The New International Version (4)

I had intended to conclude this study with the previously written articles, but would like to consider the last few verses of Mark 16. In article three, I briefly mentioned the treatment the NIV gives to Mark 16:9-20. This section is marked off by a line and the comment, “The most reliable early MSS omit Mark 16:9-20.” This throws an unnecessary cloud of doubt on the inspiration of this passage and some, but not all, debaters, trying to defend the doctrine that man is saved at the point of faith without further acts of obedience, have used this (the denial of the inspiration of Mk. 16:9-20) in an effort to uphold their doctrine. In the Hardeman-Bogard Debate, bro. N.B. Hardeman demonstrated that Dr. Ben M. Bogard switched positions on the inspiration of Mk. 16:9-20, depending on whom he was debating. I have not seen Dr. Bogard’s denial of the accusation, but have seen his evading the issue (please see the Hardeman-Bogard Debate). Why would any man switch positions on the inspiration of a text, not just once but several times?

In the Warren-Ballard Debate, Mr. L. S. Ballard tried this but bro. Thomas B. Warren showed that Mark 16:9-20 was contained in a number of versions in the second century AD: Peshitto, Curetonian, Copitc, Sahidic, Tatian’s Diatessaron. Also, he showed that the “church fathers” of the second century had quoted the text in their writings. In what century did the most respected manuscripts appear? The third century AD, long after the versions which contained the text and the quotes of the “church fathers.”

More recently, Mr. Hoyt Chastain tried this in debate with bro. David Bonner, but when bro. Bonner pointed out that the “church fathers” in the second century used Mark 16:9-20 in their writings, the matter was quickly dropped by Mr. Chastain. Wonder why?