Help with understanding please

[yeshuaslavejeff]

take a more careful posture

What ? Why ? What do you mean ?
What is more careful than testing everything, while seeking Yahuweh's Kingdom continually, asking and keep asking Him the Creator for the Truth to be set free from all error, doing everything with all one's mind and all one's soul and all the power that is in a person to surrender all to Jesus and to serve Him whole-heartedly without any reservation and with no hindrances, holding nothing back ?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

They say, but I have not seen obvious proof. Every supposedly added item that I am aware of is Biblical in principle and doctrine and matches with how God wants us to become like Jesus and love any and all people while sharing as His family with Him and one another. So, if you are going to feed on God's word, this needs your attention first and most of all, I would say.

And no variation of manuscripts, to my knowledge . . . of the ones used to translate God's word, I mean > no variation is contrary to first becoming like Christ and loving as family while caring for those who need to be saved.

And it is my opinion that the only way you can make sure is if you have the ability to personally communicate with God and make sure with Him.

I understand. But to say Jesus said something he didn’t say and then for me to ignore because it seems to line up does seem like a good way to approach the idea of truth.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But even if it matches Gods character isn’t it still wrong to say Jesus said something he didn’t? What’s the point in doing that?

People do that every day on the forums, and in churches. What's the point in doing that ?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

People do that every day on the forums, and in churches. What's the point in doing that ?

Because the forums and churches aren’t the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because the forums and churches aren’t the Bible.

Don't trust the forums, nor any flesh/ man/ group.

Trust Yahuweh the Creator, our Father in Heaven, as Jesus Says to.

Bring everything to Jesus, everything is to be subject to Jesus,
and
everything is to be tested as Jesus Says, instead of accepted without testing,

never accepted without being proven true and right and in line and in harmony with all Scripture.

 

[com7fy8]

words written in red

We have what are called "red letter" Bibles. In such a case, the red lettering is used to show actual quotes of Jesus.

But if there is a Bible which has red letters for items which are not included in other translation work, this is new to me.

But I think it can be good to know which parts are not in certain translations. But feed on what they mean, because God can use them for His meaning. Seek God for His meaning.

Also, if there is a region where older manuscripts were discovered without some number of items, while in the Greek church area those items are found, this can mean you have two basic manuscript witnesses. One actually confirms the other, in overall and many specific meanings. And to my knowledge, there is no direct contradiction of the older against the items which appear in the newer but not the older manuscripts. And please remember, again, how my memory tells me that the older manuscripts without a number of items were in a separate area from where people discovered the Greek younger manuscripts with more items.

We consider that Christians used both . . . though I have to consider that there could have been cultic people who controlled one group of manuscripts. But even if ones did, it was for a large region. And even if cultic people produced one or the other, I see how there is no obvious conflict of message between the two basic groups of manuscripts.

So, they can be considered more or less independent witnesses to God's message for us.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Don't trust the forums, nor any flesh/ man/ group.

Trust Yahuweh the Creator, our Father in Heaven, as Jesus Says to.

But you still would say trust the Bible? But not the forums and churches even though they all have things that Jesus never said?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Seek God for His meaning.

HALLELUYAH ! ALWAYS !

He Grants From Heaven His Meaning, to His children, as this is His Good Pleasure so to do ! (as written in His Word)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But you still would say trust the Bible? But not the forums and churches even though they all have things that Jesus never said?

Test everything.

Let the Father in heaven give /reveal/ Salvation Truth Understanding as He Pleases.

If it is not Granted from the Father in heaven, no man can receive anything.

 

[Ojpalosa]

But even if it matches Gods character isn’t it still wrong to say Jesus said something he didn’t? What’s the point in doing that?

Jesus said many things that aren´t necessarily in the Word. Think about it: He went on with his earthly ministry for 3 years, surely there were many things he said that isn´t written because it´s not needed for doctrine, and God knew that. He has protected his Word and continues to do so. Since the passage is in the Word i firmly believe it´s meant to be there unless God through His mighty and sovereign hand decides to prove scholars otherwise.

 

[paul1149]

most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original.

I'm not sure that's strictly true. Some of the oldest manuscripts don't have the passage. But other old ones do have it, but in a different place in the Gospel of John.

Remember, because it is not included in a text type does not mean it didn't happen. And to my thinking, what transpires in the pericope, and the moral and spiritual lessons it teaches, is completely consistent with the person and message of Christ we have in the rest of the Bible. It is for good reason that even modern Bibles that prefer the older Alexandrian texts include this passage, whereas there are a few other verses they only include in footnotes.

We also are not 100% clear on the authorship of the 4 Gospels. They could be, to some extent anyway, compilations of the work of more than one author, which eventually settled into a version which the church at large accepted as authoritative. Again, this does not reflect badly on the truth of the Gospels generally, or the genuineness of the passage in question.

 

[com7fy8]

But to say Jesus said something he didn’t say

Of course, we do not want to say Jesus said something or did something He did not say or do.

But we now can not prove what is added or not, or if God had something added or not. So, trust God to do what He pleases with you. Our Heavenly Father does personally share with each of us His children; so simply do what He has you do.

 

[D.A. Wright]

People do that every day on the forums, and in churches. What's the point in doing that ?

Friend, you seem to be cultivating more uncertainty and doubt than faith today. Some folks behave as if we should chain ourselves and our Bibles to a cave wall and do just fine.

The Bible tells a different story. We need the encouragement and guidance of other believers, and when we have this opportunity and do not avail ourselves of it wisely, we do not do well. Am I making sense here, anyone?

