It's a landslide! The Yeses win! Or, actually, the Yes. Singular.
I had to vote "other" because it's a trick question, a contradiction of terms if taken very literally, (as believers should do except when they don't.)
If a "deadly drink" does NOT kill you when ingested, then it wasn't a deadly drink in that particular case, by definition. I would have called it a "poisonous drink." But I don't blame Jesus for this misstep of language in this case, because (aside from not knowing if "deadly" is a good translation) that verse is also part of Mark 16:9-20 (12 verses!) which do not appear in the earliest manuscripts of Mark. The verses were simply made up by scribes or someone and added because of the cliffhanger ending of Mark 16:8. They probably didn't like that kind of abrupt ending to "Mark", so took an opportunity to fix things. Nice Omnipotence there.
But I am certain that our resident agnostic/atheists have scholarly credentials that clearly outclass Mr Scrivener's, Mr Burgon's, and many others.
Of course.
Funny--your sarcasm and meaness exceeds mine!
Obviously I don't really know WHY or when scribes or whomever did add Mark 16:9-20 did so, and I am obviously going to take a more cynical viewpoint than the faithful "tripe"-haters such as you and the esteemed scholar Scrivener. Interesting, though, that in spite of all that Greek you linked to, (which I don't pretend to follow) every Bible I have containing Mark 16:9-20 does honestly notate in margin something such as "Vss 9-20 do not appear in earliest manuscripts."
The article you linked is mostly proving that in spite of not being written by "Mark" the early church fathers still regarded the verses as "canonical." No great surprise there. Per Scrivener's concluding sentence,
<<So powerfully is it vouched for, that many of those who are reluctant to recognize St. Mark as its author, are content to regard it notwithstanding as an integral portion of the inspired record originally delivered to the Church.>>
Ah... the powerful vouching by others! IOW, some early fathers, although knowing the verses were not authored by Mark, they were still "content to regard it as canon."
Bruce Metzger implies similarly, article directly above the linked Scrivener, thus,
<<There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.>>.
So there ya go, "Ought to be accepted as canon" although known to be not authored by Mark.
Nice faith. Er, uh, I mean nice evidence, there. Canonicity is so.....so, divinely-inspired!
I had to vote "other" because it's a trick question, a contradiction of terms if taken very literally, (as believers should do except when they don't.)
If a "deadly drink" does NOT kill you when ingested, then it wasn't a deadly drink in that particular case, by definition. I would have called it a "poisonous drink." . . .
You're overthinking it. I think. A reasonable way of reading the verse is something that the would normally be deadly will not hurt -- and not kill -- a true believer. It's a sign, after all.
Also, you seem to have answered "Other" in theological terms, which is fine. I simply answered "Yes" in terms of reality . It's what will happen if I drink a deadly thing. (Some believers agree, as it turns out. )
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Also, you seem to have answered "Other" in theological terms, which is fine. I simply answered "Yes" in terms of reality . It's what will happen if I drink a deadly thing. (Some believers agree, as it turns out. )
Good point, I was hastily answering having Jesus' supposed words in view rather than the actual poll question in view. I should change my answer to "Yes" assuming the deadly drink was deadly ENOUGH.
On the other hand, "Don't Know" is good too, since I would hope to call CDC in Atlanta and ask whether there's a chemical antidote for what I drank.
Aren't there any AFF Christians who believe "No harm" in the common, literal sense?
Timmy 
A reasonable way of reading the verse is something that the would normally be deadly will not hurt -- and not kill -- a true believer. It's a sign, after all.
Hybrid Mode
