Forgery in the Bible

Wormwood · Feb 6, 2014

Quantril,

It seems you didn't read the quotes from the commentaries I provided. If you had it would have answered your questions about smoothness of the proposed reading.

1. Many of the oldest and best manuscripts of John do not have this text and proceed seamlessly from 7:52 to 8:12.
[SIZE=medium] 2. Among those manuscripts that do have 7:53–8:11, some have it at different locations, including after 7:36, after 7:44, after 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Again, it seems you are back at the "its already there so its supposed to be there." Again, that depends on the Bible (or manuscript). If we view early manuscripts as "Bibles" then the early Bibles did not have this text. In fact, some manuscripts have the story in Luke's Gospel rather than John's. I have no doubt the event took place. I just don't think it is original to John's Gospel. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Your comment about scholarship is unfortunate. To blow off people who spend their entire lives studying the Scriptures as "a dime a dozen" because they don't agree with your presuppositions makes it clear that there is no point in having this discussion.[/SIZE]

DaDad,

Hmmm. I'm afraid you have gone way out of any type of hermeneutical approach that I am comfortable with. Interpreting Scriptures by combining numerology with date forecasting is not a responsible interpretive method in my opinion. I have seen these methods in all kinds of predictive Bible code attempts that fall flat. I find these codes undermine any serious study of what the text actually says in efforts to piecemeal numbers and formulas from the Bible to conveniently bring us to modern day events in Israel for the purpose of predicting the Second Coming. Here are some brief problems I see with your "navigator."

1. Daniel wrote his prophecy when Israel was in exile. The "rebuilding" that was being spoken of is clearly speaking of that which he and all Israel in that day was looking forward to and had been promised after the 70 year exile in Babylon. To leapfrog that by jumping over to the Psalms to apply a year to book ratio that lands us at 1948 is to rip the prophecy completely out of its immediate context.
2. The incarnation and the cross of Christ is the most significant event in human history that dealt with sin and ushered in the righteousness of God and the Kingdom of God. Jesus said that ALL of the law and prophets pointed to him. According to you, Daniel does not..but rather to 1948. It is mindboggling to me to think that Daniel's prophecy of God providing righteousness to his people and eliminating their sin would have nothing to do with Jesus.
3. Worst of all is this wild attempt to tie books to centuries and chapters to years is just another wild attempt to find ways to make the Bible a code book to predict events. The message of the Bible is found in its words, not in its chapter and verse numerology (which are anything but standard).

I simply am not interested in scouring the Bible for number codes in a desperate attempt to match them to significant current events. It may sell some books to a prophecy hungry public, but does nothing for those who seek to understand the actual meaning of Daniel or the Psalms. There have been a host of other attempts (88 reasons Jesus will return in 1988, etc.) and all make Christians look foolish and make a mockery out of the Bible.

Quantrill · Feb 7, 2014

Wormwood

All these commentaters said was that it did flow naturally. But others and I am saying it doesn't. 7:53 ends with everyman going to his own house. 8:12 , which is what you and othes say comes next has Jesus speaking unto 'them'. Who is them? Every man went away. But if you have 8:1-11, you see 'them' is the Pharisees that brought the woman in adultry. So I don';t see any proof from your scholars that it flows naturally without 8:1-11.

We should view early manuscripts as the earliest we have. We don't discount other manuscripts either. Some of the earliest manuscripts included the apocrypha. Yet, we reject that also as Scripture.

The fact is John was included in the Canon of the New Testament. And with it was John 8:1-11. Thus, it was accepted as the inspired Word of God. And that is something that your 'text scholars' can't reproduce.

Quantrill

Wormwood · Feb 7, 2014

I (and a host of others) thinks it runs quite smoothly. 7:14 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and in 7:32 we see a break where the Pharisees are sending officers to go arrest Jesus. In 7:37 Jesus is speaking again and in 7:40 the Pharisees are questioning the officers about why he wasn't arrested. In 8:12 Jesus is speaking again and being questioned by the Pharisees directly and it says he wasn't arrested.

