The gospel of Mark is the oldest and the shortest among other gospels. It has 666 verses when counted from chapter 1 verse 1 to chapter 16 verse 8. Most Bibles show 678 verses for Mark, not 666, but many Biblical scholars agreed the last 12 verses came later from interpolation. The earliest manuscripts and other ancient sources do not have Mark 16: 9-20. Moreover the text style does not match and the transition between verse 8 and 9 appears awkward. Even some of today's Bibles such as the NIV exclude the last 12 verses.

Adding, Gospel of Mark is the oldest and scholars agreed that other gospels (matthew, luke and john) were copied from it. The bible said when the tree is corrupt, the fruit can be nowhere than corruption. Other gospels were rooted on satanic work....the whole gospel is satanic.

666 is the symbol of satan....even christians were mind programmed by their pastors to be scared of the figure. The two parallel line on the gospels are fraud and satanic

*what christians are carrying as holy bible is damn satanic. Lucifer rules here.

If only christians would actually take the time to read the bible they blabber on about.

Good for you with your discovery.

Jesus is Lord.

OP, sorry!

thorpido: God for you with your discovery.

Jesus is Lord.

Jesus is a hail to almighty Zeus. There is no man that bears that name. Jesus in Latin-greek is Iesous which mean Hail Zeus.

Thanks for praising almighty Zeus

forget satanic. the bible on its own is nothing more than a book of inauthentic fake stories written to fit the agenda of the Roman emperor constantine. only the old testament can be regarded as holy cos it goes with the Qur'an .

Shadbay: OP, sorry!

Sorry for yourself

God is still God....Jesus is still saviour notwithstanding.

God is not mocked, watsoever you sow you shall reap

acenazt: forget satanic. the bible on its own is nothing more than a book of inauthentic fake stories written to fit the agenda of the Roman emperor constantine. only the old testament can be regarded as holy cos it goes with the Qur'an .

The quran itself attest that it contain fairy tales. Quran is best known as Shite recycle

davuvid: God is still God....Jesus is still saviour notwithstanding.

God is not mocked, watsoever you sow you shall reap

So bible is God? Mtchewwww

FOLYKAZE:

Jesus is a hail to almighty Zeus. There is no man that bears that name. Jesus in Latin-greek is Iesous which mean Hail Zeus.

Thanks for praising almighty Zeus

Your opinion!
It doesn't change the Christ.

thorpido: Your opinion!
It doesn't change the Christ.

Ignorance is a deadly disease. Christ mean 'the anointed one' which is best translate as the messiah. Simon of Peraea was a messiah before the mythical Jesus was invented.

FOLYKAZE:

Ignorance is a deadly disease. Christ mean 'the anointed one' which is best translate as the messiah. Simon of Peraea was a messiah before the mythical Jesus was invented.

I'll leave you in your ignorance.
Jesus is the same as Yeshua as Joshua.You want to tell me Joshua is also invented?

The Simon of Peraea you speak about was a slave who rebelled and destroyed the Roman structures.Who did he redeem?
He was eventually killed.If you do your research properly,you will see that it was said in the Scripts that he will rise the third day.Did your Simon of Peraea rise the third day?

There were many anointed ones.Kings and prophets were anointed but there was a prophecy concerning 'THE' Anointed One.None was ever referred to as The Anointed one.Only Yeshua(Jesus) met that criterion.

I understand where you are coming from........but the Light shall light upon your heart!

you did not make any sense at all.the holy bible remains d inspired word of GOD, JESUS REMAINS LORD

oyelude f: you did not make any sense at all.the holy bible remains d inspired word of GOD, JESUS REMAINS LORD

in your head

thorpido: I'll leave you in your ignorance.
Jesus is the same as Yeshua as Joshua. You want to tell me Joshua is also invented?

The Simon of Peraea you speak about was a slave who rebelled and destroyed the Roman structures.Who did he redeem?
He was eventually killed.If you do your research properly,you will see that it was said in the Scripts that he will rise the third day.Did your Simon of Peraea rise the third day?

There were many anointed ones.Kings and prophets were anointed but there was a prophecy concerning 'THE' Anointed One.None was ever referred to as The Anointed one.Only Yeshua(Jesus) met that criterion.

I understand where you are coming from........but the Light shall light upon your heart!

A = B, B = C and therefore C would be equal to A.

