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

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! :D

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."

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!

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

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.

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

Boy, did you just imply that I am unsaved trash?! :angry: 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."

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

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.

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

Just because you hacked a True Christian's account on this website doesn't mean your words suddenly have more value. What proof do you have you are not Unsaved Trash? You interpret the Bible, while the KJV says:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You back up your cutting up of the Bible by pointing to distortions of our Lord's Holy Word. False Bibles can only obscure the True Meaning of the Bible. Please search these Godly forums for plenty explanations why picking and choosing your own Bible is evil.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" simply means non-Christians aren't allowed to punish or judge anyone, because non-Christians are all sinners. The right to punish is a right beholden to True Christians™ because only they are without sin.

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

This forum is protected by Jesus Christ so you can rest assured all the True Christians™ here are indeed True Christians™.

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

Heathen Basher's disregard for this one of God's commandments, will soon lead to him disregarding pretty much all of the Lord's rulings and judgments, it all sounds more akin a pedophile papist's rants than anything a True Christian™ would utter.

If this is really Heathen Basher he'd better go to a Pastor as soon as possible, before God makes his eyes rot away (relevant scripture is in my signature).

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

Everyone of you is going to calm their butts down before you all end up in the tool shed with Pastor Zeke and company!

I am warning you, such insults will not be tolerated. We do not insult Christians on this site.

Don't make me stop this thread!

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

I have never been so shocked and offended in my life! My only relief is I know that Jesus shall bless me for this unfair persecution :(


"Just a little note. In the same way that it is unprofessional to conclude, with no qualifications, that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8, it would be equally unprofessional to state, with no qualifications, that the adulteress story "is true." The more professional and responsible statement would be to state that, "the combined evidence of early church fathers and hundreds of the oldest Greek manuscripts suggest both that the story MAY be true, and that it was most likely NOT originally part of the Bible (missing from 90% of all Greek manuscripts prior to 900 AD)." Likewise, the more professional and responsible comment for Mark 16:8 would be, "Although Mark's gospel ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest manuscripts, the combined evidence of early church fathers and hundreds of the oldest Greek manuscripts suggests that the longer ending is 'more likely' the original ending (found in 90% of all Greek manuscripts prior to 900 AD.""

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

Which of God's commandments did he disregard?

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

I am so conflicted! I've always looked up to Brother Basher for guidance, and yet the scripture you're pointing out cannot be denied.

It does seem to me that Brother Basher has been spending more and more time alone, praying far into the night. Could sleep deprivation have made him urge us to disregard those passages? Or...should we actually disregard them?

Has someone really hacked into Basher's account? I am very upset.

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

I do not think that this story is artificial and introduced by liberals. I must defend the newer members Godfly and A Follower, since they both reaffirm the fact that as Christians, the AV1611 KJV is the only True Word of God©.

It is important to remember that this story does not mean Jesus permits people to sin at will, or is against capital punishment. Jesus tells the Pharisees (Jews) that if they are without sin, then they can cast the first stone. Since they are Jews, and haven't accepted Christ as their savior, then they have sin.

We must also heed Jesus's final words..."Go and sin no more". This is a commandment to not sin again. Yet a liberal "Christian" will tell you that Christians aren't perfect and sin all the time, yet here is Jesus telling these false Christians "No, you are wrong. I expect my followers to not sin at all!"

I understand that liberal false Christians have hijacked this story and turned it into a "thou shalt not judge" allegory, but nothing could be further than the truth. What this story illustrates is that only a True Christian™ is without sin (and therefore can cast the first stone) and that Jesus expects True Christians™ to never sin again.

This story is very important to me as a pastor, since it gives me the license to freely judge and rebuke others at my will. Since I am without sin, I have the right to cast the first stone. Yet, if we are to consider this story artificial, then by what right can I lovingly rebuke heathens?

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

Thank you for clearing that up Pastor, I was starting to get confused.

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

Thank you for your wise words, Reverend. We're all blessed that the Bible allows you to lovingly cast stones at heathens.

I will pray to God to make the warnings HB dished out in his anger disappear, so none of us will be reminded of any unkind things said in the heat of the moment.

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

While you might have been right I think "it all sounds more akin a pedophile papist's rants than anything" is not a proper way to address a True Christian™.

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

A so-called True Christian™ telling me and everyone who visits this site the Bible is wrong is no way to treat anyone, not fellow Christians, not even heathens, and far worse than a few words that might be misconstrued as an insult, but in reality were solely meant to shock HB awake and out of the devil's clutches.

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

I don't doubt you meant well.

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

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. "

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

So...the passages John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 are still in? I pulled them out after reading Brother Basher's warning

:(

I'm confused ! !

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

So Reverend, and I'm speaking purely hypothetically here, let's say you and I were somewhere we could apply the laws of the Bible. And there was a homer, or a disobedient child, or some such sinner we needed to stone. But we were the only True Christians™ around and we needed help.

Could we get some false Christians to help us stone the sinner, as long as you or I threw the first couple of rocks? I've always been worried I might find myself in a situation like this and I wouldn't know what God would want me to do.

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

I am so very conflicted at this point. Is Brother HB correct, I just do not know what to think. I feel the need for a warm glass of milk and the KJV1611. I will have to pray to God long and hard over this major set back.

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.

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

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.

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

I think we need to excuse the confusion of Brother Basher. He has not been himself lately. Why just this afternoon I saw him riding his bicycle to the grocery store! I asked him why he wasn't driving his F350 and his response, and I may be slightly paraphrasing here, was "I'm only picking up a carton of juice and I figured I would save some gas. And it's better for the environment."

I of course do not need to point out to those who know him how very odd it was to hear those words from him. I do hope he is alright.

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

I would also like to clarify that I did not mean to imply that Brother Basher is anything other than a True Christian. I am however very suspicious of the person who wrote the article at conservapedia. I have been taken advantage of by false Christians in the past and they can be very clever at sounding like True Christian's in order to gain our trust. Then they say something foolish like"The Assemblies of God recognizes value in and accepts the usefulness of several Bible translations."

Here are some things that the author writes that invalidate his argument.

-Since I am functioning primarily as a translator here

Why would he function as translator when God already translated the Bible into English.

-Scholars have long accepted

We always get in trouble when we listen to scholars and not Pastors.

-discounting the "intentional corruption" theories of the "KJV only" crowd (for which there is not one single shred of actual evidence)

Is he scoffing at us?

-as these are the seven oldest complete or nearly complete copies of John in existence.

He failed to add flawed! John wasn't perfect until God translated it into English in the 1611 KJV.

Fear not Brother Basher. Many of us have been taken in by charlatans. But we will always have other True Christians to set us back on the right path.

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

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.

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

Does that matter? Doesn't the fact that God allowed it to be in there mean that it is supposed to be in there? I can understand why catholics being involved would make you suspicious, but I am sure the Holy Spirit inspired the translators of King James to keep it in there for a good reason.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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"

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...

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

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.

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"

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. :thumbdown:

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. :lol:

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

"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."

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.