[James Dewitt]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Okay, I fished the Mark ones out of the fireplace and I'm taping them back in. I can't find the John ones. Those might have gone in the garbage. But I'll look for them and just set them aside for now.

Maybe there needs to be a Town Council meeting about this?? It's really an important issue, and I want to get to the bottom of it, along with you.

I agree Mistress, and don't worry I have a brand new spare KJV1611 for you . I always keep 4 or5 extra.

[Godfly]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Okay, I fished the Mark ones out of the fireplace and I'm taping them back in. I can't find the John ones. Those might have gone in the garbage. But I'll look for them and just set them aside for now.

Maybe there needs to be a Town Council meeting about this?? It's really an important issue, and I want to get to the bottom of it, along with you.

You can just take the KJV from the overnight bag I left at your house during the last stradagy session for Pastor Zeke. Keep it with my complements.

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Don't be silly. It was Catholics who added it into the Bible, just as they added the apocrypha. That was also in the KJV, but that doesn't mean it's inspired.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Es...ulteress_Story

Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious

The apocrypha are clearly marked in the KJV as not really belonging in the Bible. The passage you want scrapped is not marked in any special way.

I have now read all the comments on the conservapedia site. Not one of the commenters seems to be a religious scholar. One claims he will inform the vatican. The argument for removal is led by only one person, others on his side write at most one message. The claims aren't backed up well, all he does is claim it's liberal (even though the pastor here and several people on that site explain it isn't) , and as far as finding scholars who support him goes, he manages to find one scholar who isn't sure it should be in the Bible, but is sure it's a truthful story. No other evidence or scholars on his side are available.

I think you really should listen to the Reverend, and accept that the Bible is correct.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

"Atheism and much of liberal ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adulteress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a liberal political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony"

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

"Atheism and much of liberal ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adulteress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a liberal political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony"

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, it looks like my earlier post about catholicism wasn't far of the mark.

I've seen that claim, it is wrong. The Bible is not liberal or atheistic. Even the specific verses you want to remove features Jesus Himself, how is that atheist? What's liberal about denying rights to unbelievers as those verses command us to do?

Just look at yourself, you are not answering any of the questions I have for you, nor do you submit to the wise guidance of the Pastor, nor are your claims backed up by Scripture, all you have in support of your theories is some crackpot commenters on a wacky liberal site. None of the commenters there is God. Do you have any idea how much your behavior looks like the behavior of the countless heathen drones that invade this Godly site every day? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny...

[Godfly]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:Adulteress_Story

"Atheism and much of liberal ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adulteress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a liberal political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony"

Please turn away from this terrible course. You who have guided so many toward righteousness! You talk about "evidence" but what are you going to believe, evidence or the Word of God? You are falling into the trap of the evilootionists, and atheists, who talk about this and that evidence or lack of evidence. The story is in THE Bible! It is there and so it is true. Any of this so called "evidence" is rendered moot by that fact.

Please stop this foolish quest Brother. The Truth is right there for you to see in black and white.

We all agree that the liberals have perverted the Truth. But don't let that fool you into cutting up your Bible.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, it looks like my earlier post about catholicism wasn't far of the mark.

I've seen that claim, it is wrong. The Bible is not liberal or atheistic. Even the specific verses you want to remove features Jesus Himself, how is that atheist? What's liberal about denying rights to unbelievers as those verses command us to do?

Just look at yourself, you are not answering any of the questions I have for you, nor do you submit to the wise guidance of the Pastor, nor are your claims backed up by Scripture, all you have in support of your theories is some crackpot commenters on a wacky liberal site. None of the commenters there is God. Do you have any idea how much your behavior looks like the behavior of the countless heathen drones that invade this Godly site every day? If it wasn't so sad it would be funny...

"Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible"

[Samuel Coleridge]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

No, no, Sister. Mark 16:9-20 were ALWAYS a part of the Bible, in 90% of all early manuscripts.

John 8:1-11, on the other hand, is ABSENT from 90% of all early manuscripts.

Ah yes. Let's now subtract the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient to your right wing views.

Luther tried the same thing with the book of James because he found he couldn't reconcile it with the Pauline letters.

I see how it is with you fundies now.
And you always accuse us of ignoring the parts we don't like.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Ah yes. Let's now subtract the parts of the Bible that are inconvenient to your right wing views.

Luther tried the same thing with the book of James because he found he couldn't reconcile it with the Pauline letters.

I see how it is with you fundies now.
And you always accuse us of ignoring the parts we don't like.

"I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that most scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John."

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John

Which proves the point I made before that even though it perhaps is missing from the original scripture the Holy Spirit clearly guided us to get it in the KJV1611 Holy Bible. Probably some evil person tried to twist the Bible by stealing some pages but our Almighty LORD just fixed that on the spot. Praise Jesus.

Shall we now stop bickering about this and relax a bit with our 100% perfect KJV1611 Holy Bibles? We have evil Icelanders to deal with.

[Godfly]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which proves the point I made before that even though it perhaps is missing from the original scripture the Holy Spirit clearly guided us to get it in the KJV1611 Holy Bible. Probably some evil person tried to twist the Bible by stealing some pages but our Almighty LORD just fixed that on the spot. Praise Jesus.

Shall we now stop bickering about this and relax a bit with our 100% perfect KJV1611 Holy Bibles? We have evil Icelanders to deal with.

AMEN!

[True Disciple]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

"Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adulteress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible"

"I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that most scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is true, just not put there by John."

Brother Basher, I'm nothing short of shocked! There are few people whom I hold in such high regard on Biblical Issues as you.
Could you please direct me to these scholars? I always supposed that the Bible didn't change since it was written in 1611.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which part of "shall we now stop bickering about this" did you not get?

The KJV1611 Holy Bible is 100% perfect, let's please keep it at that.

[True Disciple]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Which part of "shall we now stop bickering about this" did you not get?

The KJV1611 Holy Bible is 100% perfect, let's please keep it at that.

I'm sorry, Brother. I think I was a little confused, and a false Christian was mocking us on this thread, so I thought: "well, maybe we should sort this out."
Eskimo activity seems to have decreased somewhat, after all.

[garcia]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

our English translation of the bible is not inspired the Hebrew and Greek bible are. Amen so it does not really matter what English version you prefer or like. let the holy spirit guide you and you will find the truth. Amen.