Go and sin no more.....

[Stan]

I read last week, that that oft quote phrase about the woman at the well, has not been found in any of the early manuscripts, it appears as if the monks added it later one..

so the question is this...

If you headed out a new translation of the Bible would you include this, or exclude it?

[phkrause]

Are you sure that it was the woman at the well? or was it the woman caught in adultery? John 8:11 She said, "No one, sir." Yeshua said, "Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don't sin any more."

[debbym]

go and sin no more was not the woman at the well, it was the woman trapped in adultery, and after Jesus wrote her accusers sin in the dirt and they left.

basically Jesus foiled another attempt to trap him, and spared the life of the woman they were using to bring his destruction.

it was their sin in setting her up and trapping her. women pretty much were required to do what male authorities told them to do. And these were men under orders to complete this plot from the highest court in the land the Sanhedrin.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee.

i do not see the other words as vital to the meaning of the story.

[Stan]

ONce again, I stand corrected. it was the woman trapped in adultery

YET the question remains,

IF you headed out in a translation would you include that or not?

[Naomi]

Most likely I would include it

[Gerr]

Anyone who thinks Jn 8:11 is not Biblical would still have to deal with an essentially similar statement in Jn 5:14. To the man healed at the Pool of Bethesda Jesus said, "See, you are made well. Sin no more that nothing worse may happen to you."

[olger]

Are you sure that it was the woman at the well? or was it the woman caught in adultery? John 8:11 She said, "No one, sir." Yeshua said, "Neither do I condemn you. Now go, and don't sin any more."

Well done, Sir.

[olger]

ONce again, I stand corrected. It was the woman at the well

YET the question remains,

IF you headed out in a translation would you include that or not?

NO NO NO it WASN'T THE WOMAN AT THE WELL - GOSH !!!!

[olger]

Anyone who thinks Jn 8:11 is not Biblical would still have to deal with an essentially similar statement in Jn 5:14. To the man healed at the Pool of Bethesda Jesus said, "See, you are made well. Sin no more that nothing worse may happen to you."

ABSOLUTELY !!!

[Stan]

OK, so even though it probably was not an original statement, it should recommend to stay in a new translation because the principal is biblically sound?

[phkrause]

I like those pajamas olger. LOL

[Naomi]

OK, so even though it probably was not an original statement, it should recommend to stay in a new translation because the principal is biblically sound?

[Gibs]

I do believe it was an original statement. I think our God is well able to keep His Word to us as He needs and wants it. To say He isn't perfect we had better step back.

Yes when told to go sin no more He did not ask something that He hadn't made the way to do.

And He did just that!

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Php 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

We can see from the following verse that we must be overcomers of our sinning.

Re 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

[Windsor]

Oldest surviving document does not always mean the most accurate. The oldest surviving manuscript we have may include or not include a certain verse. That doesn't mean that the newer manuscript that disagrees with the older one wasn't itself based on an even older manuscript that has since been destroyed. After all, we have no original Bible documents with which to compare. If I'm living in the second century and I want to change a particular scripture, chances are I will destroy any evidence which would prove my deceit. Unbeknownst to me, however, God has allowed an accurate (though newer) copy to survive in another part of the world.

[fccool]

Quote:

Oldest surviving document does not always mean the most accurate.

Actually, it's not merely one document. There's a science of textual criticism, which seeks to reconstruct the original text the best it can. In this case, the scholars almost unanimously agree that this particular passage was not in the original for reasons I will describe.

Quote:

The oldest surviving manuscript we have may include or not include a certain verse. That doesn't mean that the newer manuscript that disagrees with the older one wasn't itself based on an even older manuscript that has since been destroyed.

That's what we'd call ad-hoc explanation from ignorance. It supports the argument from what we don't know and can't know, instead of relying on what we do know. It's actually the very same argument that Mormons use to justify the book of Mormon.

You have to observe all available data, and come up with most probable explanations. The reason why scholars seem to be in agreement doesn't rest on the passage missing in the earlier manuscripts alone.

When you read it in the later manuscripts, there are some features that textual critics usually pick up on, when they decide whether it was an insertion or on.

1) It appears to break the context...

I'll give you a read without the story inserted:

Quote:

45 Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”

46 “No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.

47 “You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48 “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49 No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”

50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, 51 “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”

52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”

2 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?” ...

2) The story is unique i a sense that 14 out of 82 words of the story are not Characteristic to the writer of the rest. The writing style does not fit well with the original writer, although it does fit with someone who had latter understanding.

3) It's more likely that the story circulated as a traditional story about Jesus, and then made it into a footnote, and people who copied it further simply inserted it as a part of the text.

Quote:

After all, we have no original Bible documents with which to compare. If I'm living in the second century and I want to change a particular scripture, chances are I will destroy any evidence which would prove my deceit. Unbeknownst to me, however, God has allowed an accurate (though newer) copy to survive in another part of the world.

Again, it's a poor idea of what happened. Until you get professional scribes in 5th century, almost all of the NT was copied by amateurs. In fact, that's how you got the Bible during that time in history. If you wanted it, you either copied it yourself, or had someone else copy it for you. That's why you have so much discrepancy when it comes to comparing originals with later copies.

