Why remove John 8:1-11 in the NWT if these verses speak highly of Jesus

by I_love_Jeff 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • hamsterbait
    hamsterbait

    Haven't these verses bevome part of the Bible by general consent, even though they are found sometimes in the other gospel manuscripts??

    Yet the Witchtower insists that "the body of Christian Litterature THAT HAS BECOME PART OF THE BIBLE" is authority. Yes - they actually printed that in a WT study a while back. (You'll need to search as I dont have the lit anymore - too afraid of demonic attack....

    Of course they mean their heaps of steaming WT magazines and books, most of which is obsolete and self contradicting.

    Yet they can edit the Bible. Try doing that with a WT volume and see how fast they DF you!!

    HB

  • blownaway
    blownaway

    There are no original copies of any of the books.So to say this one or that was was "added" Damn the whole book could be "added" More crap from people who buy this nonsense.

  • Boredposter
    Boredposter

    Really, the whole Bible could be edited and probably is and has been edited it's whole existence based on the minds and hearts of the editors.

    I believe this says alot about the governing body (Watchtower Society). It says they have no mercy in their hearts. They also have no understanding of modern psychology or desire to learn it. They will edit the Bible to fit their own hard ass approach to governing their earthly subjects. Another example of why there will never be any meaningful reform in this sect. It will only draw to itself and retain those who agree with this same closeminded hard assed approach.

  • stan livedeath
    stan livedeath

    so--have those verses been omitted from previous NWT's ?

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Frankly, I'm surprised the WTS left it in as long as they did.

  • TD
    TD

    There are no original copies....To say this one or that was was "added"

    When the final novella of the John Carter series was published a few years after Edgar Rice Burroughs death in 1950, fans immediately screamed "Fake!" (And rightly so, it was actually written by his son, Jack Coleman Burroughs)

    How did they know? They didn't have a copy of the original manuscript.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Greek scholar Didymus the Blind (c. 350 A.D.) is known to have cited the passage extensively in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, which was discovered in the 1940's. It was commented on at a time when it is admitted that "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin contained the story" ( cf. Jerome) of the Woman Taken in Adultery.

    Not only was the passage known among Greek commentators from before Jerome's time, it was known specifically in Alexandria, the suspected source of the Alexandrian text-type, which omits the verses. (ie. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts which are summarily rejected as hopelessly corrupted by millions of Christians today)

    Early Writers and John 8:1-11

    DateAuthorcomments
    c. 150 B.C.Susanna new!- O.G. has "ορθρου"
    60-120 A.D.Didache- Greek & Commentary
    100 A.D.Papias- Greek/English
    140 A.D.Marcion- early tampering
    150 A.D.Gospel of Peter- & John 8:1-11
    c. 150 A.D.Susanna (Theod.)- Theod: πᾶς ὁ λαὸς
    140-160 A.D.Diatesseron- knows of Jn 8:1-11
    210 A.D.Tertullian- evidence of edict
    220 A.D.Hippolytus- on Susanna & Origen
    230 A.D.Origen- not so silent
    250 A.D.Didaskalia- quotes Jn 8:1-11
    290-556 A.D.The Emperors- Adultery & Roman Law
    c. 330 A.D.Constantine- (see Philostorgius)
    c. 350 A.D.Apostolic Constitutions- PA as Holy Scripture
    Apostolic Const.- Greek Text
    350 A.D.Ambrosiaster- a solid quotation
    360 A.D.Didymus- quotes PA as scripture
    370 A.D.Pacian- Supports Jerome
    c. 384 A.D.Jerome- on John 8:1-11
    Jerome's NT Preface- good discussion
    388 A.D.Ambrose- quotes Jn 8:1-11
    350-400 A.D.Epiphanius new!- Euseb. Canon has PA!
    380-400 A.D.Faustus on PA- quoted by Augustine
    400 A.D.AugustineSupports PA & TR
    408 A.D.Rufinus- aware of PA
    c. 400 A.D.Chrysostom- new evidence for PA
    425 A.D.Philostorgius- discusses tampering
    429 A.D.Theodoret- startling evidence
    400-450Sozomen new!- Constantine & Crispus
    425-450 A.D.Sedulius- PA as Holy Scripture
    4th-5th cent.Syriac PA- accepted as genuine
    c.650+ A.D.Gospel of Barnabas new!- & the PA
    c.700 A.D.The Venerable Bede- homily on PA
    c.1100 A.D.Euthymius- evidence misused
  • kairos
    kairos

    Verse 7 makes judging and shunning impossible.

    < check mate >

    Not the true religion

  • belogical
    belogical

    Jerome on John 8:1-11 (386 A.D.)

    Jerome makes a very good rationale why verses 1 to 11 should be included.. He argues against Pelaguis and his teaching on the need for penance and paying for release of sin and in the end the Roman catholic church won and of course they would not want to have the free gift of forgiveness of sin, so out with John 8 1-8.and the manuscripts that contained it. Jerome had a huge collection of scrolls and religious writing. There is a very interesting read here. enjoy

    http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/FATHERS/Jerome2.html

  • dropoffyourkeylee
    dropoffyourkeylee

    Fred Franz would be the one who made the decision to exclude it. He was a believer in textual criticism and he followed the Wescott and Hort text rather than the Textus Receptus. I believe he was influenced byWilson’s Diaglott. I seem to recall that the earlier NWT editions had the passage offset in italics or something like that, with a footnote that it was notfound in the earliest texts.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit