At the Shepherds' Conference that just concluded last week, Al Mohler gave a fantastic explanation from Scripture of what the job of the preacher really is. In my opinion, it is very much worth your time to watch.
About something that happened at the recent Shepherds Conference:Dr. MacArthur, in Session One, which focused on Mk. 16:9-20, said some things that were very misleading, and some things that are simply not true. I encourage you: Test His Claims! I don’t think Dr. MacArthur was being deliberately deceptive, but it sure looks like his has been quite thoroughly misled by some inaccurate resources. (And now probably everyone at the conference who trusts him without testing his statements will repeat them to their own congregations and students.) Yours in Christ,James Snapp, Jr.Minister, Curtisville Christian ChurchIndianawww.curtisvillechristianchurch.org/public/MarkOne.html
If I was a betting squirrel, I'd bet that James E. Snapp, Jr. is a King James proponant...James, it's easy to say, "he's wrong" when you totally avoid any specifics about where and how he's wrong. Unspecified charges are not entertained here at all. Squirrel
I think James E. Snapp, Jr. wrote somethings about Dr. MacArthur that were misleading. I encourage you to test his claims.
Squirrel,You'd lose that bet; I am not KJV-Only. I avoided specifics because comments-boxes sometimes do not allow the amount of characters it would take to list and correct all of Dr. MacArthur's problematic statements. But here are a few:(1) Immediately after stating that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus both end Mark at 16:8, Dr. MacArthur mentioned that there are 8,000 copies of Jerome’s Vulgate, and over 350 copies of the Syriac Bible. Then (at 26:30) he says, “And when you compare all these manuscripts, they’re all saying exactly the same thing.” But in real life, the Vulgate includes Mark 16:9-20, and the Peshitta includes Mark 16:9-20 too. (2) He said, "You can virtually put the entire New Testament together from the quotes of the fathers, and it matches perfectly all other manuscript sources.”That's certainly not true. Obviously it can't perfectly match, say, Byzantine MSS *and* Alexandrian MSS *and* Western MSS. Right? (3) At one point he said that the oldest manuscript of the Iliad is from the "thirteenth century A.D.” But there are fragments of the Iliad that are much earlier. (4) At 29:20, Dr. MacArthur said, "We have so many accurate, consistent manuscripts that we know, without hesitation, that what we hold in our hands is an English translation of the original with no loss." Such a claim seems out of place in a sermon in which he is rejecting Mark 16:9-20, because over 99% of the Greek manuscripts (and over 99% of the Latin manuscripts, and over 99% of the Syriac manuscripts) consistently support Mark 16:9-20.(5) He mangled the story about the camel-or-cord variant in Mt. 19:24 by inventing an imaginary Greek word, as if the difference is between kamelos and a non-word, bamelos. (The actual variant is a case of /kamelon/ versus /kamilon/.)(6) He claimed that Justin Martyr and Tatian "show knowledge of other endings," while in real life they only show knowledge of 16:9-20. Since this evidence opposes the position that Dr. MacArthur advocates, he attempted to minimize it, and in his attempt to minimize it, he misrepresented it.(7) He misrepresented the evidence from Irenaeus in the same way, telling his listeners, "Even Irenaeus shows knowledge of other endings," when in real life, Irenaeus shows no awareness of any ending other than 16:9-20, and explicitly cites Mark 16:19 as coming from Mark's Gospel-account.You are very welcome to test my claims. You can start by watching my video-response on YouTube ("The Fitting End of Some False Claims About Mark 16:9-20"). I also have a 212-page research book, and a 25-page book-summary, which I would be glad to share with you too. Just ask for a copy via e-mail at james (dot) snapp (at) gmail [dot} com.Yours in Christ,James Snapp, Jr.
Hello? Mark? Squirrel?James Snapp, Jr.
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Snapp. Did your off-topic comment somehow obligate me to respond?
Squirrel,Of course not. Your blog is your kingdom. But you said, earlier, "Unspecified charges are not entertained here at all." Now I've provided you with specifics. I assumed that your statement that unspecified charges would not be entertained implied that *specified" charges /would/ be entertained. That was, though, just an assumed implication; you did not guarantee any such thing. If your real approach is to not entertain unspecified charges, and not to entertain specified charges either, of course you're free to do so on your own blog. But I thought, since you seem to have either attended the Shepherds Conference, or are at least using materials from it, that you might want to know about some problems in the contents of the Session One talk given by Dr. MacArthur. Yours in Christ,James Snapp, Jr.
Actually, Mr. Snapp, my comment was precipitated by this comment, and not from your provision of specific disagreements with MacArthur's Session One address -- specifics which I have not had time to examine in detail.As to your comments being off topic, the topic of this post was not the Shepherds' Conference in general, nor any of Dr. MacArthur's addresses. The topic was Al Mohler's address to the conference. I thought it was excellent, and wanted to recommend it.Squirrel
Squirrel,Just be aware that alongside Dr. Mohler's address, some claims were being promoted at the Shepherds Conference that are not true. I hope that you will have time to test Dr. MacArthur's claims sometime -- hopefully before misinformed Masters Seminary graduates remove Mark 16:9-20 from the text of Mark.Yours in Christ,James Snapp, Jr.
Post a Comment