Proof Of God's Existence Has Now Been Documented! ! !

[Firefighter]

The code fell apart a long time ago. I really could not care less about the code. Jesus is still on the cross at 6pm; when darkness fell. We are counting time "in the belly of the earth."

Not at all. The big rush was to get him buried BEFORE the Sabbath. Besides, what about Sunday? Do you suppose that he was raised at Sunset on Saturday???

[Reynolds357]

Not at all. The big rush was to get him buried BEFORE the Sabbath. Besides, what about Sunday? Do you suppose that he was raised at Sunset on Saturday???

Wed night Roman time, Thursday night Jewish time. How is that causing a conflict? I want you to tell me in detail what is wrong with this timeline and I will then address in detail the problems you identify.

[Firefighter]

You have forgotten from sunset on Saturday to whatever time he was raised in the wee hours of Sunday morning...

[Reynolds357]

You have forgotten from sunset on Saturday to whatever time he was raised in the wee hours of Sunday morning...

Can you show me scriptural proof that He was raised in the wee hours of the morning on Sunday?

[Firefighter]

Since you believe Mark 16:9 is canonical, I would say Mark 16:9.

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.


Now what were you saying about kinks?

[Reynolds357]

Since you believe Mark 16:9 is canonical, I would say Mark 16:9.

When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.


Now what were you saying about kinks?

The punctuation, or lack of it, is not inspired. The orig. text does not place the Comma. The comma was added at the opinion of the translators. Does this verse dictate when He rose, or does it simply state when He appeared to Mary? From the orig. text, you can not say.

[Firefighter]

So the word early is not inspired? How convenient...


I would LOVE to see a decent argument for the verse being inspired but not the punctuation.

[Firefighter]

According to Gill,

the Syriac version says, "now early on the first day of the week he rose"

Persic version says, "the Messiah", or "Christ, therefore on the morning of the, first day, rose from the dead"

Seems pretty clear to me...

[Reynolds357]

What does the full passage say?
Mark 16:9 (King James Version)

9Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

What does the verse read with the comma, which was placed at translators discretion is moved?

Mark 16:9 (King James Version)

9Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.


One of the first rules from my theology professor that I remember is we do not build doctrine on punctuation because it was all added at the discretion of the translator.

[Firefighter]

Show me any (reputable) scholar that has ever even questioned the plain meaning of this verse...

[Radagast]

One of the first rules from my theology professor that I remember is we do not build doctrine on punctuation because it was all added at the discretion of the translator.

Actually, we base doctrine on what the original Greek says.

[DDGresham1]

Christ was crucified on Friday (Hence "Good Friday") and raised on the Sabbath or Saturday (Called Sabado in Spanish). He was raised on the first day of the week or Sunday.

[DDGresham1]

I thought the YHVH was Gods name with some letters removed?

[Reynolds357]

Actually, we base doctrine on what the original Greek says.

What does it say? Please do tell me.

Maybe it says this:

Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ' ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.

[Reynolds357]

So the word early is not inspired? How convenient...


I would LOVE to see a decent argument for the verse being inspired but not the punctuation.

I actually do believe the verse is inspired, but this is in the passage that you have argued many time in the past is not inspired. You have argued many times that vv 15-20 do not belong in the text. In all honesty, the arguement is that vv 9-20 do not belong in the Bible. If you do not take v.19 as inspired, then neither should you take v.9.

Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.

... we may find it instructive to consider the attitude of Church Fathers toward variant readings in the text of the New Testament. On the one hand, as far as certain readings involve sensitive points of doctrine, the Fathers customarily alleged that heretics had tampered with the accuracy of the text. On the other hand, however, the question of the canonicity of a document apparently did not arise in connection with discussion of such variant readings, even though they might involve quite considerable sections of text. Today we know that the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to Mark (xvi. 9-20) are absent from the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts, and that in other manuscripts asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.

The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948).

vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain; a medieval source ascribes it to an elder Ariston (Aristion), perhaps the man whom Papias (c. A.D. 135) calls a disciple of the Lord. It is drawn for the most part from Luke, chapter 24, and from John, chapter 20; there is a possibility that verse 15 may come from Matthew 28:18-20. It is believed that the original ending must have contained an account of the risen Christ's meeting with the disciples in Galilee (chs. 14:28; 16:7).