Are the following passages "corrupted"?

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
It would seem it just comes down to faith doesn't it? The scriptures whether they be Old Testament/New Testament for Christians or Koranic for the Muslims provide a resource for people to follow. The downside is of course the allegations of forgery that resound throughout time and space by those who either can't or won't believe what they read or hear.

You've illustrated how there could be parts of the Christian scriptures that are forged in order to deceive others. That can cause doubts in those that follow that particular way. However, it appears even Islam has the same problem as illustrated by Woodrow when he mentions the scribe Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn .

In any case Christians should follow their faith and Muslims should follow theirs. As a Christian who is Catholic you know I follow the scriptures as well as the traditions of the Catholic Church, I won't mention Apostolic Succession because it infuriates some people but that is a valuable part of the Church non the less. You have successfully convinced me that there times when bad people can be in power within the Church as they can be in any profession or religion. However, I won't abandon my faith just because there are some bad apples within it past present, or future; and I expect the same of muslims as well. For Christians atleast God gave us all free will. He rains on the guilty and the innocent.

In any case I won't expect Muslims to abandon their faith for the same reasons. We each follow different scriptures some of which may of may not be forgeries.

As Woodrow has so eloquently put,"People can only use the information they have and have verified to their satisfaction."

For Christians Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. For Muslims this may not be the case as they view Jesus in an entirely different way.

I'll close with a quote from the Late Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen.

"A Lie is a Lie even if everyone believes it, and the Truth is the Truth even if no one believe it."

Peace be with you.

 

[Zafran]

You said: "Indeed the last verses of deuteronomy have been added God knows what else has been added and taken out."

You are making a mountain out of a molehill, I'm afraid. As I said, many books of the Bible were written by more than one writer. The book of 1 Samuel could not have been written by Samuel alone because 1 Samuel 25:1 states: "In time Samuel died". But that doesn't mean that the book has been corrupted. It just means that there was more than one writer.

2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All scripture is inspired of God" and that surely includes the whole of Deuteronomy together with the last 8 verses. Jesus himself quoted from Deuteronomy three times when rebuking Satan (Luke 4:1-12).



I don't quite understand what you are telling me here. What are these different canons that the "Orthodox" have?

Not realy you need to go back and see what I wrote - The torah in tradition is the book GIVEN TO MOSES pbuh (ONE MAN) - but in the bible you have today- Moses pbuh is being descirbed as being buried in the book that was meant to be given to Moses pbuh - After Moses pbuh died the Torah should not have been edited by anyone - well it was and we have many suspects - So heres the problem in summery

As the Bible as been written by more then one person (probably Jews trying to recollect the Torah) it is not realy the Torah of Moses pbuh anymore - you can even see these add ons (deutoronmy example) which couldnt have been in the original book given to Moses pbuh - its more of a re edited version.

The NT is total different debate.

see post 25 by gmcbroom for the different canon/books in the orthodox tradition - I'll quote him below

As for the Orthodox Canon having more I can't say why they do just that they do, anywhere from 76 to 88 depending on which Orthodox Church you belong to.

 

[Ramadhan]

Hi Naidamar! thanks for this input as I went and searched for some info about that passage!

I wonder how many christians actually understand what is in the bible text and what is not, if you, a fairly knowledgeable christian, did not even know the blatant addition to the oldest bible manuscripts.

First, I would like to point out that it is not an example that sinning is ok and shouldn't be punished. It shows how much we should love everyone, even the sinners. Even Jesus wouldn't judge her and instead gave her a second chance.

IF that had been indeed occurred, but as biblical textual authenticity, integrity and criticism (and even a follower of christ here, Hiroshi, also agrees that the passage is fabrication) showed, the passage is a complete fabrication.

Also even if christians claim that they use the passage to show how much they should love everyone, in practice it only weakens the argument that punishment should be enforced for those who break the law. We all know from other verified passages that Jesus (pbuh) was upholding mosaic law, he even in anger kicked out money changers from temples.
This fabricated passage is certainly a great bounty for sinners and other people who continually sin and break the law. I guess thats how paedophile priests got off.

