Defence of John 7:53 - John 8:11.

[Silverhair]

Those two sets of passages are not essential in order to believe Jesus to be the Christ. But not trusting that they were of God, thinking they were wrongly added can add double to trusting any of the rest of the Bible being trustworthy.

You continue to miss what I have been saying to you.

You are convinced that they should be included. others are convinced they should not be. So there is doubt.

Yes it could make people question but they could also say that it means that the scholars are not willing to just add or leave things out on a whim. They could then have more trust in the text that is not questioned.

 

[Conan]

You may not like that some scholars disagree with you view but so be it.

Why do you assume that? I am sure many scholars disagree with me. So what? I have learned from scholars with whom I disagree. But I enjoy Textual Criticism, so that means I read stuff from people that I disagree with all the time. I learned and believed their methods once. But after learning I have come to my own conclusions. Conclusions that are different from what I originally learned. Some scholars are taught basic Textual Criticism and don't move on learning more. Perhaps they prefer to specialize in other subjects . That's their business. But when you hear some make the same old wrong, shallow decisions you know that they just know the basics. I guess they have to write what they know. I am not trying to claim that I am smarter than any of them. I am not. But as a continual layperson, and with the help of others, both of those I agree with, and disagree with I can come to my own conclusions. Conclusions which are different than the Older Generation of scholars. More and more people, while not abandoning the older scholarship, as starting to see things differently.
Well, I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

But as I said to 37818 you have chosen this hill to die on so carry on.

We are trying to share what we have found out. I don't call that dying on a hill. You seem to oppose what we share, with guessing I might add.

I do not think those texts will have much impact on whether a person would trust in Christ for their salvation.

Well, I am sure that you may be correct here. But your signature line suggest accuracy is important though.

 

[Silverhair]

Why do you assume that? I am sure many scholars disagree with me. So what? I have learned from scholars with whom I disagree. But I enjoy Textual Criticism, so that means I read stuff from people that I disagree with all the time. I learned and believed their methods once. But after learning I have come to my own conclusions. Conclusions that are different from what I originally learned. Some scholars are taught basic Textual Criticism and don't move on learning more. Perhaps they prefer to specialize in other subjects . That's their business. But when you hear some make the same old wrong, shallow decisions you know that they just know the basics. I guess they have to write what they know. I am not trying to claim that I am smarter than any of them. I am not. But as a continual layperson, and with the help of others, both of those I agree with, and disagree with I can come to my own conclusions. Conclusions which are different than the Older Generation of scholars. More and more people, while not abandoning the older scholarship, as starting to see things differently.
Well, I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.



We are trying to share what we have found out. I don't call that dying on a hill. You seem to oppose what we share, with guessing I might add.


Well, I am sure that you may be correct here. But your signature line suggest accuracy is important though.

You want to share what you have found out and that is as it should be.

What I have said and still say is that there are debates so I am not dogmatic on those verses.

Accuracy is important too me and that is why I do not say those verses should or should not be in the text. We just do not know for sure either way. We can make educated guesses but that is all.

I could have used the words, that they came to a conclusion, rather than guess but it still comes down to the same thing.

 

[37818]

You continue to miss what I have been saying to you.

You are convinced that they should be included. others are convinced they should not be. So there is doubt.

Unbelief is the bases for doubt
When the valid evidence is denied.
It is your refusal to address evidence.

Yes it could make people question but they could also say that it means that the scholars are not willing to just add or leave things out on a whim. They could then have more trust in the text that is not questioned.

It is you who is appealing to unspecified scholarship not addressing given evidence.

 

[Silverhair]

Unbelief is the bases for doubt
When the valid evidence is denied.
It is your refusal to address evidence.



It is you who is appealing to unspecified scholarship not addressing given evidence.

And you still miss the point.

What you consider good evidence others do not.

What one scholars gives weight to the another may not.

There is no clear definitive evidence either way or there would not be any debate.

That is so obvious that is surprise me that you keep missing it.

 

[37818]

And you still miss the point.

What you consider good evidence others do not.

What one scholars gives weight to the another may not.

There is no clear definitive evidence either way or there would not be any debate.