Jesus was Joshua. Good bend. Joshua was not a messiah. Epic fail

oyelude f: you did not make any sense at all.the holy bible remains d inspired word of GOD, JESUS REMAINS LORD

which of the bible? Coptic bible, ethiopian orthodox bible, jerusalem bible, catholic bible and protestant bible.

The above bibles got different number of books.

And the God might be crazy for inspiring confusing junks

[quote author=FOLYKAZE]

A = B, B = C and therefore C would be equal to A.

Jesus was Joshua. Good bend. Joshua was not a messiah. Epic fail[/quotei see it's a lack of understanding.It's the same name in different languages.

FOLYKAZE:

which of the bible? Coptic bible, ethiopian orthodox bible, jerusalem bible, catholic bible and protestant bible.

The above bibles got different number of books.

And the God might be crazy for inspiring confusing junks

the holy bible. incase u dnt know d word bible simply means book and those ones you mentiond r all prefixes

Alfa Seltzer:

in your head

you need Jesus

FOLYKAZE:

Jesus is a hail to almighty Zeus. There is no man that bears that name. Jesus in Latin-greek is Iesous which mean Hail Zeus.

Thanks for praising almighty Zeus

@folykaze u can see the ignorance in ur post trying to confuse people with lies, Latin- Greek and Hebrew which was the bible first written, u see someone just pointed out ur folly but ur systematically dodged it. As for the gospel and bible the problem all guys will always have is that the bible is still the only book compilation written over thousands of years and by different people and times that still follow a central theme and quoted by this same authors at different times. Now that's one fact you cannot never discredit.

oyelude f: the holy bible. incase u dnt know d word bible simply means book and those ones you mentiond r all prefixes

they have extra and lesser books among them. They have extra chapters and additiona verses in the same book. Some verses were missing, some forged it in while some manipulated it. That is why am asking which bible is the inspired or the holy one.

which of the bible is inspired or holy? Coptic bible or ethiopian orthodox bible or jerusalem bible or catholic bible or protestant bible? Answer that pls

noblefada:
@folykaze u can see the ignorance in ur post trying to confuse people with lies, Latin- Greek and Hebrew which was the bible first written, u see someone just pointed out ur folly but ur systematically dodged it. As for the gospel and bible the problem all guys will always have is that the bible is still the only book compilation written over thousands of years and by different people and times that still follow a central theme and quoted by this same authors at different times. Now that's one fact you cannot never discredit.

You are the one obfuscating yourself around with bi.gotry

NIV and other translation has 666 verses in their book of mark. Other translations added those 12 verses as agreed by scholars. How is this a lie?

The oldest gospel manuscript is the book of Mark and the other bible writters copied from it. In as much gospel of mark is fraud, what others wrote is fraud. Why cant you debunk this?

You were crying foul that the bible is inspired...pls which of the bible? Coptic bible or ethiopian orthodox bible or jerusalem bible or catholic bible or protestant bible. Get this fact straight to your head, these bibles got extra or additional books, chapters and verses. Some verses were even distorted among each others. This make the bible fraud work of men. Why cant you rebut this?

during my 100l days in d university there is a bio101 txbook we called green bible nd mth101 called red bible nd dat is d name generally used den in d whole schl. we met it dat way nd we left it dat way. fyi dey also have chapters nd sub chapters. so does dat in any way justify me mentionin dem as d word of God? of recent we heard of d queen James bible (for gays) so u can as well add dem to those you read. wen i talk of s holy bible i mean d one HOLY BIBLE

FOLYKAZE:

You are the one obfuscating yourself around with bi.gotry

NIV and other translation has 666 verses in their book of mark. Other translations added those 12 verses as agreed by scholars. How is this a lie?

The oldest gospel manuscript is the book of Mark and the other bible writters copied from it. In as much gospel of mark is fraud, what others wrote is fraud. Why cant you debunk this?

You were crying foul that the bible is inspired...pls which of the bible? Coptic bible or ethiopian orthodox bible or jerusalem bible or catholic bible or protestant bible. Get this fact straight to your head, these bibles got extra or additional books, chapters and verses. Some verses were even distorted among each others. This make the bible fraud work of men. Why cant you rebut this?