Likewise, we are very fortunate to have a language that breaks up the words and punctuation structure. Ancient languages didn't generally have it. It would be much difficult, and error-prone process, with plenty of "spelling errors" and omissions that were made, corrected, re-corrected and made again. Until we get to some standardized copying in 4-5 century, we have 400+ years of that.

Think what would happen to any book if you had people who could barely read or write copy it for 400 years... and you didn't have the originals of that book.

For example, the earliest Mark ends with "8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

So, to any Christian this story ends very oddly. They never told anyone? Are you kidding me? So, someone decided to correct that, and they wrote about Jesus taking the matter into his own hands and apparently saying bunch of incoherent nonsense, like:

“... And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

So, in terms of tracing what obviously happened in terms of copying and adding this part of the story, it's not even disputed among the most conservative scholars... some things were added much later, and then were copied down because copyists were not sure what was and what wasn't the part of the original.

[fccool]

As far as putting the story in the new translation of a Bible - why not?

It's very inherent of "fundamentalist mentality" to misunderstand what Bible is, and how it came to be.

Bible is not God. Fundamentalists tend to worship the Bible to the point of misunderstanding it's place in history as it developed. To any Christian, the history of Biblical formation is not explained at all from the pulpit. And when it is done so rarely, it is explained in a caricatured manner that twists the reality into a narrative that fits the dogma, and not the history.

For example, most people don't know that the people who the NT ascribed to, couldn't have written much of the Bible. The authors like Mark, Matthew, Luke, John... and even Paul in some cases, were attributed to give the writings certain validity and authority.

For example, if I wrote a book on physics, and attributed it to Albert Einstein, if people believed that it was... it would hold much more authority for them. It's the same case for the ancients. Certain characters in the story were ascribed the authorship to give both the idea that it was written by the eyewitnesses, and that the writings hold certain authority.

Some people tend to quote Bible on this forum to support every word they are saying, and they use it in oddly ritualistic manner as though some sort of incantation. If you say it ... then as though these words have some sort of "magical power".

It's really neither. The Bible is a narrative that explains certain religious understanding by means of various traditional stories and parables. It really didn't matter to the writers if these things really happen. What mattered was a greater reality described. That's really how Christians use the Bible today.

It's only used to derive the principles, and not factual absolutes.

[Gibs]

Notice the word ALL in the following verse,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Step back unbelievers if you have the slightest idea God is not able and did keep His Word to us as He wants it.

We do have a Bible that is and is not just a book, any that have added or taken out a jot or tittle are not accurate to hold to.

Run the Hebrew and Greek with the KJV and you will not do better.

[fccool]

Notice the word ALL in the following verse,

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Step back unbelievers if you have the slightest idea God is not able and did keep His Word to us as He wants it.

We do have a Bible that is and is not just a book, any that have added or taken out a jot or tittle are not accurate to hold to.

Run the Hebrew and Greek with the KJV and you will not do better.

When this verse was written "All Scripture" was referring to Jewish books. Gospels haven't even been written yet, along with many of the books of the NT.

So, when you are using this verse to retroactively justify the inspiration of all scripture... then you are merely playing a "no true Scottsman" fallacy. After all, what do you consider to be "all scripture"... and should this verse even matter in this case. If this verse didn't exist, do you really think that you would think otherwise?

I think not... so why use this as an excuse to ignore the true history behind the formation of Biblical canon, and turn blind eye on obvious untruths that were included much later.

If you believe that all scripture was inspired... perhaps you should test it by drinking a glass of poison (don't do it it), or handling a poisonous snake (don't do it either).

[ClubV12]

Fccool has an opinion,

"When this verse was written "All Scripture" was referring to Jewish books."

Indicating the word of God, the bible as we know it today, cannot be trusted, is not inspired.

OK then,,, lots of people have opinions, this is just another one.

[Gibs]

Nope, focool, the New Testament is the solid Word of God. To not believe so what are you going to take up for it? The writings of men?

Not me! He wants me to hold Him to His Word and I will.

We will be judged by it, the wonderful law of Liberty!

Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

We can't trash the New Testament or the Old Testament, Both are His Testament, Testimony to us.

Both came to us by the Spirit of God through Jesus Christ who reveals to us that not one jot or tittle can be removed from His Law!

Same goes for all His Word to us. It is as He wants it, it is God Breathed through His Servants the prophets.

It is blind guides who would try and lead anyone from His proven Word.

[Windsor]

If you believe that all scripture was inspired... perhaps you should test it by drinking a glass of poison (don't do it it), or handling a poisonous snake (don't do it either).

You can't take one text and then ignore all the other texts. That's one trick Satan attempted on Jesus. Satan said the following:

"If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone." (Satan is quoting Psalms 91:11-12)

The response of Jesus: "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.'" (Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16)

You quote the following: "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Mark 16:18

I will refer you to the previous statement (which the religious snake handlers completely ignore).

However, Mark 16:18 did come true in the life of Paul (when he wasn't acting presumptuously) so I would say that text is 100% inspired.

Acts 28:1-6

1 And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.

2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.

3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.

4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.

5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

So how exactly is Mark 16 full of a "bunch of incoherent nonsense" as you say? Have you not read Acts? Devils were cast out in the name of Jesus. People did speak in new tongues. People did survive poisonous snake bites and people were healed of their sickness. I can only surmise that you believe the book of Acts is not inspired. Are you one of those who don't believe in the New Testament?