Inserting a story about an adulterous woman is foreign to this context. It has nothing to do with an attempt to arrest Jesus and turns the attention of Jesus calling people to believe in him an issue of morality and forgiveness. Not to mention the story reads completely different in Greek from the way John writes throughout the rest of the book.

Actually, my point is when the "canon" was formed, this passage was not there. What "canon" are you talking about? The KJV is not a "canon," its a translation (and the same is true with other Bibles that have these textual discrepancies). Canon has to do with books accepted in the Bible, not specific texts. But when the books were chosen by early church councils as authoritative, this text was likely not there based on the textual evidence.

DaDad · Feb 7, 2014

Wormwood said:
Daniel wrote his prophecy when Israel was in exile. The "rebuilding" that was being spoken of is clearly speaking of that which he and all Israel in that day was looking forward to and had been promised after the 70 year exile in Babylon.

Hi Wormwood,

Thanks for the note back.

I believe that Angel stated that the prophecies are end time; that Young observed that the decree is from GOD, not a Persian King; that Newton observed that the seven and sixty-two are two distinct durations; that Young, Keit, & Kliefoth observed that the seventy shibiym are the inconcise Masculine gender as opposed to the concise Femine gender (which your commentators mistakenly apply); and that Daniel used Solomon wisdom to align the seventy with the Prophecies in the Psalms (which J.R. Church acknowledged, but failed to consider a consequence of Daniel 9:2). And of course there are many other considerations for this 9th Chapter, including the fact that Ben Gurion became the "father of Israel", and Rabin was "cut off". But I'd hate to disturb the carefully crafted false doctrine which so many fallen prey to.

And finally, if you think that reading the Psalms in context with the 1900's is a "number code", then I most strongly suggest that you not read the obvious 1900's coorelation found in Chapters 44, 48, and 91. Also, if you knew about the Neve Shalom in Istanbul, Turkey, I would suggest that you not read Chapter 86. This is not to suggest that there are OTHER significant coorelations including the "dread deeds" (the TWO weapon technologies consisting of the gun-assembled uranium and the implosion plutonium) which were imposed upon Japan in 1945, -- all of which you should avidly avoid reading about in that Book.

With Best Regards,
DaDad

Quantrill · Feb 7, 2014

Wormwood said:
I (and a host of others) thinks it runs quite smoothly. 7:14 Jesus is speaking to the crowd and in 7:32 we see a break where the Pharisees are sending officers to go arrest Jesus. In 7:37 Jesus is speaking again and in 7:40 the Pharisees are questioning the officers about why he wasn't arrested. In 8:12 Jesus is speaking again and being questioned by the Pharisees directly and it says he wasn't arrested.

Inserting a story about an adulterous woman is foreign to this context. It has nothing to do with an attempt to arrest Jesus and turns the attention of Jesus calling people to believe in him an issue of morality and forgiveness. Not to mention the story reads completely different in Greek from the way John writes throughout the rest of the book.

Actually, my point is when the "canon" was formed, this passage was not there. What "canon" are you talking about? The KJV is not a "canon," its a translation (and the same is true with other Bibles that have these textual discrepancies). Canon has to do with books accepted in the Bible, not specific texts. But when the books were chosen by early church councils as authoritative, this text was likely not there based on the textual evidence.

Imagine that.

Except there are not just 40 verses in chapter 7. You see a connection between 7:40 and 8:12. But there are more than 40 verses in Ch. 7. There are 53. But in 45 -52 the conversation is between the Pharisees and officers. Then in 53 everyman goes to his own house. So the 'them' now in 8:12 makes no sense. Unless of course you want to take out 41-53 also. May as well. You already took out 8:1-11. Whats a few more verses.

Again, why don't you include the apocrypha since some of the oldest manuscripts include the Apocrypha?

My point is that when the Canon was formed it inculded the book of John which included 8:1-11. Which is why we have it in the Scripture today. Which is why you must take it out. We don't add it. You remove it, under the banner of 'textual criticism'.