Second, the evidence for or against the text. I'll just point out that in this age of (mis)information and instant internet knowledge, it is very easy to find books, opinions and articles to prove a point.

Then point out where I made mistake, and debate why bible scholars were wrong, and give us evidence.

That would be like me saying "Islam only promotes violence" and then look in the Qu'ran, ahadith and all over the internet to prove my point. That would be very hypocritical of me to do so, just like some terrorists pluck out some verses from the Qu'ran to "justify" their acts, without taking into account the rest of the evidence.

That is funny that you came up with such analogy. Let me point out the fallacy of such analogy.
The action of other muslims do not define my faith, and their understanding or lack thereof of Qur'an and ahadeeth do not change the Qur'an and ahadeeth.
The terrorists actions also do not affect my salvation in any way.
However, believing that such and such words and actions were of God while in actuality were only words of scribes could condemn you to not the nicest places after death.
Unless, you do not think it is important that words of God should never be changed, modified, edited, erased, added into, etc.
Harry Potter books might be more entertaining in that way.
Also, in this thread, I did not take my sources from rabid anti-christian sites like all you rabid christians do when debating the Qur'an. I am taking ALL my sources of bible from your own established christians and bible sites. (biblenet etc).
The corruptions, contradictions and errors found within bible and between bible versions are enough to keep this forum busy for another 100 years.

Now, if you think I only take my source from the some shady internet sites that Pericope adulterae did not exist in codex sinaiticus, then give us evidence where in codex sinaiticus and others that the passage exist.

Don't give us the straw men, it's something that I've noticed a lot of christians do when the magnifying glass is directed towards bible.

I read some articles about the passage we are talking about and the evidence clearly shows that the P66 scribe knew about the omission of the passage by marking it. The same thing happened in the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. To me it is an indication that the scribes knew there was a missing part part in the text they were copying. The only thing that can be actually proved is that, yes, the passage is missing and even the scribe of the oldest copy knew about it!

OK. give us links, I would like to know how you were able to know what's in the minds of the P66, Codex sinaiticus, vaticanus, alexandrinus and all other earliest surviving new testament uncials, while in fact bible scholars already came to conclusion that pericope adulterae was never part of johanine uncials. I have given you bart ehrman's books where I took my finding from. Have you read them?

Here's more evidence that pericope adulterae was complete fabrication (I hope you are aware that the passage appeared first time in Latin Vulgate):
Keith, Chris (2008). "Recent and Previous Research on the Pericope Adulterae (John 7.53—8.11)". Currents in Biblical Research 6 (3): 377–404.

More for you to read: http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+7:4
139 tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66,75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western mss” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (῎Ορθρου, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1-2 into the narrative is simply that – an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1-2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44).
sn Double brackets have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation.

Sorry but since the day you massively copied-cut a huge part of a garbage website like answering christianity, to answer me right after I wrote that I wouldn't do the opposite, I take your posts and opinions with a lot of caution.

Ah but http://www.answering-christianity.org/ac.htm serves its purpose in answering specific allegations and lies from rabid christian who took their lies from anti Islam sites
Also, if you think the points I made using source from answering christianity is not correct, then it would have been easy for you to refute, right?.
There are other better sites, such as http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/home
Try it, you may get enlightened that way.

What I would like to though is if anyone could offer the counter to that passage from the Qu'ran or hadith.

We have already shown that the passage is a fiction. Qur'an and hadith do not respond and counter in specific way every fictions ever written, but there are several verses where God condemns scrptural scribes, rabbis and priests who changed the words of God.

 

[Hiroshi]

For the same reason , devout Christians and learned men claim that Jesus(as) was crucified on a cross. People are human and can only use the information they have and have verified to their satisfaction.

Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.

