GB has indeed edited the Bible, deleted what suits them.

by hamsterbait 2 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hamsterbait

  I always wondered why there were verses in the NWT which were just a dash.

  The Borg says these are spurious additions to the texts.

  They have deceitfully hidden the fact that the Bible as we know it was decided upon by the Western Church under Constantine.

  They claim the text has been preserved by Holy Spirit. But THEY reserve the right ot edit further.

  The Gospel of John is an outstanding example of this.

  They acknowledge that John was an "eye witness".

  The spurious passage at JOHN 7:53 - 8:11.

  "These twelve verses have OBVIOUSLY been added to the original text of John's Gospel. (OBvious to WHOM?) They are not found in theSinaitic manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript Codex Bezae and LATER (nb!!) greek manuscripts. They are however omitted by most of the early versions. It is evident (at least to them) that they are not part of John's Gospel. Another group puts it after Luke 21; 38 SUPPORTING THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS AN UNINSPIRED TEXT." Aid to Bible Understanding.

  This is why the "Greatest Man " book ignores these verses as well as the conclusions to the Gospel of Mark. It is not likely to be an imaginative invention. Who would have the will to invent an incident which shows such mercy, but seems to advocate a lax morality?

  This is another "dilemma" for Christ. Whatever answer he might have pronounced, he was a loser. But his reply doesn't disparage legal punishment, the responsibility for action is thrown back at the accusers.

  (Gregory says he saw a manuscript which says "when they read it" not when they heard it)

  What I want to know is how many examples are there where they reject an early source for a later one, and vice versa when it SUITS them? Accepting Revelation as Canonical because of "Church Tradition" - an admission in the first "All Scripture inspired " book (omitted in the later version.) But not this.

  They claim God's spirit has preserved the texts, until it is inconvenient for them to admit such.

  Those in the know CAN YOU PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF THIS??

  HB
• 

  Narkissos

  The "missing verses" in the NWT are also missing in most modern Bibles which follow the modern critical editions (Westcott & Hort, Nestle & Aland) based on the earliest Greekmss. Some verses appear to be "empty" because the verse separation and count were applied to a (slightly) longer but later Greek text (especially Erasmus' "textus receptus" in the 16th century, a version of which was the textual basis for the KJV). This is a purely textual issue, independent in principle from (church) decisions about canonicity or "inspiration". As to the "adulteress" pericope in John, it is quite obvious (from both textual and literary criticism) that it was not originally part of the Fourth Gospel, but it is still a very old story which most Christian churches retain as canonical (although not Johannine). Same for the long final of Mark for instance.
• 

  Kinjiro

  There is no such thing available as an 'original' for nothing written in the bible. All that is available is copies of copies of copies most of them centuries and milleniums after the so called 'facts'.

  I ask myself how naive and nearsighted I must've been when I believed those 'copies' as actually something of worth...

  Dont waste your time making comparisons of human copies of human inspired writings... the more you search the more you will find... that makes each and every translation as useless as the next.