[A Follower]

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?

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.

[Cranky Old Man]

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.

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(tm).

[A Follower]

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™.

A so-called True Christian(tm) 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.

[Cranky Old Man]

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

were solely meant to shock HB awake and out of the devil's clutches

I don't doubt you meant well.

[Meek and Humble]

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.

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. "

[Mistress Cookie]

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©.

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 ! !

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

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?

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.

[James Dewitt]

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.

[Meek and Humble]

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 ! !

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.

[A Follower]

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. "

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.

[Professor Bessemer]

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.

[Godfly]

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©.

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.

[Meek and Humble]

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.

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

[Mistress Cookie]

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.

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.

[Cranky Old Man]

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

It was Catholics who added it into the Bible, just as they added the apocrypha

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.