However, Justin was not inspired by God, as were the Bible writers. He was born more than eighty years after Jesus’ death, and was not an eyewitness of that event. It is believed that in describing the “cross” Justin followed an earlier writing known as the “Letter of Barnabas.” This non-Biblical letter claims that the Bible describes Abraham as having circumcised three hundred and eighteen men of his household. Then it derives special significance from a Greek-letter cipher for 318, namely, IHT. The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.

Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.” A translator into English of this “Letter of Barnabas” points out that it contains “numerous inaccuracies,” “absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture,” and “many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges.”

 

[Ramadhan]

It would seem it just comes down to faith doesn't it?

I disagree. Maybe for christians, faith is all it takes to believe that human is god, and that a book full of contradictions and errors is from god and inspired by god. Maybe it's only christians who believe that the only way to determine the truth is faith. If faith is all it takes, then what makes christianity different than those who worship fire as god, or the people who believe the universe is self-creating and eternal, or the children who believe Harry Potter books are for real, or the children (and adults alike) who believe that santa lives on the north pole?

The scriptures whether they be Old Testament/New Testament for Christians or Koranic for the Muslims provide a resource for people to follow.

There's a difference. Muslims believe the Qur'an contains guidance for mankind and from God, and the criterion for truth. While from what you are saying, I got the sense that that the OT and NT is just merely a resource book for people to follow, maybe similar to this: WHO Resource book on mental health, human rights and legislation

The downside is of course the allegations of forgery that resound throughout time and space by those who either can't or won't believe what they read or hear.

This is true. However, as we have seen countless times, when allegation is baseless and not true, it is very easy to provide evidence against it. And this does not apply to religious scriptures only, but also to all aspects of human life. That's why in the court of law the judges and/or jury examine evidence for/against accusation to determine the truth.

You've illustrated how there could be parts of the Christian scriptures that are forged in order to deceive others.

I did not only illustrate, but I provided evidence. See my previous post.
And the evidence is actually provided by majority of bible scholars as well as the physical evidence that the pericope adulterae was never in the oldest bible manuscripts.

In any case Christians should follow their faith and Muslims should follow theirs

If it were ok for anyone to follow anything that they like/have faith in, then God is unjust for condemning atheists, idol worshippers etc to hell. You know that this is in your scripture, right?

As a Christian who is Catholic you know I follow the scriptures as well as the traditions of the Catholic Church, I won't mention Apostolic Succession because it infuriates some people but that is a valuable part of the Church non the less.

I think it infuriates other christians, especially the protestants. As a muslim, it just amuses me, that's all, as I have given illustration that apostolic succession may sound grand and look pompous and glittery (what with all those over the top papal clothing and all those papal palaces?), but is actually rotten in the inside.

You have successfully convinced me that there times when bad people can be in power within the Church as they can be in any profession or religion.

Excuse me. Catholic believe that "apostolic succession" is not merely reguler followers of religion. You yourself said that many times here in this thread. You hold apostolic succession the holder of your standard of truth. If it merely people of faith, I wouldnt have argued against you, but the catholic church actually believe that the popes receive spiritual guidance form God and is the God's representative on earth and determined what is in the doctrines and what is not.
Here's from wiki:
Apostolic succession (Hebrew: האפיפיור הירושה‎, Greek: Αποστολική διαδοχή) is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church doubly believes that a bishop's authority on matters of faith and morals is infallible when what he teaches is universally taught by all the college of bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who in turn is seen as the successor of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

So the catholic church believes that the popes are infallible and God's authority on earth, and I have shown you with only ONE example that is not the case, unless you believe that God prefers his representatives to be devil incarnate.

I won't abandon my faith just because there are some bad apples within it past present, or future; and I expect the same of muslims as well. For Christians atleast God gave us all free will. He rains on the guilty and the innocent.

I actually did not demand or even expect you to change your faith
As the title of the thread shows, I was only showing how the bible that christians hod as the truth is well and truly corrupted, and the creative words of men are attributed to god.

For Christians atleast God gave us all free will.

True. God give us free will. But God is Just. He also gives us capacity to discern the truth and His guidance. Otherwise He is not just and arbitrary.

We each follow different scriptures some of which may of may not be forgeries.

