Forgery in the Bible

Wormwood

No need to doubt where 'im going'. I explained it. Your display of the Greek does nothing to prove John 8:1-11 should not be there. It in fact, when presented 'correctly' and not 'basically', proves just the opposite.

Reread my post 122, 125, 127 again.

And, notice my questions still concerning the New Testament apocryphal books. Which you have not answered. Why does one of the oldest Unicals contain them? Are they in your Bible? If not, why not?

Also, the oldest manuscript, the Vatican, does not have Mark 16:9-20. Does your Bible take that out also?

Quantrill

Quantrill,

I don't mean to sound mean here, but you must not be explaining it well enough. You claimed that because he spoke again to "them"... somehow made it clear that this could only fit with the story of the Pharisees and the woman caught in adultery. My point was that "them" simply means people. It could mean the people in vs 40-44 or the Pharisees in the story of the woman caught in adultery. So, no, you haven't explained why that Jesus spoke again to "them" makes it clear that this is referring to the Pharisees. I'll wait for you to show me this "proof" of your "correct" interpretation.

Yes, the Apocryphal books are very old books. The books in the Apocrypha itself date to before the NT. They refer to events that took place during the Maccabees and before. I have no doubt that there may be an uncial that makes reference to verses in the Apocrypha (there are even texts in the NT that do this). I still don't see your point here. Why does the age of the Apocrypha have anything to do with the validity of John 8:1-11? Moreover, textual critics do not make determinations based on one uncial. However, if they have dozens of parchments, uncials, and so forth that date before 500AD and none have John 8:1-11 in John's Gospel, that is quite a different story. It is clear from early church history that the early church did not view the Apocrypha as part of the canon. So the age of these documents has nothing to do with our discussion. There are lots of documents that are older than the NT. That does not make them part of the canon. I am not arguing that age alone matters. Im saying that if the canon NEVER has a particular passage for the first 500 years of church history, it likely does not belong there. I hope this is more clear.

I don't know what you mean by the oldest manuscript being the Vatican. The oldest parchments we have are usually noted by abbreviations such as P46. The oldest complete NT we have is called the Codex Sinaiticus. In any event, yes, Mark 16-9-20 likely does not belong in Mark's Gospel. In my opinion, it really takes away from the overall message of Mark. But that's another conversation.

Wormwood

I have explained it well enough. Your are slow however. Read post 127 again.

I will explain it again for you. John 7:32 has the Phariasees sending the officers to Jesus. After they came and there was division among the people, (43) they went back to the Pharisees. The stage has changed. Jesus is no longer there as the officers went back. The officers and Pharisees are discussing why the officers didn't bring Jesus back. Nicodemus intervenes for Christ and is chastised by the Pharisees. That is vs 52. Jesus and the Pharisees are far apart.

If you remove 7:53-8:11, you have Christ then speaking to the Pharisees. See 8:12-13. But the Pharisees are not present as seen in 45-52. It doesn't work.

It does work when 7:53-8:11 is present. Because the Pharisees are being addressed who brought the woman in adultry. Quite simple really.

I know the critics don't make a decision based on one unical. You don't see the point of the apocryphal books? You're the one who made a big deal of the 'oldest manuscripts' not containing in John the story of the woman caught in adultry. Therefore, the 'scholars' and 'critics' have conviced you it does not belong.

The same point is made with Mark 16:9-20. Is it in your Bible or not? Likely not? If it is in your Bible, then why, since it is not included in the oldest and more complete manuscripts as John 7:53-8:11 isn't. Why don't you remove it?


So, just being the oldest and more complete manuscript is not the only thing considered, since they also are not the original. And taking John 7:53-8:11 out, as you and others have done, creates a severe disconnect between 7:52 and 8:12.

John 7:53-811 is there now, because it was part of the book of John when it was written. It reads perfectly well contextually. Just because others remove it, doesn't mean it wasnt there.

Quantrill

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 .

Click to expand...

