the bible?

Back then, the spirit was on the prophets to heal the sick, as well as to speak another language without taking a class, through Jesus Christ. Now today, unless a prophet is a doctor, we cant heal the sick as such, but we can annoint the ill and pray over them. James 5:13

Um...why are things different now?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To Deut 32:8
See hear, the uderstanding of ethnicity and the beginning of all cultures started with the Torah, and the Tenach, which is the bible.

See here, you've yet to demonstrate the slightest knowledge of what the Torah says about nationality, nor have you suggested the relevance of nationality to Marcan forgery.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not finding where in the bible it talks of different nationalities...

I'm feeling slighted ...

 

[hebrew]

So there!


Let's see, now: The Bible is inspired because 2 Timothy, a 2nd century Biblical text of uncertain authorship, tells us so. Gosh, thanks.

No. It is widely accepted New Testament scholarship. You know nothing of textual criticism, and you seem intent on proving it.

And you know even less about ethnicity and Israelite ethnogenesis.

DUET. 32:8
First of all, you say I know nothing about textual criticism, YOU KNOW NOTING ABOUT THE BIBLE. All responses you have given me has been your personal opinion; COME TO ME WITH SOME SCRIPTURES TO PROVE ME WRONG; IF YOU DONT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM TO DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING TO RESPOND TO ME ABOUT. IS 8:20
Also, Let me ask you this; WHAT IS YOUR NATIONALITY? and CAN YOU PROVE IT TO ME, OR CAN YOU JUST REPEAT TO ME WHAT SOMEONE TOLD YOU WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First of all, you say I know nothing about textual criticism, ...

That's a fairly accurate assessment.

YOU KNOW NOTING ABOUT THE BIBLE.

You are seriously mistaken.

All responses you have given me has been your personal opinion; ...

I prefer to characterize them as informed opinion.

COME TO ME WITH SOME SCRIPTURES TO PROVE ME WRONG; ...

You have yet to say anything coherent.

Also, Let me ask you this; WHAT IS YOUR NATIONALITY?

You have a rather sick fixation on nationalism. Why is that?