Except it has been shown with evidence that there's plenty of forgeries in the bible

As Woodrow has so eloquently put,"People can only use the information they have and have verified to their satisfaction."

Very true, and we shown you here the information that bible is corrupted and contains forgeries (see my previous post).

For Christians Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. For Muslims this may not be the case as they view Jesus in an entirely different way.

Empty words can sound meaningful and grand. Usually to mask the lies and obfuscate the truth. I agree.

"A Lie is a Lie even if everyone believes it, and the Truth is the Truth even if no one believe it."

I totally agree with this. Think how many christians that believe the lies in the bible, the words of man and scribes and rabbis which were falsely attributed to God and Jesus (pbuh)?

 

[JPR]

OK. give us links, I would like to know how you were able to know what's in the minds of the P66, Codex sinaiticus, vaticanus, alexandrinus and all other earliest surviving new testament uncials, while in fact bible scholars already came to conclusion that pericope adulterae was never part of johanine uncials. I have given you bart ehrman's books where I took my finding from. Have you read them?

Would like to post links but can't

As for Bart Ehrman's books, never read them and don't have any intention of reading them after I read the following critique:

"Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.

Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced."

We have already shown that the passage is a fiction.

You haven't, you just said other people think that way. I would still like a passage from the Qu'ran talking about adulterous women / men


I went and checked the website you linked... less trashy then the first one, but still. (come on, "Book of Porn"? seriously?)

These websites promote more inter-religion hate than anything else. They are the fast-food equivalent of knowledge: 2000 calories, no nutritive value except for the ketchup. So no, I don't agree they serve any purpose.

specific allegations and lies from rabid christian

Replace "christian" with "person". A real christian who believes Jesus died for his sins won't lie because, well, that's sinning and contrary to the whole idea of becoming a child of God. And "rabid"? Come on that sounds like a certain website. Anything that doesn't agree with Islam is "anti-Islam" so the list is very large.

Now that it's taken care of, let's talk about what the Qu'ran offers for adulterous people.

 

[Ramadhan]

"Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong.

So you decide what to read and not to read based on one single anonymous comment?
LOL.
No wonder you believe in lies and forgeries in the bible.
I thought only children do that.
Here's who Bart Ehrman is according to neutral sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman
http://religion.unc.edu/faculty/Ehrman1.html

Or from an evangelist who disagree with Bart but admire his academic integrity:
As an evangelical who has retained and maintained his faith in this journey, I haven't found it necessary to resort to denial. There are satisfactory answers to be found. It does, however, require a willingness to adopt some humility and to honestly rethink and modify positions when the facts call for it. That is not a bad thing. In fact, I think it's a good thing and results in a deeper, more understanding, more relevent and intellectually honest faith that can move and interact within our society and culture without apology. I don't believe God intends for his people to be mental midgets or follow their faith mindlessly.
Evangelicals, (such as myself) need to read and interact with these types of books and enter the field as participants in the debate rather than naysayers throwing verbal salvos from behind our walls of faith, security and (unfortunately at times) ignorance.

Read it and be introduced into an important field of knowledge.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3L9D4...&ASIN=0060859512&nodeID=283155&tag=&linkCode=

You haven't, you just said other people think that way.

Are you even serious? or are you that delusional? I have provided you with sources that pericope adulterae was never in the bible manuscripts.
If you claim that pericope adulterae is contained in the oldest bible mansucripts (codex vaticanus, sinaiticus, alexandrinus) then give us links and show us where.

I would still like a passage from the Qu'ran talking about adulterous women / men

This thread is about corrupted passages in the bible, so before you sidetracked the discussion and if you want to ask about Qur'an, you can go here: http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=37118 or http://www.islamicboard.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38
I am sure we are more than happy to answer all your question.

But as it has been established that pericopae adulterae is a fiction, Allah in the Qur'an say:

Sahih International
So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. (QS. 2:79)


​

In the meantime, let's see what God in the bible actually says about the punishments for adultery:

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."
Proverbs 6:32 "But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself."
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the *****, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Do Christians think those passages are corrupted?

