• Hi Guest!

    You may be aware that "big tech" has been aggressively censoring conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, YouTube and other social media platforms. This is tyrannical and suppressive towards Christians and conservatives.

    Please share Talk Jesus community on every platform you have to give conservatives an outlet and safe community to be apart of.

    Support This Community

    Thank You

  • Welcome to Talk Jesus

    A true bible based, Jesus centered online community. Join over 13,000 members today

    Register Log In

Does John 7:53 - 8:11 belong in the Bible?

Active
"53And every man went unto his own house. 1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When 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? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 7:53 - 8:11.​
 
Loyal
There are some verses and parts of verses that are added entirely by copiers. However John 7:53;8:11; is in some manuscripts. especially none of the earlier manuscripts.
Some Bibles leave these verses out. The NIV for example leaves out 32 verses that are in other Bible. The question then becomes where do we draw the line on which manuscripts are accepted.

I personally am OK with these passages being in the Bible. At least in most Bible they are in brackets or italics to tell us this isn't in the manuscripts.
 
Active
There are some verses and parts of verses that are added entirely by copiers. However John 7:53;8:11; is in some manuscripts. especially none of the earlier manuscripts.
Some Bibles leave these verses out. The NIV for example leaves out 32 verses that are in other Bible. The question then becomes where do we draw the line on which manuscripts are accepted.

I personally am OK with these passages being in the Bible. At least in most Bible they are in brackets or italics to tell us this isn't in the manuscripts.
If the earliest Greek manuscripts don't contain the passage, and more recent manuscripts place the questionable passage in footnotes or side notes, it begs the question: was it in the original autographs.
 
Loyal
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient writings do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]

These are things they teach you in "seminary". I learn these things in the late 1970's, that is why I always recommend for over 40 years a good and excellent "Bible Translation" Study or Reference Bible. those are the type of Bibles which will informed you of these things with explanations. As you read them. And the "Introduction" will inform of such. There are "Bicycle Translations" Scooter Translations, Ford Translations, Econoline, 4 cylinders, 6 cylinders, V8, V10, V12, and 3406 E 475 Cat, 15 speed overdrive, with 36 rears, > Bible Translations.

And we must remember, The free copies, "Gideons" that have enough information in it to Aid in the Salvation of one's soul.

Now remember we do not have the Original copy of The Word of GOD. We Just have Copies of the Original Copy Manuscript. of The Bible.

What we read "The Book" The word is "The Book" not 'The Bible" in the english language. Is a group of "Canonical Books" we believe that is "Authoritative" by GOD. Protestant The 66 books of "The BOOK" we believe is authoritative by GOD! by examination of Great Scholars. and Not the "Apocrypha" books or The Pseudographical, Deutero-Canonical Books.

Note: There is enough in "The Canon of Scripture" to get the Job done, I believe. Stop. Because most "christians" are confuse enough as it is, in The Simplicity of Christ as it is.

PS there was no "printing press" Hand copied, by most of the time, if found a "Amanuensis".

An amanuensis is a person employed to write or type what another dictates or to copy what has been written by another, and also refers to a person who signs a document on behalf of another under the latter's authority. The term is often used interchangeably with secretary or scribe.
Now this was done at a price. "
You had good ones and bad ones"
 
Last edited:
Active
"53And every man went unto his own house. 1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When 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? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 7:53 - 8:11.​
I think, absolutely right it should be in the Bible, it is one of the most profound in the Bible and gives a wonderful insight into the character and nature of Jesus. Firstly, the Pharisees did nothing wrong here, they were absolutely right, though their motives were questionable. However it's inescapable that this woman was caught red handed, committing a capital offence and so she and her boyfriend (now where's he???) should be made to serve their punishments Leviticus 20:10. That's where the story should have ended, but no, it took a dramatic turn. Instead of suffering the stoning to death that she so deserved; she knew punishment but thought that the fun was worth the risk, and then got caught, but no, instead Jesus refused to condemn her.

The lesson being that Jesus's love and forgiveness are so much bigger than even God's law. Had He condemned her, she'd have gone straight to Hell and such was His love for her and compassion that He couldn't bring Himself to do that. We don't know if she took His advice, I like to think she probably did and she's now in Heaven as proof that adulterers and all other sinners that repent are not outside of God's love and forgiveness, a fact that I am so grateful for.

So to answer the OP - you're damned right it should be!! I don't know if it slipped out of some of the very earliest manuscripts or what happened. I do know that God wanted this passage in the Bible and He made sure that in the Bible it went!
 
Active
I think, absolutely right it should be in the Bible, it is one of the most profound in the Bible and gives a wonderful insight into the character and nature of Jesus. Firstly, the Pharisees did nothing wrong here, they were absolutely right, though their motives were questionable. However it's inescapable that this woman was caught red handed, committing a capital offence and so she and her boyfriend (now where's he???) should be made to serve their punishments Leviticus 20:10. That's where the story should have ended, but no, it took a dramatic turn. Instead of suffering the stoning to death that she so deserved; she knew punishment but thought that the fun was worth the risk, and then got caught, but no, instead Jesus refused to condemn her.