That is so obvious that is surprise me that you keep missing it.

I am.now missing your unspecified point.

I do see explicite evidence for John 7:53 - John 8:11 being knowingly removed in the second and fourth centuries. In both P66 & Codex Sinaiticus with the same original textual mark. And historically 85% mss of John have the text.

 

[Silverhair]

I am.now missing your unspecified point.

I do see explicite evidence for John 7:53 - John 8:11 being knowingly removed in the second and fourth centuries. In both P66 & Codex Sinaiticus with the same original textual mark. And historically 85% mss of John have the text.

My point has been and still is that we DO NOT have the autographs. So what it comes down to is that various scholars have different views on whether to include or exclude those texts.

Do you get it now?

 

[37818]

My point has been and still is that we DO NOT have the autographs.

Really?
Where did the texts of the 27 New Testament books come.from?
Are you really so, that you think once the original autographs are gone the original texts can.no longer exist?

I do see explicite evidence for John 7:53 - John 8:11 being knowingly removed in the second and fourth centuries. In both P66 & Codex Sinaiticus with the same original textual mark. And historically 85% mss of John have the text.

What have the scholars that deny John 7:53 -- John 8:11 say about P66 and Codex Sinaiticus common scribe mark? They don't.

Silence.

 

[Silverhair]

Really?
Where did the texts of the 27 New Testament books come.from?
Are you really so, that you think once the original autographs are gone the original texts can.no longer exist?



What have the scholars that deny John 7:53 -- John 8:11 say about P66 and Codex Sinaiticus common scribe mark? They don't.

Silence.

@37818 What have you missed from what I have said.

We are not talking about the whole bible but Act 16:9-20 & Joh 7:53-8:11

You are desperate to have me, and everyone else it seems, agree with your view.

What I have said and still say is the there is no agreement among scholars.

That is the point you do not seem to be able to grasp.

Here we are at post # 69 and you still will not accept the fact that not all scholars agree with you view. That is the point I have been trying to make 37

 

[37818]

@37818 What have you missed from what I have said.

We are not talking about the whole bible but Act 16:9-20 & Joh 7:53-8:11

You are desperate to have me, and everyone else it seems, agree with your view.

What I have said and still say is the there is no agreement among scholars.

That is the point you do not seem to be able to grasp.

Here we are at post # 69 and you still will not accept the fact that not all scholars agree with you view. That is the point I have been trying to make 37

This thread is about John 7:53 -- John 8:11, not Mark.
You insist on claiming scholars. With no textual argument being presented.
You are arguing with "smoke" and "mirrors."

Now deal with my argument:
I do see explicite evidence for John 7:53 - John 8:11 being knowingly removed in the second and fourth centuries. In both P66 & Codex Sinaiticus with the same original textual mark. And historically 85% mss of John have the text.

 

[Silverhair]

This thread is about John 7:53 -- John 8:11, not Mark.
You insist on claiming scholars. With no textual argument being presented.
You are arguing with "smoke" and "mirrors."

Now deal with my argument:
I do see explicite evidence for John 7:53 - John 8:11 being knowingly removed in the second and fourth centuries. In both P66 & Codex Sinaiticus with the same original textual mark. And historically 85% mss of John have the text.

My argument was that you seem to be so caught up in proving both of those texts have to be in the bible for the bible to be trustworthy.

If them not being in the text would cause you to loose your trust then you have more problems than just those texts.

Just to be clear whether those texts are included or not does not in any way impact whether I trust in Christ Jesus for my salvation.

 

[37818]

My argument was that you seem to be so caught up in proving both of those texts have to be in the bible for the bible to be trustworthy.

To be according to God's word, per John 7:53 -- John 8:11 in this thread.

Mark 16:9-20 now here: Re: Mark 16:9-20 being Holy Scripture.

 

[37818]

If them not being in the text would cause you to loose your trust then you have more problems than just those texts.

It would cause me to reject such a Bible for general use.
BTW the Jehovah's Witness 2013 NWT already omit those verses.

 

[37818]

Just to be clear whether those texts are included or not does not in any way impact whether I trust in Christ Jesus for my salvation.

Ok.

