Adding or subtracting from the Word

rks7777

Well-Known Member
I was at church today and the message was on John 4. Jesus and the women of Samaria at the well. The pastor made a comment that is weighing on me. He made the assertion that the entire conversation between Jesus and the women is not recorded in the Bible. All the Bible records is the “important” part of their conversation. I’m troubled by this. Why would the pastor say this? How can he possibly know that they spoke about other things? And even if he does believe that why would he even bring it up in the message? Am I being too critical of his comment? Or is he adding/subtracting from the Word?
 

Matthew6:33

Withstand in the evil day. Eph 6:13
Hmmm I am not sure about John chapter 4... I thought the debate was over the woman caught in adultery not being in the earliest manuscripts (John 7:53-8:11). It is not that it is "not recorded in the Bible," it is just not found in the earliest manuscripts that we have. It is interesting that your pastor would bring this up during a sermon and add his opinion on the Bible only recording what he views as "important."

It all depends on which method of text criticism he prefers (sounds like he prefers the second method below)... It really boils down how we interpret the accuracy of scripture. Earliest manuscripts vs. majority manuscripts... Which do we think are most accurate? Here is some more info on what I am talking about.

Textual criticism - what is it? - gotquestions.org

There are three primary methods to textual criticism. The first is the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a manuscript of the Bible that was compiled by a man named Erasmus in the 1500s A.D. He took the limited number of manuscripts he had access to and compiled them into what eventually became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus is the textual basis behind the King James Version and New King James Version.

A second method is known as the Majority Text. The Majority Text takes all of the manuscripts that are available today, compares the differences, and chooses the most likely correct reading based on which reading occurs the most. For example, if 748 manuscripts read "he said" and 1,429 manuscripts read "they said" the Majority Text will go with "they said" as the most likely original reading. There are no major Bible translations that are based on the Majority Text.

The third method is known as the critical or eclectic method. The eclectic method involves considering external and internal evidences for determining the most likely original text. External evidence makes us ask these questions: in how many manuscripts does the reading occur? what are the dates for these manuscripts? in what region of the world were these manuscripts found? Internal evidence prompts these questions: what could have caused these varying readings? which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the Eclectic Text.

Does John 7:53—8:11 belong in the Bible? - gotquestions.org

Don't you love these rabbit holes? :hehee
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member

The Woman Caught in Adultery​

By Jack Kelley

The Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning Him He straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:3-8)

Why Are Christians Such Hypocrites?​


A man once told me, “I’m not coming to your church. Too many hypocrites go there.” “Please join us,” I replied, “One more won’t hurt.” Seriously, the headline above is a question often asked by unbelievers. They see us condemning in others behavior they know many of us are often guilty of in spite of the Lord’s admonition to the contrary. “Do not condemn,” He said, “And you won’t be condemned” (Luke 6:37).

Psychologists claim that we subconsciously hate in others those weaknesses we most despise in ourselves. When we become Christians we don’t stop being sinners and if we’re not careful this subconscious loathing of our own sinfulness can cause us to harden our hearts toward others instead of having the compassion that should result from the forgiveness we’ve received.

Think of the woman who has an abortion hidden in her past and has now become a militant Pro-Life activist loudly reminding everyone that abortion is murder. Or how about the alcoholic who is intolerant of drinkers, or the man with a disaster for a marriage who strongly condemns divorce. Are their motives pure or are they projecting their anger with themselves onto others? Maybe they are trying to punish someone else for committing sins they themselves struggle with. (Often behavior we think of as righteous is merely self- righteous.)

Some Christians hate those who do things they themselves would either secretly like to do or have done and still carry the guilt for it. They forget the only difference between the sinner and the saint is the decision to accept the pardon the Lord purchased with His blood.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Jesus said. “You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:3,5). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What Would Jesus Do?​


The only anger the Lord ever expressed toward man was in response to the self-righteous officials who somehow convinced themselves they weren’t sinners anymore and publicly condemned those who still were. When He wrote in the sand in John 8:6, perhaps the Lord was writing the secret sin of each accuser. Maybe that’s what made them all slink away. It’s clear that something He did underscore His comment that the one without sin should cast the first stone and reminded the woman’s accusers that they were sinners too.

Then He refused to condemn the woman Himself (John 8:11) while reminding her that her behavior was a sin. The officials of His day criticized Him for associating with sinners, but who else was there for Him to associate with? Who needed the comfort of God? Surely not those who had convinced themselves they were no longer sinners.