The lesson being that Jesus's love and forgiveness are so much bigger than even God's law. Had He condemned her, she'd have gone straight to Hell and such was His love for her and compassion that He couldn't bring Himself to do that. We don't know if she took His advice, I like to think she probably did and she's now in Heaven as proof that adulterers and all other sinners that repent are not outside of God's love and forgiveness, a fact that I am so grateful for.

So to answer the OP - you're damned right it should be!! I don't know if it slipped out of some of the very earliest manuscripts or what happened. I do know that God wanted this passage in the Bible and He made sure that in the Bible it went!
Yes, it is a beautiful story of God's grace and mercy. However, if it was not in the original autograph (no one can say with certainty that it was) then it is not a true account. If it is not a true account, but something added by a scribe who thought it would make a nice addition, then it is not God-breathed.
 
Active
Yes, it is a beautiful story of God's grace and mercy. However, if it was not in the original autograph (no one can say with certainty that it was) then it is not a true account. If it is not a true account, but something added by a scribe who thought it would make a nice addition, then it is not God-breathed.
Well this is pretty much the whole problem with "modern Biblical scholarship" > the theology of unbelief.
Ivan Panin has these verses in his 1914 Bible Numerics New Testament because the gematria of the original Greek confirms their veracity.
It is one thing to determine that a word or phrase has been added to a verse, such as 1John 5:8, but to claim that massive sections of multiple verses do not belong in scripture is an affront to God and His capacity
to seal and protect true scripture from the apocrypha and false gospels.

Much of the problem of so-called modern scholarship lies in giving credibility to earliest manuscripts without knowledge as to their value or genuineness in ancient church history and doctrinal battles for political and cultural supremacy.
The most obvious example of the politics of manuscript doctoring is Mark 16:15-20 where despite the majority of manuscripts having these verses "theologians" claim that the earliest manuscripts held by the Vatican and the Eastern
Orthodox libraries are genuine, thus declaring the word of God invalid, null and void.
Funny how the two great worldly churches that operate in defiance of the Holy Spirit would have such early manuscripts.
 
Active
Well this is pretty much the whole problem with "modern Biblical scholarship" > the theology of unbelief.
Ivan Panin has these verses in his 1914 Bible Numerics New Testament because the gematria of the original Greek confirms their veracity.
It is one thing to determine that a word or phrase has been added to a verse, such as 1John 5:8, but to claim that massive sections of multiple verses do not belong in scripture is an affront to God and His capacity
to seal and protect true scripture from the apocrypha and false gospels.

Much of the problem of so-called modern scholarship lies in giving credibility to earliest manuscripts without knowledge as to their value or genuineness in ancient church history and doctrinal battles for political and cultural supremacy.
The most obvious example of the politics of manuscript doctoring is Mark 16:15-20 where despite the majority of manuscripts having these verses "theologians" claim that the earliest manuscripts held by the Vatican and the Eastern
Orthodox libraries are genuine, thus declaring the word of God invalid, null and void.
Funny how the two great worldly churches that operate in defiance of the Holy Spirit would have such early manuscripts.
Aa far as I am concerned, it's not a "theology of unbelief", but rather a quest for the truth, which is why we search God's word. I have no problem "believing" the pericope adulterea is in the original autograph, nor do I have a problem "believing" that Mark 16:9-20 or the comma Johanneum of 1 John 5 are in the original autographs. That said, since we don't have the originals, and the manuscripts that are in evidence give conflicting testimony, no one but God knows the absolute truth.
 
Loyal
Yes, it is a beautiful story of God's grace and mercy. However, if it was not in the original autograph (no one can say with certainty that it was) then it is not a true account. If it is not a true account, but something added by a scribe who thought it would make a nice addition, then it is not God-breathed.
Scholars who know about these things tend to agree that the Greek in this passage is different in style from the rest of John's gospel.

But not being penned by John does not mean it's false. Stories about Jesus were passed on carefully for two or three decades until the first gospels were written. So it's likely that this account is well preserved and true, but inserted by a later editor.
 
Active
Scholars who know about these things tend to agree that the Greek in this passage is different in style from the rest of John's gospel.

But not being penned by John does not mean it's false. Stories about Jesus were passed on carefully for two or three decades until the first gospels were written. So it's likely that this account is well preserved and true, but inserted by a later editor.
Yes, that is quite possibly true.
 
Active
"53And every man went unto his own house. 1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When 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? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." John 7:53 - 8:11.​
Of course it belongs in the Bible...Didn't God guide them to put it there? Do you know something that God does not? :D
 
Active
Of course it belongs in the Bible...Didn't God guide them to put it there? Do you know something that God does not? :D
Them? To whom are you referring? The question about the cited passage of scripture is whether it was in the original writing by the apostle John. The issue arose because the passage of scripture is not in the earliest manuscrpts, the writing is of a different style grammatically than the rest of the writing of John, and before it appears in later manuscrpts it appears only in side notes in some of the older manuscripts, while the very earliest manuscripts contain no mention of it at all.

