"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblical!

[Godfly]

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

Boy, did you just imply that I am unsaved trash?! Even King James made mistakes. After all, his Bible also contained the Apocrypha, but we all know THAT isn't really part of the Bible either.

For more info, follow the link I provided.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Jo...8Translated%29

"Thanks for your superb analysis, Michael, from which I learned immensely.

I would never! No, I went to this conservapedia link and the author seemed to be bad mouthing the KJV. Which we all know is the only real Bible. He was using other versions of the Bible to support his argument, which is just silly, when we have a perfect version of the bible to read from.

But perhaps I misread something. You Brother Basher are one of the finest Christian's I've ever had the pleasure to read about online.

[Meek and Humble]

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

I don't care what may or may not have been in the original. The story is in the ONE TRUE BIBLE 1611 KVJ! Unsaved trash may read whatever bible they like, but if they're lookin for a map to Heaven, It's 1611 KVJ or they may as well read a romance novel for all the good it does them.

Boy, did you just imply that I am unsaved trash?! Even King James made mistakes. After all, his Bible also contained the Apocrypha, but we all know THAT isn't really part of the Bible either.

For more info, follow the link I provided.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Jo...8Translated%29

"Thanks for your superb analysis, Michael, from which I learned immensely.

For the record, the ideological objection is not to how liberals "twist" this passage, but how the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful. It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor." Historical analysis can prove that to be non-authentic; political analysis can reach the same conclusion more efficiently and with a high degree of certitude.

Jesus did not forgive without repentance, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus did not comment on capital punishment, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus was not permissive about adultery, yet the Adulteress Story He was. Older people are not always wiser than younger ones, yet the Adulteress Story claims they are. And so on."

[Godfly]

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

Original Bible manuscripts do not contain this story. So, fellow Christians, we do not have to care about this silly statement that Jesus never really said!

I don't care what may or may not have been in the original. The story is in the ONE TRUE BIBLE 1611 KVJ! Unsaved trash may read whatever bible they like, but if they're lookin for a map to Heaven, It's 1611 KVJ or they may as well read a romance novel for all the good it does them.

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

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

You know, I've always read that verse to mean that if there was a group of people who wanted to stone somebody, and as long as the person who threw the very first rock was without sin, then the stoning was A OK with God.

[eliot mayfield]

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

That's a very good post. I always just figured since Jesus washed my sins away I was free to cast the first stone. Now I see there's even more reason to cast the first stone!

[Meek and Humble]

It's true! The passage from John 8:1-11, which contains the story of the adulteress who Jesus saves from being stoned - was NOT part of the original Bible! It was added in hundreds of years later by LIBERALS (inspired by SATAN, as they are in all things), to stop Christians from judging them. Original Bible manuscripts do not contain this story. So, fellow Christians, we do not have to care about this silly statement that Jesus never really said!

For more information, read this article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Jo...8Translated%29

"There are actually two issues relating to this passage, one of import to the textual scholars and translators ("Is it original to the Gospel of John?"), the other of interest to the theologians and historians ("Did this event actually happen?"). Since I am functioning primarily as a translator here, I will deal with the first question . . . uh, first.



Scholars have long accepted that the first and best source for evidence regarding the authenticity of any passage in scripture is the "combined" testimony of the "witnesses" (manuscripts and letters from early church Fathers), and that of these, the earlier the witness, the stronger the case (taking into consideration such things as the frequency of demonstrable errors, which can reflect on the reliability of the entire manuscript, and the condition of the leaves in the manuscript). Of the earliest witnesses, only P66 is seriously suspect (having as many as 5 times more demonstrable errors than P75), and discounting the "intentional corruption" theories of the "KJV only" crowd (for which there is not one single shred of actual evidence), it is reasonable and logical to place the highest degree of authority on the combined testimony of P66 (with reservations), P75, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus and Bezae Cantabrigeinsis when evaluating the Gospel of John, as these are the seven oldest complete or nearly complete copies of John in existence.


Here is their testimony concerning this passage: It appears ONLY in one of this group (Ephraemi Rescriptus), meaning that in the oldest manuscripts, 86% claim it is not original. When further taking into consideration that if you expand this search out to include all copies of John for the first 800 years of Christianity, the case becomes even stronger, rising to over 90% of all manuscripts which do not include it. With this evidence, the case against it being original to the gospel of John approaches near certainty.



