>>You obviously have much more faith than Mark, right Andy?  Let's
 >>see how much.  Try Mark 16:18...  I'll pour!
BE:
-That passage is not genuine Mark.  It is not in the earliest
-relatively complete manuscripts.  The style and subjects covered
-are not Markan in nature.  And the Ending of which it is a part is
-only one of three major endings which were added after Mark 16.8
-in different manuscripts beginning in the 5th century.  The
-other two endings don't have the content of 16.18.
-
-This is very poor evidence to present to a skeptic of the Bible.
-
-It's practically tantamount to conceding the skeptic's position.
>No fundy would ever admit that the fragment is in any way suspect
>and, in any event, is demonstrably effective in the HolySmoke
>echo.
My point was directed at debating strategy.  Even if a fundy did
not admit that Mark 16.18 was suspect (not the original Mark),
he should have ample grounds for believing that others would
find it much more suspect than other parts of the New Testament,
and therefore believe that it would be better to base his own
argument on other data.
If the citation of Mark 16.18 is "demonstrably effective" in
Holysmoke, I guess that shows that there is not much critical
analysis practiced by the regulars there.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------