I have no problem believing it is orginal to John's letter, even though we don't have the original to verify that it is. It could be that scribes (or a scribe) overlooked it, after which copies made from his manuscript also kept it out.

The questions then, are these: Is the passage original to John's letter? Did a scribe (or scribes) fail to include it in the earliest manuscripts? Or, did a scribe act on his own and add it into the body of John's letter?

If it was accidentally omitted (or intentionally omitted) by early scribes, then reinserted later because another scribe had the original (or had seen the original) and the original included it, then it is God-breathed. However, if John did not write that passage in his original letter and (for whatever reason) it was added by a scribe hundreds of years after John penned this letter, then it is not original and therefore not God-breathed.
 
Active
Well this is pretty much the whole problem with "modern Biblical scholarship" > the theology of unbelief.
Ivan Panin has these verses in his 1914 Bible Numerics New Testament because the gematria of the original Greek confirms their veracity.
It is one thing to determine that a word or phrase has been added to a verse, such as 1John 5:8, but to claim that massive sections of multiple verses do not belong in scripture is an affront to God and His capacity
to seal and protect true scripture from the apocrypha and false gospels.
Panin has confirmed the validity of these verses so there is no longer any debate.
 
Active
Panin has confirmed the validity of these verses so there is no longer any debate.
Yet the debate continues in nearly every theological circle, especially among Greek scholars. Panin used math. There's an old saying: figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
 
Active
Brother,

Using numerical patterns as a means of grammatical interpretations for holy scripture is akin to reading tea leaves: one person does it his way and gets one interpretation, and someone else does it his way and gets another interpretation.

Panin convinced himself that the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God through his seeing of numerical patterns, but his conversion from nihilism and agnosticism (and his subsequent writings) did not lead to a great awakening among nihilists and agnostics to come to faith in Jesus. Why not?

Yes, the debate goes on and will continue to go on because it has not been completely settled.
 
Active
Brother,

Using numerical patterns as a means of grammatical interpretations for holy scripture is akin to reading tea leaves: one person does it his way and gets one interpretation, and someone else does it his way and gets another interpretation.

Panin convinced himself that the Bible was the divinely inspired word of God through his seeing of numerical patterns, but his conversion from nihilism and agnosticism (and his subsequent writings) did not lead to a great awakening among nihilists and agnostics to come to faith in Jesus. Why not?

Yes, the debate goes on and will continue to go on because it has not been completely settled.
Absolute rubbish - here we go again
Bible Numerics or gematria of the original Greek is merely an extension, a continuation, of the gematria of the original Hebrew.
 
Active
Okay, if you say so. By the way, what or who is 666 specifically in reference to in Revelation? And, we know it's antichrist: but which one?
 
Active
Okay, if you say so. By the way, what or who is 666 specifically in reference to in Revelation? And, we know it's antichrist: but which one?
There is no ANTI-CHRIST in Revelation - there is the first beast and the second beast and Mystery Babylon

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that they give them a mark on their right hand or upon their forehead;
13:17 and that no one be able to buy or sell, save who hath the mark, the name of the beast or the number of his name.
13:18 Here is the wisdom. Who hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred sixty six. - 666

Well there are no shortages of books, prophecies, videos and movies, and theology over this -
My personal choice derived from the integrity of the other chapters of revelation on the theme is that this number represents the Papacy and the RCC.
People have shown that the official titles of the Popes in the Latin add up to 666 when using the gematria of the Latin alphabet.
Others claim that it is merely Nero who persecuted Christians for a time.
Either way Revelation is definitely about the destructive worldly religion and power that comes out of Rome.
 
Active
There is no ANTI-CHRIST in Revelation - there is the first beast and the second beast and Mystery Babylon

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that they give them a mark on their right hand or upon their forehead;
13:17 and that no one be able to buy or sell, save who hath the mark, the name of the beast or the number of his name.
13:18 Here is the wisdom. Who hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred sixty six. - 666

Well there are no shortages of books, prophecies, videos and movies, and theology over this -
My personal choice derived from the integrity of the other chapters of revelation on the theme is that this number represents the Papacy and the RCC.
People have shown that the official titles of the Popes in the Latin add up to 666 when using the gematria of the Latin alphabet.
Others claim that it is merely Nero who persecuted Christians for a time.
Either way Revelation is definitely about the destructive worldly religion and power that comes out of Rome.
Brother,

You said "There is no ANTI-CHRIST in Revelation." Are you saying that those that teach on Revelation 13 have it wrong: that the beast referred to in Revelation 13 whose name or number is 666 is NOT antichrist simply because the word antichrist is not used in the text?
 

Similar threads

Top