>
>Bob Eyer wrote to Karl Schneider about MARK 16.18
 BE> BE:
 BE> -Obviously, the passage at Mark 12.30-31 was MORE divinely inspired
 BE> -than the one at Mark 16.18.  Mark 16.18 is therefore less divinely
 
 >Now I see!  Some of it MORE divinely inspired!  That's how some
 >parts can be 'trusted', and some ignored!  How wonderfully
 >convenient!  That does, however, cast more than a shadow of doubt
 >on the 'omnipotence/omniscient' issue.
 BE> BE:
 BE> -the divinely inspired Matthew and Luke did not repeat it is pretty
 BE> -good evidence that God had second thoughts about Mark 16.18.
 
 >Ah.  "Second thoughts".  Got it AFU the first time, eh?
 There is even good support for this from the Bible itself - where
 Paul writes "let every fact be established by two or three witnesses",
 being also found as part of the Law of Moses (and therefore fits the
 rule in itself); and implies that for every facet of the scripture -
 whether it is to be rendered more or less reliable, must be stated
 twice or three times to _establish_ it as reliable or important, as
 each instance is considered a "witness" to it.
 
 
... Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------