I cherish my Bible above all else, but it was a human being who introduced me to Christ. This is usually how God works. It is the Great Commission.

 

[Ojpalosa]

It all comes down to knowing that God is sovereign and His Word will remain pure, we can trust Him on that. It is the standard of truth and will always be the truth.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Hi everyone. I really am confused about the story of the adulteress woman. I’ve read that most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original. Does this bother anybody else?

Friend, scholars are a dime a dozen. You and I are scholars. There is nothing that indicates the story does not belong in Scripture. Manuscripts differ. God's Word loses no power from this. There is much information to substantiate that the scriptures have been preserved in a manner that is vastly incomparable to other volumes.

You may concern yourself, and that is healthy. But try to develop the habit of trusting that these claims amount to little in a literary work of roughly 3/4 million words. Well-meaning scholars have been lying awake at night troubled over these things for centuries, and their diligence may even be worthy of our gratitude. But God is not pleased to see our brows wrinkled over these borrowed troubles. Christ and Him crucified...

 

[Halbhh]

Hi everyone. I really am confused about the story of the adulteress woman. I’ve read that most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original. Does this bother anybody else?

We can see Christians were aligned to this passage, already, in the remainder of the New Testament.

As you learn in full reading, in Acts and in the epistles, the issue of the Old Law, such as for circumcision, was very prominent, and the major question that had to be addressed and taken care of, largely by Paul, but also in accord we see with the Apostles.

We see circumcision, from the Old Law, addressed over and over. And some other Old Law things:

Notice how it was necessary to address some certain questions from the Old Law:

19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

But we do not see stoning via the Old Law addressed.

The only stoning was that Christians were stoned at times by Jews for being Christian.

For Christians though, stoning for adultery seems not a question even needing addressing.

In fact, for a similarly serious (capital crime under the Old Law) sexual crime, Paul only wrote for the individual to be put out of the church:

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? 3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.
(1rst Cor chapter 5)


Here's the Old Law:
11 "The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall be put to death; their blood is upon them." Lev 20:11

So, Christians were not following the Old Law on this. No stoning or other physical punishment, but instead being put outside of fellowship.

 

[Monna]

Hi everyone. I really am confused about the story of the adulteress woman. I’ve read that most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original. Does this bother anybody else?

Am not sure what exactly it is that is bothersome.
1) the way Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery, and the implications for us today... or
2) the "fact" that some early copies of text don't include this story.

Most of the discussion seems focused on #2. IMHO, if this is what bothers you (or any one),

• there are lots of other scriptures that are said to be missing from otherwise "reliable" sources, including some that many evangelical Christians believe to be foundational specifically for evangelism, the Trinity, and baptism.
• there are entire books of "the scriptures" that some denominations accept, while other reject (the 14 books of "the Apocrypha")
• Some (but not all) scholars question that Matthew the apostle even wrote the book we call the "Gospel according to Matthew" (Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, Gospel of Matthew - New World Encyclopedia)

But not the forums and churches even though they all have things that Jesus never said?

• Jesus, while on earth, never said anything in English, so whichever English version people use on this Forum, what we have are translations. And translations are ALWAYS biased because there is no absolutely unique equivalent for a word in original Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Hebrew in English. If you, like many, think the only reliable English version in The King James Authorised version, then I suggest you read the preface - where you will (if it is the original ;-) !) read that King James authorised the translation that bears his name because the only pre-existing English transaltion did not support HIS (King James') views of the structure and role of the organised, English Church. In other words the translation committee were explicitly instructed to translate the sources texts in a way that suited "His Majesty" ... as head of the English church.
  
• Rather than literal translations, what is sought is the essential messages being communicated. Step back and think of translating the original Bible into a language that does not have words for "sheep" or "shepherd," "bears" and "lions," "horse" or "chariot," "snow" or myriads of other words in the language of pastoral people of the ancient middle East. How to translate the many scriptural messages given to us through images relating to sheep, sheep rearing, the Good Sheperd, the lost sheep, etc etc.? Yet the scriptures continue to be translated to languages without this vocabulary. In other words, when reading the scriptures we always get only a close approximation of the sense given based on as many source texts (and languages) as possible.

If there is any discussion around #1 above - what Jesus is portrayed as doing when confronted with the woman caught in adultery, then an even greater puzzle may be found as the very basis of the story of Hosea, whom God ( in apparent contradiction to the Law of Moses) commanded to marry an adulterous woman, and keep going back to her, in spite of her wayward habits. Yet one of the most profound messages in Hosea's book in much the same as in the story of Jesus and the adulteress ... the incredible, unceasing, deep, high, wide and enduring love of God.

 

[Athanasius377]

From a textual point of view the story (pericope aldulterea) sic. Is a later addition. I’m some texts it is included in Luke. I don’t see a problem as other posters have posited that it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. It means that it’s a later addition and that’s all. So when exegeting the text the honest thing is to acknowledge that it is a later addition. The same with longer ending of Mark or the comma johanium sic. It’s not like it’s outside the character of Jesus. Recall the Samaritan woman and her husbands while being a covenant breaker and being essentially an idolater. I don’t see a problem here. Remember the Bible is not the Qu’ran where variants do pose a threat.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi everyone. I really am confused about the story of the adulteress woman. I’ve read that most scholars agree that it was a later addition and isn’t original. Does this bother anybody else?

Is what is learned/taught by the story in line with other scriptural teachings? Yes.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I’m asking does it bother anyone if there is additions to the Bible that’s not original?

That passage does not brother me because we know it is added and it is consistent with the person of Jesus. The I John 5:7 verse does bother me, but it has been removed by better translations.