 

[Silverhair]

It would cause me to reject such a Bible for general use.
BTW the Jehovah's Witness 2013 NWT already omit those verses.

OK so it would cause you to reject that bible. So what I am hearing is that your faith is based on the inclusion of those two texts. So my question is why? Do they alter the gospel message? Were people not saved when you say those text were taken out of the bible. What about people that did not even have those texts as the letters had not been written yet? John ~ 69-70 & Mark ~ 57-60

BTW since I have not read or care about the NWT what does it matter to me what that cult does?

N139 tc This entire section, Joh_7:53 — Joh_8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming"

N9 tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armMSS Eus EusMSS HierMSS), including two of the most respected MSS (א B).

 

[Conan]

OK so it would cause you to reject that bible. So what I am hearing is that your faith is based on the inclusion of those two texts. So my question is why? Do they alter the gospel message? Were people not saved when you say those text were taken out of the bible. What about people that did not even have those texts as the letters had not been written yet? John ~ 69-70 & Mark ~ 57-60

BTW since I have not read or care about the NWT what does it matter to me what that cult does?

N139 tc This entire section, Joh_7:53 — Joh_8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming"

N9 tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armMSS Eus EusMSS HierMSS), including two of the most respected MSS (א B).

That is what we are getting at. Metzger's shallowness. To him it is a forgone conclusion, to others it is not so. There is massive evidence for inclusion. But Metzger can mislead students with shallow statements like above. He has already mislead you. Codex's Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not two of the best manuscripts. You know here how KJVOnlys say the KJV is perfect, the same idolatry is for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Now, we could conclude you are right, but not on the shallow evidence listed above.

 

[Silverhair]

That is what we are getting at. Metzger's shallowness. To him it is a forgone conclusion, to others it is not so. There is massive evidence for inclusion. But Metzger can mislead students with shallow statements like above. He has already mislead you. Codex's Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not two of the best manuscripts. You know here how KJVOnlys say the KJV is perfect, the same idolatry is for Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Now, we could conclude you are right, but not on the shallow evidence listed above.

I have not said either way but have questioned why you and 37 think you have all the answers when scholars say they are not even sure.

It seems that you and 37 really need those texts to be included as your whole trust in the bible rest on that.

As I told 37 my trust in the bible does not depend upon them being included or excluded as they do not impart my salvation or trust in the word of God.

 

[Conan]

I have not said either way but have questioned why you and 37 think you have all the answers when scholars say they are not even sure.

I do not have all the answers. If I did I would write volumes .

It seems that you and 37 really need those texts to be included as your whole trust in the bible rest on that.

There is excellent evidence to include. I do not need to include them. But I would be poorer without them. I really believe the Pericope of the Women is a genuine incident in the Life of Jesus. I am glad it is in John's Gospel. On its own it may have not found a place in the New Testament, and been lost to us. But you may believe as you wish.

As I told 37 my trust in the bible does not depend upon them being included or excluded as they do not impart my salvation or trust in the word of God.

Yes. I understand. You are saved either way.

 

[KJB1611reader]

OK so it would cause you to reject that bible. So what I am hearing is that your faith is based on the inclusion of those two texts. So my question is why? Do they alter the gospel message? Were people not saved when you say those text were taken out of the bible. What about people that did not even have those texts as the letters had not been written yet? John ~ 69-70 & Mark ~ 57-60

BTW since I have not read or care about the NWT what does it matter to me what that cult does?

N139 tc This entire section, Joh_7:53 — Joh_8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming"

N9 tc The Gospel of Mark ends at this point in some witnesses (א B 304 sys sams armMSS Eus EusMSS HierMSS), including two of the most respected MSS (א B).

Lies, its real.

I will always stand for its real.

End of discussion.

Shawn, a Bible believer.

 

[Silverhair]

Lies, its real.

I will always stand for its real.

End of discussion.

Shawn, a Bible believer.

@KJB1611reader Then why do you use the 1611 kjv. The 1611 kjv has been up dated to correct it's obvious errors.

You may not like what the scholars have said but to call them lies requires that you be able to prove them wrong, can you do that?

As I said there are scholars on both sides so your comment is just a bit over the top.