Welcome!  You are at, which is the general forum for  Persons are invited to post on Bible and Theology (widely interpreted).  Some postings may be chosen to be reposted on  Give & receive love here. If you post here, please do not use "Anonymous" or the like. Choose your own screen names, but do not use one that you know is already being used by someone else. Please: 

1. You may debate with any ideas posted, but do not post objections to the topic, style, spelling, use of capital letters, or grammar of anyone's posting.  For example, you may debate whether the moon is made of green cheese, but kindly refrain from reviling a poster by telling him that it is politically incorrect to discuss green cheese.   

2. Do not post complaints or attacks vs. other posters.  

3. No obscene language,cuss words, or blasphemy may be used.   

4. Send complaints privately by e-mail to  If your posting is deleted, it could be because it violates forum rules or is just chosen for a short run on the forum.  

  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If you want the password, register your screen names by e-mail, as password may be needed again if problems arise on the Forum. CHECK OUT THE search function, which is good: it checks the content of the postings.

Note that if you paste onto the Forum, for some reason Bravenet may change your quote marks and apostrophes into something else, like little boxes or funny U's.   Thanks for coming, participating, and for showing love .

Start a New Topic 
Mark 16:9

A poster on another board, the topic of which was questioning the authenticity of the last 12 verses in the book of Mark, wrote that it doesn’t really matter because there is no doctrinal teaching in Mark 16:9-20 that cannot be proved elsewhere in agreed Scripture.

I made the mistake of sticking my nose into the discussion by pointing out that actually there is a statement in verse 9, as the KJV and similar versions have it, that is to be found nowhere else in Scripture that is used to support a doctrinal teaching. As the KJV translates it, it is the only place that puts the resurrection on the first day of the week. I then suggested that whenever the discussion of seventh day observance versus first day observance comes up, it has generally been my experience that first day proponents many times use the idea of a first day resurrection to justify the change of observance from the seventh day to the first day, and when questioned about the day of resurrection, frequently quote Mark 16:9. The poster came back with: “Quote a published author who has done that.” - I have not yet been able to come up with one. Does anyone here know of one?

Re: Mark 16:9

It is the observance that is more important than actual date accuracy.
For example, was Christ really born on December 25?
The date of Easter changes all the time when in reality it occurred on April 5.
The same goes for many other holidays.
Also keep in mind that the first or seventh, etc. days of the week have changed over the years.
God bless.

Re: Mark 16:9


re: “Also keep in mind that the first or seventh, etc. days of the week have changed over the years.”

If you have documentation or know of any that shows that the seven day cycle has been interrupted at some point between the first century and now, I would very much like to see it.

Also, do you have any information with regard to my request in the OP?

Re: Mark 16:9

I am sorry, I don't have any actual documents or know of any. I think it is fairly common knowledge though that the first day of the week for the Jews was Monday and that it has since changed to Sunday.
Sorry if I wasn't a lot of help.

Re: Mark 16:9

Greetings, I didn't see this post before.

The short ending of Mark (omitting verses at its end) is only supported by 2 important manuscripts, which IMHO are the same text family in this passage. The 2 are Sinaticus & Vaticanus. Vaticanus has an unusual blank space at the end of it as if room were left for something else. In view of the enormous textual support & the tiny number of mss that omit it, I am confident that the longer ending is the original.

It has been observed that Greek writings like this never end with the word gar, which would be the final word on the short ending.

Also, there is a simple mechanical explanation for the omission of those verses from Sinaticus and Vaticanus: the ancestor document lost its last page by being worn off.

The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the 1st day of the week does not prove that a 7th day sabbath should or should not be observed. It may explain why the Book of Revelation refers to "the Day of the Lord." In Acts we find church meetings meeting on the 1st Day of the Week (probably what we would call Saturday evening). But it is not a command as to what day we should meet on.

On the other hand, we have scripture indicating that we should not keep sabbaths in the Church Age. And BTW, certainly Sunday is not the sabbath.