Quantrill

Wormwood · Feb 8, 2014

Quantrill,

I was noting the first verse in the following pericope. I do have the apocrypha, but its not part of the canon. Big difference. My point is that when the Canon was formed the texts we have from that time period do not have John 8:1-11.

Quantrill · Feb 9, 2014

Wormwood said:
Quantrill,

I was noting the first verse in the following pericope. I do have the apocrypha, but its not part of the canon. Big difference. My point is that when the Canon was formed the texts we have from that time period do not have John 8:1-11.

Yes I am aware what you were noting. Which is why I indicated there are more than 40 vesrse in John 7 which lead up to the verses in question. And these give the context and flow of the story. Even if you don't include John 7:53, verses 40-52 shift the attention away from where Jesus was.

John 7:45 " Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? "

These officers went back to the Pharisees and chief priests who had sent them earlier. John. 7:32 " The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. "

All of which means, 8:12 does not fit, which says, "Then spake Jesus again unto them," which is a reference to the Pharisees as 8:13 indicates. "The Pharisees therefore said unto him,".

But 8:12 does fit and flow naturally with the story of the woman taken in adultry as the scene has shifted to the Mount of Olives and the Scribes and Pharisees take this woman to Jesus .

Yes, I know the apocrrypha is not part of the Canon. When I say apocrypha in our discussion I am speaking of the New Testament apocryphal books that were included in some of the oldest manuscripts we have. You indicate that John 8:1-11 is not inculded in the oldest and therefore shouldn't be part of the text. Yet in the oldest we have also some New Testament apocryphal books which were rejected.

Point being: The oldest we have are important, but not the final word.

If the story of the woman taken in adultry was not canonized, it would not be in the Bible today. It is in the Bible, because it was part of inspired Scripture.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 9, 2014

Quantrill said:
Yes I am aware what you were noting. Which is why I indicated there are more than 40 vesrse in John 7 which lead up to the verses in question. And these give the context and flow of the story. Even if you don't include John 7:53, verses 40-52 shift the attention away from where Jesus was.

John 7:45 " Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? "

These officers went back to the Pharisees and chief priests who had sent them earlier. John. 7:32 " The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. "

All of which means, 8:12 does not fit, which says, "Then spake Jesus again unto them," which is a reference to the Pharisees as 8:13 indicates. "The Pharisees therefore said unto him,".

But 8:12 does fit and flow naturally with the story of the woman taken in adultry as the scene has shifted to the Mount of Olives and the Scribes and Pharisees take this woman to Jesus .

Yes, I know the apocrrypha is not part of the Canon. When I say apocrypha in our discussion I am speaking of the New Testament apocryphal books that were included in some of the oldest manuscripts we have. You indicate that John 8:1-11 is not inculded in the oldest and therefore shouldn't be part of the text. Yet in the oldest we have also some New Testament apocryphal books which were rejected.

Point being: The oldest we have are important, but not the final word.

If the story of the woman taken in adultry was not canonized, it would not be in the Bible today. It is in the Bible, because it was part of inspired Scripture.

Quantrill

Just another thing I should add to this, it's not only the fact that it was not part of the most original scripture that we have,

"Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John."

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

Quantrill · Feb 9, 2014

snr5557 said:
Just another thing I should add to this, it's not only the fact that it was not part of the most original scripture that we have,

"Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John."

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

You shouldn't 'add' anything to what I say, because you and I are in total disageement. If you want to say somehthing, fine. But don't present yourself, decepetively, as adding to what I said. You don't

You as an evolutionist must always try and detract from the Word of God, because the Word of God is against your faith in evolution.

Yet Metzger couldnt stop the book of John as being inspired and Canonical. And Metzger couldn't stop the story of the adultress woman being part of John. But now the 'textual critics' want to remove it. Like they know better.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 9, 2014

Quantrill said:
You shouldn't 'add' anything to what I say, because you and I are in total disageement. If you want to say somehthing, fine. But don't present yourself, decepetively, as adding to what I said. You don't

I wasn't adding anything to what you were saying, I was adding information to the debate that was going on. I know we are at a total disagreement, we've been debating each other for days.