Was the Lord soft on sin? Absolutely not! And coming to Jesus does not grant one a license to sin, but once we recognize our behavior as sin and confess, His example is to forgive and forget. Paul demonstrated this in 2 Cor 2: 5-9 when he admonished the church in Corinth to welcome back the sinner he had them expel in 1 Cor.5: 1-5, fearing the man would otherwise be overcome with excessive sorrow.

We all remember his admonition to expel the sinner and turn him over to Satan to be punished, but we forget he also taught that our failure to forgive is just as much a tool of Satan as the sin is. In 2 Cor. 2:11 he said to restore him “in order that Satan might not outwit us, for we are not unaware of his schemes.”

So What’s The Point?​


Jesus was above reproach in a way none of us could ever be, and yet He showed only compassion, not accepting sinful behavior but never rejecting the person who sinned. Maybe if we showed that same kind of love toward other sinners, we’d have more power and influence for good in the world and appear less like the hypocritical Pharisees. It’s His kindness that led us to repentance after all (Romans 2:4). So, the next time you hear of a Christian brother or sister struggling with sin, try resisting the urge to “pile on” and think to yourself, “There but for the grace of God go I.” Ask the Lord to forgive him or her as 1 John 5:16 instructs us to do, and if you get a chance, offer a word of encouragement. You don’t have to condemn the believer to prove that you don’t condone the behavior.

https://gracethrufaith.com/topical-studies/spiritual-life/the-woman-caught-in-adultery/
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member

Was There A Woman Caught In Adultery?​

By Jack Kelley

Question:

In my copy of the NIV Bible, there is a footnote between John 7: 52 and John 7:53 that states, ” The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 – 8:11.” Of course that is one of the most cherished stories that illustrates the loving and forgiving character of Jesus in his defense of the woman caught in adultery while he skillfully exposes the self righteousness of the Pharisees.

I have read a commentary that suggests the responsibility of the added passage rests on the shoulders of an ambitious scribe that wished to embellish (as if he needed to) the account of Jesus’ ministry. If this is true and the more reliable manuscripts do not include these verses, why then does it appear in modern copies of the Bible? It seems that the inclusion of this questionable passage might possibly raise an issue with the veracity of the rest of the Book of John.

Answer:

Although most early manuscripts don’t contain John 7:53-8:11 (the Woman Caught In Adultery) the consensus, even among the most vocal critics of it’s placement in John, has always been that it’s an historically authentic account from the life of Jesus that was included in a number of other reliable contemporary non-Biblical texts. The real question is not whether it belongs in the Bible, but whether it belongs in John’s gospel. Since later manuscripts show it in John, it’s been left there, with some translations carrying the notation you cited. The most popular alternative placement is after Luke 21:38.

As for why it was left out of most early manuscripts, there is no reliable explanation.

https://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/was-there-a-woman-caught-in-adultery/
 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
I was at church today and the message was on John 4. Jesus and the women of Samaria at the well. The pastor made a comment that is weighing on me. He made the assertion that the entire conversation between Jesus and the women is not recorded in the Bible. All the Bible records is the “important” part of their conversation. I’m troubled by this. Why would the pastor say this? How can he possibly know that they spoke about other things? And even if he does believe that why would he even bring it up in the message? Am I being too critical of his comment? Or is he adding/subtracting from the Word?

He doesn't know. He is just throwing out his opinion.

Some want to pick and choose what is in the Bible. They cherry pick what they like and don't like. It is possible that he went to a liberal seminary and they are soft on "the big sins" etc. :idunno

God tells us what we NEED to know for his teaching of us. It's not for pastors, etc. to pick and choose what is not there. I have no idea why there are some with and some without them. I'm not a fan of the modern versions of the Bible.
 

ItIsFinished!

Blood bought child of the King of kings.
I'm not a fan of the modern versions of the Bible.
Nor I.
There are translations , and then there are interpretations translated .
And in some translations there are actual verses or parts of verses omitted .
This obviously should not be the case.

☆ I suggest folks do a study on how certain "translations" came to be and who were involved in bringing it to pass as well as the sources used.
I deleted the part of my post highlighting one particular translation that was on my mind when writing this , but studious students of the Scriptures will most likely know exactly what (popular) version I had in mind.

Having said that, John 7:53 - 8 :11 is in harmony with the whole of Scripture and the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.
Therefore it need not be any format for division.