You're very funny, just checked the NIV again and I saw more than 12 verses so I don't know what u talking about, by the way the other supposedly added verses are consistent with Mathew and Luke. The four gospel served the main purpose of providing human witnesses to the coming of Christ, so those men actually saw and walked with Christ, the only doubt could be the book of Mark, but it is widely believe that it was actually narrated to Mark by apostle Peter, so all four men were disciples of Jesus. Let me just say this, there are some of us that have read ur bible well and understand or are still understanding it.

noblefada:
You're very funny, just checked the NIV again and I saw more than 12 verses so I don't know what u talking about, by the way the other supposedly added verses are consistent with Mathew and Luke. The four gospel served the main purpose of providing human witnesses to the coming of Christ, so those men actually saw and walked with Christ, the only doubt could be the book of Mark, but it is widely believe that it was actually narrated to Mark by apostle Peter, so all four men were disciples of Jesus. Let me just say this, there are some of us that have read ur bible well and understand or are still understanding it.

How does this answer the questions I put forward?

Read Mark chapter 16 footnote from NIV. And tell us what is there.

Let me just say this, as much as I sometimes read the NIV, I'm particularly not a fan of it because I personally question some of its translation, but the truth of the matter still remains that so many things I've been done to discredit Christianity, just coming to the religion of NL can attest to it, so I'm not surprised or even worried when you talk about various types of bible and translations, in fact it will be odd if they don't exist! But all that doesn't change the fact that scriptures are divinely inspired, even the authorised king James still had issues with translation, all this don't change the truth of scriptures. Shalom

noblefada: Let me just say this, as much as I sometimes read the NIV, I'm particularly not a fan of it because I personally question some of its translation, but the truth of the matter still remains that so many things I've been done to discredit Christianity, just coming to the religion of NL can attest to it, so I'm not surprised or even worried when you talk about various types of bible and translations, in fact it will be odd if they don't exist! But all that doesn't change the fact that scriptures are divinely inspired, even the authorised king James still had issues with translation, all this don't change the truth of scriptures. Shalom

not making sense. This doesn't change the fact that the bible is fraud, heavily manipulated and has satan signature

noblefada:
You're very funny, just checked the NIV again and I saw more than 12 verses so I don't know what u talking about, by the way the other supposedly added verses are consistent with Mathew and Luke. The four gospel served the main purpose of providing human witnesses to the coming of Christ, so those men actually saw and walked with Christ, the only doubt could be the book of Mark, but it is widely believe that it was actually narrated to Mark by apostle Peter, so all four men were disciples of Jesus. Let me just say this, there are some of us that have read ur bible well and understand or are still understanding it.

What is your justification for saying "the four gospels served the purposes of providing human witnesses.......these men saw and walked with Christ". ?

These are the sorts of glib statements paraded by half-baked christians. Not one of the gospel writers was a contemporary of Jesus, in fact the writers are all anonymous. As the OP pointed out Mark is our earliest writer, and his narrative appeared around twenty years after the death of Jesus, his account is still 3rd and 4th hand writings of oral traditions. Yes, Papias does give a hint that Mark's account may have been dictated by Peter but if you have done the research you would be aware of the problems of that conjecture.

I don't agree with the issue of satanic influences on the book of Mark, it was written before the Apocalypse of John and his nightmarish revelations of the beast e.t.c, Mark remains our earliest and best account of the life and death of Jesus before the likes of Matthew and Luke did a hatchet job on it.

Sarassin:

What is your justification for saying "the four gospels served the purposes of providing human witnesses.......these men saw and walked with Christ". ?

These are the sorts of glib statements paraded by half-baked christians. Not one of the gospel writers was a contemporary of Jesus, in fact the writers are all anonymous. As the OP pointed out Mark is our earliest writer, and his narrative appeared around twenty years after the death of Jesus, his account is still 3rd and 4th hand writings of oral traditions. Yes, Papias does give a hint that Mark's account may have been dictated by Peter but if you have done the research you would be aware of the problems of that conjecture.

I don't agree with the issue of satanic influences on the book of Mark, it was written before the Apocalypse of John and his nightmarish revelations of the beast e.t.c, Mark remains our earliest and best account of the life and death of Jesus before the likes of Matthew and Luke did a hatchet job on it.

gibberish

oyelude f: gibberish

Oookay....So you believe the disciples Matthew and Mark....wrote the gospels named after them?

Sarassin:

Oookay....So you believe the disciples Matthew and Mark....wrote the gospels named after them?

no. you wrote them