You as an evolutionist must always try and detract from the Word of God, because the Word of God is against your faith in evolution.

First, I have already told you that evolution is not a faith, whether you agree or not, it isn't.
Second, when I first heard about this I hadn't even thought of evolution as being related to it. Because it isn't. It is about the history of the Bible/
Third, not all evolutionists are seeking out ways to detract from God. Do some? Yes, but not all. You really shouldn't generalize people like that.

Yet Metzger couldnt stop the book of John as being inspired and Canonical. And Metzger couldn't stop the story of the adultress woman being part of John. But now the 'textual critics' want to remove it. Like they know better.

I don't remember anyone saying they were trying to remove it, but I haven't followed your entire debate with Wormwood. I honestly don't know what we should do with the scripture that potentially could be added in or forged etc. but I do feel like we should know about them. So I have set out to know about them.

Quantrill · Feb 10, 2014

snr5557

Well, had you read the whole thing you would see you were not adding anything.

And I have toldy you evolution is a faith. As you cannot prove it.

No, you know very well that the Bible is against evolution. And against you. Thus you are a typical evolutionist who has to first of all, present evolution as acceptable to Christians, and second of all, try and cast doubt on the Bible. I don't mind generalizing at all if its true. And it is.

Don't worry about what to do with the Scriptures. They are not going anywhere. They will always be against you and your faith in evolution.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 10, 2014

Wormwood,

Sorry, I should have read and saw that you had already put that information in this discussion. I saw it was going on still so I thought you hadn't talked about it yet.

Wormwood · Feb 10, 2014

No problem snr5557. Its been a convoluted discussion that can be hard to track.

Quantrill,

This is what John 8:12 looks like in the Greek...

Πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων·

This is a very simple construction that basically says, "Again Jesus spoke saying..."

This speaking again could be referring to Jesus' ongoing conversation with the Pharisees who sought to trap him with the adulteress, or it could be linked to Jesus continuing his bearing witness to who he is. This, fits much better in my opinion as Jesus would be continuing speaking from "Whoever believes in me, streams of living water will flow from within him." to "I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will not walk in darkness." Thus the "again" would be referring to Jesus ongoing proclamation of himself, rather than his ongoing discussion with the Pharisees. In order to argue that the passage "does not fit" you really should know Greek. I assure you no Greek scholar is saying the grammar is prohibitive toward this connection as it is found in most early manuscripts. On the contrary, they say the grammar fits much more smoothly and the wording is more consistent.

Quantrill · Feb 11, 2014

Wormwood

'Basically says'? Do you realize how silly that sounds? Here you use the Greek and 'scholarly' to try and really prove your point and then say, 'basically says'.

Do you want to know why you said 'basically'? I will tell you. Because you don't like the word 'them'. So you were sure to leave it out. Oh its in your Greek presentation. But in your English, it is not. I guess that is what 'scholars' do.

(The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, George Ricker Berry, p.266) " Again therefore Jesus to them spoke,"

(The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, Jay P. Green, p. 826 ) " Again, then, Jesus to them spake"

That is what it says. Not what it basically says. Thus the 'them' is all important. It means it fits perfectly with John 8:1-11. Without John 8:1-11, it makes no sense.

The story of the woman caught in adultry is in John exactly where it is supposed to be.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 11, 2014

Quantrill said:
Wormwood

'Basically says'? Do you realize how silly that sounds? Here you use the Greek and 'scholarly' to try and really prove your point and then say, 'basically says'.

Do you want to know why you said 'basically'? I will tell you. Because you don't like the word 'them'. So you were sure to leave it out. Oh its in your Greek presentation. But in your English, it is not. I guess that is what 'scholars' do.

If you have to resort to nitpicking the way it was phrased and not the actual content of what was said, shows that you don't have too much to say. If you were to give evidence afterwords then yes, you would just be pointing out syntax, but since syntax is all you have...