I went and checked the website you linked... less trashy then the first one, but still. (come on, "Book of Porn"? seriously?)

I also disagree that some people call bible "book of porn", but what I agree is that there are many passages in the bible which are quite sexually graphic.
Do you think those passages are actually from God or creative writing of men?

Replace "christian" with "person". A real christian who believes Jesus died for his sins won't lie because, well, that's sinning and contrary to the whole idea of becoming a child of God.

Ah, then forgive me. I must have not met many christians so it seems.

And "rabid"? Come on that sounds like a certain website. Anything that doesn't agree with Islam is "anti-Islam" so the list is very large.

The internet is littered with endless websites whose purpose is to paint lies against Islam. I can give you examples of those link. And Im not talking about that website you may have in mind. Most of those websites are by christians. Christian missionaries in my country are also actively using deceitful methods and lies to convert people to christianity, I shouldnt blame them though. They took example from Saul of Tarsus.

Now that's taken care of, please come up with more bible passages so we can discuss whether they are for real, corrupted or fabricated.

 

[Trumble]

So you decide what to read and not to read based on one single anonymous comment?

The source, apparently, is actually Professor Daniel_B._Wallace. According his his Wiki entry he seems no less distinguished a New Testament scholar than Ehrman. Of course, nobody can disagree with each other with quite the frequency, enjoyment and often disguised contempt much better than academics (economists maybe, politicians don't bother to disguise the contempt!). As such an expert in this 'important field of knowledge' I'm sure you are just as familiar with Wallace's work as that of Ehrman, so perhaps you could inform us of at least the most significant of their disagreements with some supporting sources? That would be particularly helpful as, unlike Ehrman, Wallace seems to have refrained from writing for the 'popular' audience - perhaps because, being rather less 'controversial', he wouldn't sell as well?

As to Misquoting Jesus, I note from the Wiki link you provided that even one of Ehrman's critics considers it "a very readable, accurate distillation of many of the most important facts about the nature and history of textual criticism, presented in a lively and interesting narrative that will keep scholarly and lay interest alike" - which, having read it as very much a layman I would certainly agree with, although I'd also endorse the comment regarding footnotes and bibliography.

 

[Ramadhan]

The source, apparently, is actually Professor Daniel_B._Wallace. According his his Wiki entry he seems no less distinguished a New Testament scholar than Ehrman. Of course, nobody can disagree with each other with quite the frequency, enjoyment and often disguised contempt much better than academics (economists maybe, politicians don't bother to disguise the contempt!). As such an expert in this 'important field of knowledge' I'm sure you are just as familiar with Wallace's work as that of Ehrman, so perhaps you could inform us of at least the most significant of their disagreements with some supporting sources? That would be particularly helpful as, unlike Ehrman, Wallace seems to have refrained from writing for the 'popular' audience - perhaps because, being rather less 'controversial', he wouldn't sell as well?

I so thank you for this, Trumble. I never knew that you can also be useful in exposing bible forgery and lies of bible scribes.
I am overly excited to find out if the comment is actually from professor Daniel Wallace. Let's see who this Prof. Wallace is.

Now, if you look back at my post #43, I provided the source and evidence that the passage about woman sinner is absolute forgery:

More for you to read: http://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+7:4 139 tc This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel.

And if you noticed the website, it's the NET Bible site.
Here's info on NET Bible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Bible

And do you know who served as the NT senior editor of NET bible?
yes, none other than the dear prof. Daniel Wallace that our friend JPR here is so fond of.

Wallace published his first edition of Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics in 1996. It has since become a standard work in the field. Two-thirds of schools that teach the subject use the textbook.[3] He also served as senior New Testament editor for the NET Bible and has founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

So, in this specific issue that we are debating, Prof. Daniel Wallace and his team concluded that pericope adulterae (john 7:53 8:11) was NEVER part of the original texts of the gospel of John.

LOL. ironic right?

