Thread: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblical!
View Single Post
(#25)
Old
A Follower's Avatar
A Follower A Follower is offline
True Christian™
True Christian™

Protected by JESUS True Scientist™ True Christian™ Heaven Bound Real American™ 1st Year Bible College 2nd Year Bible College Friend of Jesus Tell her once One Year/1000 posts Porn Resistant Ex-Masturbator Ready for the Rapture True Christian Caucasian Saved 1 Year Pro-Life Christian Love 3rd Year Bible College Touched by Jesus Flat Earth TC Bravery Saved 10 Years

 
Posts: 871
Join Date: Jan 2010
A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!A Follower will sit at the right hand of Jesus Himself come the Glory!
Default Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic - 02-23-2010, 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen_Basher View Post
http://www.conservapedia.com/John_8-14_(Translated)

"The evidence is overwhelming that verses 1 - 11 are not original to John. See Essay:Adulteress Story for an extended examination of the issues relating to this passage, including the talk pages of that essay. You can also see the wikipedia article on this story, which contains a very detailed and accurate listing of the textual evidence relating to this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery (the one note I would make relating to the textual evidence is that most scholars now agree that P66 and P75 are second century documents, not third century, as this article states). See the talk page here for an explanation of my views and reasoning regarding this passage, including why I believe this event actually happened, but still hold that it should NOT be included in the bible. "
So a link to wikipedia is supposed to be enough to support your heresy? Could you please say who these "scholars" are, and whether it's true they are all affiliated with the Vatican? If the passage is wrong, why didn't God have the passage removed or changed when He had the KJV written back in the early 17th century? Or included your "evidence" somewhere in a footnote?

If a random wikipedia article is enough for you to conclude God is not omnipotent, that the Bible is incorrect, that you are a better arbiter of truth than Jesus, that all those admonitions from the Word of God saying that it is accurate and to the last comma, and that it will always remain true, what other changes to Gods Word do you have in store for us? And don't bother claiming you're some sort of prophet, the Bible tells us no prophet will change or invalidate earlier prophecies or laws.

Leviticus 26:15-16
And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.
Reply With Quote