I am so humbled and grateful for the complete Word of God .
 

Matthew6:33

Withstand in the evil day. Eph 6:13
Yes, there are translations and there are paraphrases. It is best practice to read multiple translations/paraphrases and not just one. When you study, get down to the interlinear and study the original words in Greek and Hebrew. BLB.org has a great tool for doing this and it is free.
 

rks7777

Well-Known Member
Nor I.
There are translations , and then there are interpretations translated .
And in some translations there are actual verses or parts of verses omitted .
This obviously should not be the case.

☆ I suggest folks do a study on how certain "translations" came to be and who were involved in bringing it to pass as well as the sources used.
I deleted the part of my post highlighting one particular translation that was on my mind when writing this , but studious students of the Scriptures will most likely know exactly what (popular) version I had in mind.

Having said that, John 7:53 - 8 :11 is in harmony with the whole of Scripture and the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.
Therefore it need not be any format for division.

I am so humbled and grateful for the complete Word of God .
Can I ask you what version you prefer? If you don’t feel comfortable answering, I understand.
 

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus
Earliest manuscripts vs. majority manuscripts... Which do we think are most accurate?
Some people are not fans of earliest as they stemmed out of Alexandria, Egypt where subsequent false teaching took hold in the churches there (such as translating scripture allegorically rather than literally and the rise of gnosticm and Arianism - which falsy taught Jesus was created by God).

Whereas others feel more confident in ones from Antioch, of which the Apostle Paul started a church there (where scripture was taken literally and majority of manuscrpts came from). In researching it sounds like there's a high number of disagreements between the first manuscripts that came out of Alexandria whereas there's a high degree of continuity with the manuscripts out of Antioch (the majority manuscripts).

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can comment.

This is why bibles will have notations on some passages stating 'according to the most' or 'earliest' manuscripts, or 'this is not in the earliest manuscripts'. Maybe this is where the Pastor is coming from? He's possibly keying off one of those bible notations?
 

Starcrystal

Well-Known Member
Some people are not fans of earliest as they stemmed out of Alexandria, Egypt where subsequent false teaching took hold in the churches there (such as translating scripture allegorically rather than literally and the rise of gnosticm and Arianism - which falsy taught Jesus was created by God).

Whereas others feel more confident in ones from Antioch, of which the Apostle Paul started a church there (where scripture was taken literally and majority of manuscrpts came from). In researching it sounds like there's a high number of disagreements between the first manuscripts that came out of Alexandria whereas there's a high degree of continuity with the manuscripts out of Antioch (the majority manuscripts).

Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can comment.

This is why bibles will have notations on some passages stating 'according to the most' or 'earliest' manuscripts, or 'this is not in the earliest manuscripts'. Maybe this is where the Pastor is coming from? He's possibly keying off one of those bible notations?

I've done a lot of research on this over the years, including when I was in college. The so called "earliest manuscripts" are older because of where they were "discovered." One set on a back shelf of the Vatican library, (Vaticanus) pushed back there because it was incomplete, unused and unimportant. Second was what's called in Sinaticus manuscripts - found in a trash can in St. Catherine's monastery to be burned.
The Textus Receptus are 'newer" simply because they were used over and over, got worn out, and re-copied.

" Dean John Burgon, a highly respected Bible scholar of the mid to late 1800’s, wrote of these manuscripts, “The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus] is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact.” These documents are both of dubious origin. It has been speculated by some scholars that one or both were produced by Eusebius of Caesarea on orders of Emperor Constantine. If this is true, then these manuscripts are linked to Eusibus’s teacher Origen of Alexandria, both known for interpreting Scripture allegorically as opposed to literally. Scholars have designated these manuscripts as Alexandrian, linking them with Alexandria, Egypt, the region responsible for early heresies such as Gnosticism and Arianism. Both are dated in the mid to late fourth century.

Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence.

Why would the monks of St. Catherine’s thrown out such a valuable manuscript? Perhaps because of it’s low quality transcription and it’s “heavily corrected text.” Concerning it’s sloppy penmanship, Burgon writes, “On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness” His colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into detail:

Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament...