I think you have confused the Apocrypha with pseudopigrapha. In any event, you are convoluting the subject at hand by introducing issues of canon and apocryphal writings. The simple fact is the story is not found in the book of John for 500 years and when it is found, it is not regularly in the same place and church leaders say it is not part of the original text. You can dance around it all you like, but those are the facts. If you want to embrace it as original, fine. I have no issue with the story. I simply choose not to due to the mountain of textual evidence.

Yes, I read your comments the first time. However, as I said before, you don't know the Greek so you have no ability to determine how the grammar actually "flows." Clearly you are approaching this entire discussion with a very carnal attitude in your eagerness attack people and their intelligence. I have no use for discussing this issue with you further. I suppose all the scholars who spend their lives researching and writing on these issues are all too slow to have anything to offer you.

Wormwood

When 'scholars' use the 'Greek or Hebrew' to present themselves as superior to those who don't, I have no use for them.

When 'scholars' take away from the Word of God, I have no use for them.

Of course the Pharisees were experts in Hebrew and proabably Greek also. Yet they rejected and killed Christ. I wonder why, since they were so knowledgeable in the Hebrew? Seems being a 'scholar' in Hebrew didn't help them understand.

Quantrill

Yes, and the ignorant crowds chanted for his crucifixion. Ignorance or scholarship are not what is the focus here. We are talking about people who are Christian and commit their lives to studying his word (not Christ-denying Pharisees). You make a serious error in judgment when you equate scholarship with arrogance and a denial of the Lord. You should be very cautious with these types of blanket assessments and condemnations. We aren't talking about people who are denying Christ here, but people who love him with all their heart, soul, MIND and strength. You may not have use for them, but Jesus purchased them with his own blood and we should be cautious how we speak against his people. Why cant Christians just disagree without calling each other Pharisees and God-denying devils?

Wormwood

The crowds chanted for crucifixition being led away from Christ by the scholarly Pharisees. You know, the ones who knew the Hebrew much better than any Hebrew scholar of today.

This is not a blanket statement I am making. It is to you specifically. Because you have made the Greek the all important knowledge required by anyone who wants to follow the teachings of the Bible. And as I have showed you, it is not. Had knowledge of the language been the factor to persuade people toward the truth of Christ, then all the Jews would have believed. But they didn't. Knowledge of the Hebrew or Greek didn't lead any Christ.

I do not equate scholarship with arrogance, except when it is found in one who is arrogant. And more often than not, it is. When your 'scholarship', and knowledge leads you to remove passages from the Bible, then that is the epitome of arrogance.

You ask why Christians cant disagree without calling one a Pharisee? Well, you call me ignorant for not having the ability to read the Greek. You call me carnal because I disagree with you. Its just the way it is.

A Christian can seek to know the Greek and Hebrew to help him in his study. That is all fine. But when they move from just studying it to presenting themselves as the ones who are to be listened to just because they know the Greek or Hebrew, then they move into the area of sin and arrogance.

The language barrier is nothing to God. He who spoke the world and universe into existance, can make His children understand.

Quantrill

Well this conversation has devolved from looking at the text to name-calling and questioning my spirituality and character. Count me out.

That there have been additions, changes, deliberate forgeries etc. is evident.
That is why some very great scholars have done good work in following God's Spirit in their accademic work.
One such was Dr Christian David Ginsberg a Polish Rabbie who became famous for his Massorah work.
During that work, he converted to Christ, because as he said, "Icould not ignore what I had been shown"!
He also later worked for the British Museum and Library, and had co-operation with Dr. Ginsberg on his Biblical labours with the British Library.
More can be read in www.revelationsmessage.co.uk
Also: undersubjectindex of the same site, Scripture corruption: (Separate study)

Christ confirms OT and NT : (Separate study)

Floyd.
Further reading on the "changes" that have been made and corrected:
"Changes made to the Old Testament"
"Canon of Scripture"
"Scripture corruption"
These and others can be found in : www.revelationsmessage.co.uk
Floyd.