Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Part of John 8 not in the original texts


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hi all, I haven't been on much lately (for quite a while actually). Hope everyone is well and blessed in this new year.

I had something I haven't heard before told to me this evening and wondered if anyone knew the root of it and the driving force behind the teaching. A gentleman (who claims to be a christian, but is often uttering false teachings - which I am sure he has heard from a number sources) told me this evening that the scriptures found in John 8 versus 3 through 11 are not in the original texts (I am assuming he refers to the TR, but didn't have the time to discuss it further). Has anyone heard this teaching before and, if so, do you know the root of it and why whoever started this teaching would want to discredit this particular portion of scripture?

This gentleman also said that the last portion of the book of Mark was not written by John Mark because of the following:

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 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.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Because all Christians aren't healers and don't speak in new tongues and are immune to poisons, etc., etc.

Obviously this is just foolishness in understanding the use of signs, miracles, gifts, and talents. I have heard this before and, after studying, have discarded it as the foolishness it is.


As for the first topic though, I haven't heard it before and wonder if you have. I have a couple of different Greek texts online and on my computer (though I cannot read or speak the Greek, but only lean on translation), and each of them contain this scripture and concur the same translation (with minor word changes). Those who know me, know where I stand concerning the KJV and know that I am not entreating this as truth, but rather, that I would like to find out where this teaching is coming from. Any insight would be appreciated.

God's grace and blessings in the new year to each of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It comes from the same place all false doctrine comes from--the devil. Certain people, though seemingly wise, are trusting in other mens thoughts and not in the Word of God (KJB). They undermine the Bible, and yet may not realize it. Satan has gained much for the want of knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi all, I haven't been on much lately (for quite a while actually). Hope everyone is well and blessed in this new year.

I had something I haven't heard before told to me this evening and wondered if anyone knew the root of it and the driving force behind the teaching. A gentleman (who claims to be a christian, but is often uttering false teachings - which I am sure he has heard from a number sources) told me this evening that the scriptures found in John 8 versus 3 through 11 are not in the original texts (I am assuming he refers to the TR, but didn't have the time to discuss it further). Has anyone heard this teaching before and, if so, do you know the root of it and why whoever started this teaching would want to discredit this particular portion of scripture?

This gentleman also said that the last portion of the book of Mark was not written by John Mark because of the following:

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 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.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Because all Christians aren't healers and don't speak in new tongues and are immune to poisons, etc., etc.

Obviously this is just foolishness in understanding the use of signs, miracles, gifts, and talents. I have heard this before and, after studying, have discarded it as the foolishness it is.


As for the first topic though, I haven't heard it before and wonder if you have. I have a couple of different Greek texts online and on my computer (though I cannot read or speak the Greek, but only lean on translation), and each of them contain this scripture and concur the same translation (with minor word changes). Those who know me, know where I stand concerning the KJV and know that I am not entreating this as truth, but rather, that I would like to find out where this teaching is coming from. Any insight would be appreciated.

God's grace and blessings in the new year to each of you.

Here's a link to an article on the history of this subject. I see no reason to believe that the Pericope Adulterae is not a true narrative. Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Futurehope, the heading to this topic says "Part of John 8 not in the original texts" I wonder, is that a statement or a question?
Too many men who think themselves scholars, make the same claim, yet I wonder how many have seen a manuscript? Any manuscript at all, that they can call "original"? Be careful of "tooting another mans horn", and spreading some nonsense that He thinks may be true. I am amazed that so many of us proclaim as fact that which the man who stated even, cannot prove. We resort back to the days when the priests had to interpret the Word of God for us, only we let "educated" men do it now! They really don't know any more about it than they have learned from others either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was a problem in Augustine's time - he suggested it had been struck from the manuscripts but prudes who were embarrassed by the Saviour apparently condoning adultery.

No-one now wants to discredit this Scripture - we need it as it show's our Saviour's compassion, & discredits the spurious righteousness of the legalists..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Those verses are not in the oldest manuscripts. That's the controversy.

Also: Good to see you around again, brother. :icon_smile:
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.


Manuscripts? Alexandria,Egypt or Antioch, Syria?
Alexandria = Bad Antioch = Good
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

First off, thanks for the replies. My apologies for the confusion as the title heading was neither intended as a question or statement. I do not question it at all, but firmly believe that the belief that this scripture is not true cannon is a lie of satan to discredit God's Word. I simply used the heading to give an idea of what the topic was without dragging it out. Again, my apologies for any confusion. Annie, thanks for sharing the link, it provided some good historical matter. Thanks for the welcoming back and I will try not to be a stranger quite so long at a time. It's good to see that many of you are still here. God's grace to each of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The oldest manuscripts are the oldest because nobody used they since they recognized they were junk.


It's most often kept quiet as to where most of these "older manuscripts" were found and just why they were there and in such good condition. No doubt it would be to the enemies benefit to ensure corrupt manuscripts were kept safe somewhere rather than being destroyed so he could use them to reap confusion and lead many astray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



It's most often kept quiet as to where most of these "older manuscripts" were found and just why they were there and in such good condition. No doubt it would be to the enemies benefit to ensure corrupt manuscripts were kept safe somewhere rather than being destroyed so he could use them to reap confusion and lead many astray.


The Vaticanus was found in the Vatican's library. Yeah, that should be trustworthy. The Vaticanus is missing ALL of the book of Revelation, ALL of I & II Timothy, ALL of Titus and half the book of Hebrews. How's that for "the oldest and best"?

The Sinaiticus was found in the garbage dump of a Greek Orthodox monastery near Mt. Sinai by an unsaved German scholar named Tischendorf. The Sinaiticus was in such bad shape from all the words and verses scribbled over, erased and copied over that is almost illegible. This is why it was in a garbage pile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...