Thanks to your reply, I can see the problems that Berrie is creating.
The ending to Mark, specifically verses 9 to the end have been problematic, since the time of Erasmus. From this monitor, it appears as if he may be taking sources from BYU
HERE However, since I cam not see his quotes, it is impossible for me to lay a charge of plagiarism against him.
One important quote to understand the difficulty that the LDS people have drealing with the truth, and what actually happened is this quote from the above resource:
'
“I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is specially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of constructing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal meaning” (Ep. 149).
[21] One could hardly expect Erasmus, who was pioneering into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate.
21] Edwin Yamauchi, “Erasmus’ Contributions to New Testament Scholarship,” into new territories, to be as critical with his Greek New Testament as he was with his Latin Vulgate
.
One thing that the academically inclined will notice is how skillfully the LDS author mixed the work of the noted Evangelical scholar, Edwin Yamauchi with uninformed opinion, and essentially says that Erasmus was an uninformed dummy. In fact, Erasmus was so skillful in his work, that over 500 years since his publication of the New Testament his works are STILL considered authoritative.
More to the point is the fact that from his own study, Erasmus knew that there were certain corruptions that had entered into the Latin versions of the NT, because he compared the then-current editions of the Latin New Testament with the Magnum Opus of Jerome, his Vulgate (common) edition. And the ONLY reason why Erasmus included the diusputed texts into his second edition is that some obscure Monk found an anonymous Greek m****cript with the disputed texts in it. Because that Greek New Testament has never been found anywhere in the 500 years since, there is a strong belief that the m****cript presented to Erasmus was a forgery.
Finally, there is the congruence to other Scriptures to consider. Since Evangelicals believe that Scripture is its own, and best interpreter, it is important to understand that if something is mentioned in a disputed text only, there is reasonable doubt that this was an insertion by an unknown scribe for an unknown reason and for an unknown intent.
If a doctrine is taught in one place in the Bible, it will be repeated, and repeated clearly. That doctrine is called the "Perspicuity of Scripture", and it is obvious that the Mormon authors of the above-cited article do not hold to that. That being said, there is a remote possibility that that rogue copiest who did the insertion did so with the incident of Paul being bit by a snake in Acts 28:3. However it is only conjecture, and since there are no other verses that mention not being harmed by vipers, it is not a good idea to go audition for the TV reality show "Snake Salvation"
Therefore the intent of the poster is exposed as well as the sources he uses.
Christians be of good cheer, for there is no hammer that can flatten the Word of God. all the poster is doing is using a small plastic pretend hammer to destroy the Bible.
I am happy that thanks to realfakehair, I could see Berrie's attempt of taking a pea shooter and hopefully knocking out a M1 A1 Army tank. (Yeah, I like ****ogies in case you haven't guessed)