Contrast this with the case for or against Mark 16:9-20, and this becomes even more glaring. Where the story of the adulteress is found in less than 10% of all manuscripts in the first 800 years of Christianity, the last 12 verses of Mark are only missing from about 10% of all manuscripts in the first 800 years of Christianity. Of the five oldest complete Bibles, it is missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and is present in Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, an Bezae Cantabrigeinsis (and Vaticanus has a blank space exactly large enough to include it, where no other NT book in Vaticanus ends with a blank space). This makes the case among the oldest manuscripts FOR the inclusion either 60% or 80% (depending on how the blank space in Vaticanus is interpreted), but when the parameters are extended out to the first 800 years of Christianity, we find an almost reversal of the passage with the Adulteress, where nearly 90% of all manuscripts INCLUDE the last 12 verses of Mark.



It should be clear from this that the case against the adulteress passage being original is quite overwhelming, and thus, barring a new manuscript discovery which could cast new light on this matter, we can conclude with a high degree of certainty that John did NOT author these 11 verses.



At this point I would like to note the following: When considering the authenticity of this passage, I couldn't care less how the liberals, atheists, Buddhist, Muslims, Homosexuals, PTA members, Senators, Boy Scouts, Red Hatters, Kewanis Club Members or anyone else does or does not twist the meaning of this or any other passage of scripture. Their ignorance or insight has no bearing on Truth.



Now we come to the second question: "Did this event actually happen?"



While we know that John is not the author of this passage, that does not automatically mean the event did not occur. In fact, when examining the evidence, we discover that while the evidence for its exclusion from John is overwhelming, the opposite is true when it comes to an independent examination of whether or not this event actually happened: the evidence is overwhelming that this event, or something very close to it, actually did occur.



The forgiving of the adulteress is mentioned in passing by at least one early church father (Papias) PRIOR to the creation of the earliest existing copies of the gospel of John. That is a HUGE bit of evidence. Further, not only is it repeatedly mentioned by early church fathers in the second, third and fourth centuries, but Jerome (fifth century) goes so far as to claim those who exclude it are the ones who are distorting scripture. The key thing to note is that none of the early church fathers from the first three centuries claim that it is found in the Gospel according to John (Jerome is the first to make that claim), but nearly all of them seem to know the story.



Examining the combination of everyone in the first few centuries of Christianity seeming to know the story, yet it being absent from nearly all existing manuscripts from that same time period, has led nearly all modern Biblical scholars (both conservative and liberal) to conclude that while it is clearly NOT original to John, it appears to be the one and only example of an actual event in Jesus' life which was transmitted down through the first few centuries via oral tradition, and was later written down and added to John so that it would not be lost to future generations.



So, in the same way that the evidence for its exclusion from John is overwhelming, the evidence for it being an actual historically accurate event is also overwhelming.



Which brings us to my conclusion.



While the bible contains an accurate account of many historical events, it is much, much more than a history book. While it contains the purest and most accurate explanations of philosophical and theological doctrines, it is much more than merely a book of doctrine or philosophy. The Bible is God-breathed. It is the Word of God in a way that no other book can ever claim to be. Many books can be completely accurate when it comes to the transmission of the events recorded within their pages (I and II Maccabees comes to mind), but there is an eternity of difference between accurate history and being God-breathed. The reason it matters to me what is and is not original, the reason I have spent so many decades studying the contents of as many of the existing manuscripts as I can get my hands on, is that I want to hear and read the one and only God-breathed book in existence, and I want it to be as uncluttered as is possible to make it.



Jesus did LOTS of things that did not make it into the Bible. God knows why that is, and I will not second guess His wisdom and knowledge. In His book, God tells us what He has decided we NEED to know, but rarely does He tell us everything we WANT to know. So I can say with a very high degree of certainty that the events described in this account probably DID happen, and I can also say with a very high degree of certainty that the record of those events, while probably being very accurate, are NOT God-breathed, and thus, they do not belong in the bible.



Can we learn from them? Absolutely, but do NOT place this account on the same level as the Bible. It is better placed along side the writings of such notable authors as Jerome, Eusebius, Tertullian, and Augustine, or if this works better for you, Andy Stanley, Ravi Zacharias, Chuck Colson, and Charles Swindoll.



Again, the fact that liberals twist the meaning of this passage is of no relevance to me or to this issue. They twist every "judge not" statement in the entire Bible. That is their job, and their job has no bearing on Truth."