(The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, George Ricker Berry, p.266) " Again therefore Jesus to them spoke,"

(The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, Jay P. Green, p. 826 ) " Again, then, Jesus to them spake"

That is what it says. Not what it basically says. Thus the 'them' is all important. It means it fits perfectly with John 8:1-11. Without John 8:1-11, it makes no sense.

Were you not listening...reading what he wrote? He just provided a viable way for it to make sense. If you can provide actual evidence in how it cannot fit, not just the phrase itself, please present it.

Quantrill · Feb 11, 2014

ssnr57

What is the matter with you? Do you have something to say or not. If you do. Then present it. Quit riding on the backs of others. Are you afraid? I notice you bale quite often when I ask certain questions.

I have provided the evidence. Go back an reread, as usual. And tell me where you disagree. Quite trying to ride anothers post so you don't have to look stupid.

Which reminds me, why do you believe in the Trinity, as you told me before? You never did answer.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 11, 2014

Quantrill said:
ssnr57

What is the matter with you? Do you have something to say or not. If you do. Then present it. Quit riding on the backs of others. Are you afraid? I notice you bale quite often when I ask certain questions.

I did, but then I saw that wormwood already had, which I apologized to him for. More often than not someone had done a better job than I had at explaining it. River is a graduate Biology major, and whenever I look up what she says she's right. I'm a freshman Health Science major, I have a long way to go. Sometimes I look back at my explanations and do a bit of a face palm because I did such a poor job of explaining things. More often than not I feel like I'm in her way, so I try to not get in her way anymore.

I have provided the evidence. Go back an reread, as usual. And tell me where you disagree. Quite trying to ride anothers post

You provided next to nothing to support your claim. You're just emotionally upset about this so you're grasping at straws to try to cling to your currently held belief.

"(The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, George Ricker Berry, p.266) " Again therefore Jesus to them spoke,"

(The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew, Greek, English, Jay P. Green, p. 826 ) " Again, then, Jesus to them spake"

That is what it says. Not what it basically says. Thus the 'them' is all important. It means it fits perfectly with John 8:1-11. Without John 8:1-11, it makes no sense."

However, if we look at what the Bible says:

"[SIZE=.75em]37 On the last and greatest day of the festival,(AT)[/SIZE] Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink.[SIZE=.65em](AU)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]38 Whoever believes(AV)[/SIZE] in me, as Scripture has said,[SIZE=.65em](AW)[/SIZE]rivers of living water[SIZE=.65em](AX)[/SIZE] will flow from within them.”[SIZE=.65em][c][/SIZE][SIZE=.65em](AY)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]39 By this he meant the Spirit,(AZ)[/SIZE] whom those who believed in him were later to receive.[SIZE=.65em](BA)[/SIZE] Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.[SIZE=.65em](BB)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]40 [/SIZE]On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”[SIZE=.65em](BC)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]41 [/SIZE]Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee?[SIZE=.65em](BD)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]42 [/SIZE]Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants[SIZE=.65em](BE)[/SIZE] and from Bethlehem,[SIZE=.65em](BF)[/SIZE] the town where David lived?”[SIZE=.75em]43 [/SIZE]Thus the people were divided[SIZE=.65em](BG)[/SIZE] because of Jesus. [SIZE=.75em]44 [/SIZE]Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.[SIZE=.65em](BH)[/SIZE]
Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders
[SIZE=.75em]45 [/SIZE]Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”
[SIZE=.75em]46 [/SIZE]“No one ever spoke the way this man does,”[SIZE=.65em](BI)[/SIZE] the guards replied.
[SIZE=.75em]47 [/SIZE]“You mean he has deceived you also?”[SIZE=.65em](BJ)[/SIZE] the Pharisees retorted. [SIZE=.75em]48 [/SIZE]“Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?[SIZE=.65em](BK)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]49 [/SIZE]No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”
[SIZE=.75em]50 [/SIZE]Nicodemus,[SIZE=.65em](BL)[/SIZE] who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked,[SIZE=.75em]51 [/SIZE]“Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”
[SIZE=.75em]52 [/SIZE]They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”[SIZE=.65em](BM)"[/SIZE]