When NIV (1984) readers were told “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20,” it would have been helpful if, somewhere in the heading or footnote (unlikely to be seen by readers of digital Bibles), reader had been told that the “earliest manuscripts” was limited to two manuscripts, and that over 99.8% of the rest of the Greek manuscripts support the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 (as does earlier testimony from the 100s in Epistula Apostolorum, Preaching of Peter, Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, for the most part, represent the Alexandrian Text, a form which was used in the early centuries of Christendom in Egypt, but which never dominated the Greek copying-centers where the Byzantine Text was used instead.

Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best? by David L. Brown
the 1911 printing of the N.T. Sinaiticus Volume had this to say by Kirsopp Lake in the intro...
"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).


Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism."
A lot of the omissions deal with the blood of Christ, His deity, and especially the Trinity.

Try to find 1 John 5:7 in many modern translations. Original as recorded in KJV, Revised Geneva Translation:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Wycliffe
Bible -1382: "For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [For three be, that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Ghost]; and these three be one"
This is the best verse in support of the Trinity, which is a core doctrine attacked by many different heretics & cults. John 1 backs this, but this is concice and clear that The Father, the Word (Son/Jesus) and Holy Ghost are ONE. The Alexandrian manuscripts completely omit this, and many other verses, portions of verses, or also some call Lucifer "The Morning Star" rather then "Hallel Ben Shahar" Praise Son of the dawn or Morning" JESUS is the Morning Star, but satan subtly tried to grab the title in Isaiah 14 for himself in the newer translations!
Most other Bibles have this:
NIV 1 John 5:7-8: " For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
RSV: "For there are three that testify:"
Living Bible: 1 John 5:6-8 (What a word salad this is!) "And we know he is, because God said so with a voice from heaven when Jesus was baptized, and again as he was facing death—yes, not only at his baptism but also as he faced death. And the Holy Spirit, forever truthful, says it too. So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at Christ’s baptism, and the voice before he died. And they all say the same thing: that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
ASV: "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
It's quite fascinating, I used to be into rock n roll, a songwriter. Sometimes demons would speak through in the songs. Satan totally claimed his actual title in the lyrics: "With beads and flowers in your hair, cast on him your every care, my Child of Dawn.
Rise like the Sun (Son?) Child of dawn, Rise like the Sun, you be my song. Rise like the Sun, Child of dawn, come to me."


Freaky! I rebuke and renounced and still renounce the foul unclean spirit. But funny, he didn't lie! He still tried to take the place of Christ, but in the new Bibles he claims Christs rightful Morning Star title for all the English speaking world!

Isaiah 14:12 in NIV " How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!" Blasphemy!

 

Chris

Administrator
Staff member
I like staying with the reputable versions like the KJV. When you start having the "translations" of modern versions like they are doing today with some of them, they slip in the ways of the world that end up becoming heretical and in some versions they are blasphemous. :ohno
 

Aiyanna

Well-Known Member
I just stick to my go-tos: the NKJV and the NASB. There are other good ones out there, but I don't like all the arguments over translations unless the translation is actually bad and teaches a whole different message.
The only reason I don't use the old King James is because, while I can and have read old English before. It's a bit exhausting. Nothing will put me to sleep faster:lol. And when I imagine God speaking to me, I imagine it being in my own familiar tongue, not some out-dated version of it (sorry old-King James lovers. Personal preference only).
If I were truly concerned with being as accurate as possible, I'd go to the original languages. Unfortunately, God didn't bless me with the ability to pick up on languages. Believe me, I have tried. So I just stick with what I have and know to be at least decent.

As for the OP... It's interesting he would think there was an extra-Biblical conversation. There's just no real way of knowing.
One day we will meet the Lord in the air, and everything will be made clear to us.
 

gregb4hope

Active Member
I was at church today and the message was on John 4. Jesus and the women of Samaria at the well. The pastor made a comment that is weighing on me. He made the assertion that the entire conversation between Jesus and the women is not recorded in the Bible. All the Bible records is the “important” part of their conversation. I’m troubled by this. Why would the pastor say this? How can he possibly know that they spoke about other things? And even if he does believe that why would he even bring it up in the message? Am I being too critical of his comment? Or is he adding/subtracting from the Word?
 

gregb4hope

Active Member
That may be true what the pastor feels or think. What really matters is to believe what the scripture do reveal. Many fail to believe what is written. I see the miracle of the Word every time I read. We read this story in John 4, written by John who is not even there but the HolySpirit is, and there could have been certain courtesies in the conversation unrecorded. What would beyour pastor's motive to assume such but to perhaps promote the "rest of the story" adding in error. Time will tell!
 
Back
Top