Sign in to follow this  
constantine319

Serpent-Handling Pastor Dies From Rattlesnake Bite

Recommended Posts

Mack Wolford was a pastor who preached that handling snakes was a way to prove he's, uh, ... well I'm not sure how to concisely sum this up without ruining it for you. So you should read the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/serpent-handling-pastor-profiled-earlier-in-washington-post-dies-from-rattlesnake-bite/2012/05/29/gJQAJef5zU_story.html

interesting... thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This unfortunate experience does not negate the quoted bible verses, only their misinterpretation as a side-show antic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A candidate for a Darwin award.

I did see lots of comments on the original article along the same lines XD

This unfortunate experience does not negate the quoted bible verses, only their misinterpretation as a side-show antic.

agreed! a friend pointed out to me that snakes could be a metaphor for non-believers or religious antagonists, which I felt resonates well with the scripture.

Rev. Rattlesnake has

"a lot to answer for", doesn't he? :jest:

bwahahahahahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing about the snake handling is the verse used to verify the action wasn't even a part of the original Gospel of Mark and was added years later.

All the early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at Mark 16:8 "

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

See the earliest extant copy of the New testament Codex Sinaiticus

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoomSlider=0

So the whole basis for the snake handling is a forgery lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny thing about the snake handling is the verse used to verify the action wasn't even a part of the original Gospel of Mark and was added years later.

All the early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at Mark 16:8 "

So they went out quickly and fled from the tomb, for they trembled and were amazed. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

See the earliest extant copy of the New testament Codex Sinaiticus

http://www.codexsina...=8&zoomSlider=0

So the whole basis for the snake handling is a forgery lol

wow!! haha that's so crazy. the things you learn...

thanks for sharing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Fawzo is correct as to vs 9-20 not appearing in the Sinaiticus (and also Vaticanus), other early manuscripts have variations of these verses and the passages (vs 9-20) are quoted in the 2nd and 3rd century by Hippolytus and Irenaeus. They are considered authentic by Catholic as well as Protestant faiths otherwise they would not be in the canon.

We cannot say in surety that the were not even a part of the original gospel or that the verses are forgery (forgery of what, Fawzo?) - that we do not know, we only know our current earliest copies do not contain the verses. Therefore, as Christians, we can have certain doubt as to whether they are to be considered "gospel" even though included. Either way, I do not see that as a discrediting of scripture. No one, IMO, is trying to hide the facts, and if some are ignorant of them, whose fault is that? It does, however, support my position that the bible, although God inspired, is not word for word inerrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of patristic evidence from the late 2nd century for the existence of copies of Mark with the "Longer Ending," it is contended by a majority of scholars that the "Longer Ending" must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century.[2] Scholars are divided on the question of whether the "Longer Ending" was created deliberately to finish the Gospel of Mark (as contended by James Kelhoffer) or if it began its existence as a freestanding text which was used to "patch" the otherwise abruptly ending text of Mark. Its failure to smoothly pick up the narrative from the scene at the end of 16:8 is a point in favor of the latter option. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether Mark originally stopped writing at 16:8—and if he did so, if it was deliberate or not—or if he continued writing an ending which is now lost. Allusions to a future meeting in Galilee between Jesus and the disciples (in Mark 14:28 and 16:7) seem to suggest that Mark intended to write beyond 16:8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

One can read many of the opinions of the different experts and decide for themselves.

Then there is always the evidence and the issue of the Secret of Gospel of Mark of which our Brother Hex is an expert on.

Edited by Fawzo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like footprints in the sand. Or the hills of Appalachia. עִמָּנוּאֵל

1215220510cheqianzi-plntagoa-asiatica.gif

Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. ~ Gen 28:16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article only feeds into worst stereotypes of the rattlesnake community. We've made great strides in the march for equality and recognition for rattler kind....which is extremely hard to do considering we have no legs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like footprints in the sand. Or the hills of Appalachia. עִמָּנוּאֵל

1215220510cheqianzi-plntagoa-asiatica.gif

Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. ~ Gen 28:16

Of course, Genesis 28:16 does not quite say that - and I am not referring to LORD in place of the tetragrammaton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article only feeds into worst stereotypes of the rattlesnake community. We've made great strides in the march for equality and recognition for rattler kind....which is extremely hard to do considering we have no legs!

Well if your Ancestors weren't so busy running around chasing naked women and enticing them with fruit God wouldn't have had to cut off their legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if your Ancestors weren't so busy running around chasing naked women and enticing them with fruit God wouldn't have had to cut off their legs.

Isn't it convenient that history is written by those with hands to hold pencils...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if your Ancestors weren't so busy running around chasing naked women and enticing them with fruit God wouldn't have had to cut off their legs.

The serpent was in sales. It's not his fault if he was good at his job. And the fact that people talk about it after all these years, I think he *really* got skipped for employee of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy serpents with a sense of humor like Rev Rattlesnake and, of course, Monty Python.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy serpents with a sense of humor like Rev Rattlesnake and, of course, Monty Python.

Or Kurt Russell as "Snake" Plissken in Escape from New York and Escape from L.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The serpent was in sales. It's not his fault if he was good at his job. And the fact that people talk about it after all these years, I think he *really* got skipped for employee of the year.

I heard they did hold a roast for him though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Genesis 28:16 does not quite say that - and I am not referring to LORD in place of the tetragrammaton.

I don't think I follow ya, Rabbi. I chose that chapter for the reference to Jacob's Ladder (another fine snakebite remedy) and for the allusion that the Lord isn't only where we expect to find Him. I know it wasn't a full quote of the verse, but if my understanding is in error I'd appreciate some enlightenment. :)

Edited by Kingfisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I follow ya, Rabbi. I chose that chapter for the reference to Jacob's Ladder (another fine snakebite remedy) and for the allusion that the Lord isn't only where we expect to find Him. I know it wasn't a full quote of the verse, but if my understanding is in error I'd appreciate some enlightenment. :)

What Jacob actually says - according to the verse - is

אכן יש ה' במקום הזה ואנכי לא ידעתי

Surely YHWH is in this place and I I did not know it.

There is no punctuation in the Torah and so the exact meaning of what Jacob says is open to interpretation. Depending on how you punctuate it, and depending, in part, how you read "anochi" which means "I", but also denotes "myself" you either have an emphasis of surprise that G-d is in this place or a perhaps more subtle meaning - "YHWH is in this place and myself [in me], I did not know it.

Just food for thought.

Edited by RabbiO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this