"12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am[SIZE=.65em](J) the light of the world.(K)[/SIZE] Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”[SIZE=.65em](L)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]13 [/SIZE]The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”[SIZE=.65em](M)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going.[SIZE=.65em](N) But you have no idea where I come from(O)[/SIZE] or where I am going. [SIZE=.75em]15 You judge by human standards;(P)[/SIZE] I pass judgment on no one.[SIZE=.65em](Q)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.(R)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true.(S)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”(T)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=.75em]19 [/SIZE]Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”
“You do not know me or my Father,”[SIZE=.65em](U)[/SIZE] Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”[SIZE=.65em](V)[/SIZE] [SIZE=.75em]20 [/SIZE]He spoke these words while teaching[SIZE=.65em](W)[/SIZE] in the temple courts near the place where the offerings were put.[SIZE=.65em](X)[/SIZE] Yet no one seized him, because his hour had not yet come.[SIZE=.65em](Y)"[/SIZE]

Do you see how originally Jesus was talking to those in a crowd? Why would it not make sense that He continued to speak to them?

so you don't have to look stupid.

Acknowledging that others have more experience or information than you, in this case Wormwood, is not stupid. I'm not going to pretend I know everything, so when I can clearly see that someone knows more than me about a subject I will listen to them and think about what they said. From what I have read from River (since I'm going to assume here that you're also referring to me agreeing with her) and what I have read from Wormwood, they know more about a particular subject than I do. To pretend otherwise feels like arrogance to me.

Which reminds me, why do you believe in the Trinity, as you told me before? You never did answer.

Quantrill, from what I have noticed from you, you ask a question like this ^, and then ask how could I since I believe in the possibility of forgeries, which to you means I don't believe in it. And then I explain if I don't find any information about that passage being a forgery I don't think it is. And then it just repeats itself. You're like talking to a brick wall when it comes to this subject, so I just stopped bothering with you.

Quantrill · Feb 12, 2014

snr557

Longer than you know.

It's not that you do a poor job of explaining. It is that you get caught in your false presentations.

You say I provided nothing and then give some Bible verses with your explaination. Yet in posts 127 and 134, and those before, I gave more evidence than you have presented and I have documented the support. So for you to say I have given nothing is a lie. What it says is you don't want to answer to those things I have given.

So, answer that first before giving your opinon only.

Quantrill

snr5557 · Feb 12, 2014

It's not that you do a poor job of explaining. It is that you get caught in your false presentations.

Well that's a complete lie, but whatever.

You say I provided nothing and then give some Bible verses with your explaination. Yet in posts 127 and 134, and those before, I gave more evidence than you have presented and I have documented the support. So for you to say I have given nothing is a lie. What it says is you don't want to answer to those things I have given.

I'm not going to bother to reread everything you write ok? The first time I read it through I agreed with Wormwood, so I didn't go back to re-agree with him again. So if I forgot anything you said I'm sorry. I was going off post 134, where you provided those three random quotes that did nothing at all.

So, answer that first before giving your opinon only.

Answer the first what? The first question you've written here? Or the first on post 136? Be specific.

Wormwood · Feb 12, 2014

Quantrill,

You are getting overly defensive here. I said, "basically" because there is no one-to-one relationship between Greek and English words and phrases.

Yes, Jesus spoke to them (I agree Jesus was speaking to people...not sure where you are going here). How do you think the Greek word autois here refers specifically to the Pharisees rather than the crowds in general mentioned in vs. 40-44? If you are suggesting that this wording can only be applied to the Pharisees, I assure you this is not correct. No one is trying to pull a fast one on you here. You need to not get so worked up over this discussion. Im not trying to make you look foolish or talk over your head. However, if you want to talk about how the passage fits contextually, the Greek grammar should be the guide, not the English (although I don't think either indicates it does not fit). I'm simply sharing my viewpoint that I believe is backed both by conservative Bible scholars and the textual evidence.

Forgery in the Bible

Chaps

New Member

Chaps

Member

New Member

Chaps

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Chaps

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

Chaps

Similar threads