It's so easy to find out forgeries and contradictions and errors of bible that even our friend Trimble the atheist is able to do it.

 

[Trumble]

It's so easy to find out It's so easy to find out forgeries and contradictions and errors of bible that even our friend Trimble the atheist is able to do it. that even our friend Trimble the atheist is able to do it.

That's Trumble.

You do have the most annoying habit of attributing words and now activities to me that have no relation to what I have said/done. I have made no attempt to 'find out forgeries and contradictions and errors of bible', at least in the context of this forum, and while having an interest in the subject as an amateur student of comparative religion I have no agenda either way. Which is why, or at least one reason why, I'm rather disappointed by your response.

While it seems Wallace agrees with Ehrman regarding the pericope adulterae, he obviously disagrees with him regarding many other things, hence the original quote. I see nothing 'ironic' in that, both men are serious and respected academics, and in this field agreement on some issues and disagreement on others is to be expected. While you have concentrated on that particular issue, the thread itself covers considerably more ground and I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like some more information on both what those differences actually are and the reasons for disagreement, at least in layman's terms. However, it does rather appear that despite your pomposity your knowledge of this important field of debate is restricted to the more populist presentations of one side of it. Hopefully more informative comments will come from elsewhere in due course.

 

[Hiroshi]

As the Bible as been written by more then one person (probably Jews trying to recollect the Torah) it is not realy the Torah of Moses pbuh anymore - you can even see these add ons (deutoronmy example) which couldnt have been in the original book given to Moses pbuh - its more of a re edited version.

Of course Deuteronomy contained the final verses in it's original form. Moses wrote almost everything so naturally the writing is attributed to him even though the last verses speak of his death.

see post 25 by gmcbroom for the different canon/books in the orthodox tradition - I'll quote him below

As for the Orthodox Canon having more I can't say why they do just that they do, anywhere from 76 to 88 depending on which Orthodox Church you belong to.

One of our reference works "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" pages 300-301 says:

[FONT=&quot]Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah. Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) There is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures; the traditional Jewish canon, while including these same books, counts them as 24. Some authorities, by putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22, though still holding to exactly the same canonical writings. This made the number of inspired books equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The following is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Law (The Pentateuch)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1. Genesis[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2. Exodus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3. Leviticus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4. Numbers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5. Deuteronomy[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Prophets[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 6. Joshua[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7. Judges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. Isaiah[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. Jeremiah[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. Ezekiel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Writings (Hagiographa)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. Psalms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. Proverbs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. Job[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. The Song of Solomon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. Ruth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. Lamentations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20. Ecclesiastes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21. Esther[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22. Daniel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God. (Rom. 15:9) Jesus, in speaking of the complete inspired Scriptures written up till the time of his ministry, referred to the things recorded in “the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” (Luke 24:44) Here “Psalms,” as the first book of the Hagiographa, is used to refer to this whole section. The last historical book to be included in the Hebrew canon was that of Nehemiah. That this was under the direction of God’s spirit is seen in that this book alone provides the starting point for reckoning Daniel’s outstanding prophecy that “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” until the coming of the Messiah there would be a period of 69 prophetic weeks. (Dan. 9:25; Neh. 2:1-8; 6:15) The book of Nehemiah also provides the historical background for the last of the prophetic books, Malachi. That Malachi belongs in the canon of the inspired Scriptures cannot be doubted, since even Jesus, the Son of God, quoted it a number of times. (Matt. 11:10, 14) While similar quotations are made from the majority of the books of the Hebrew canon, all of which were written prior to Nehemiah and Malachi, the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make no quotations from any so-called inspired writings written after the time of Nehemiah and Malachi down to the time of Christ. This confirms the traditional view of the Jews, and also the belief of the Christian congregation of the first century C.E., that the Hebrew Scripture canon ended with the writings of Nehemiah and Malachi.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
As noted above, Jesus himself included all of what we now list as the 39 books of the OT in Luke 24:44 when he spoke of the things recorded in "the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms[FONT=&quot].[/FONT] These were the three divisions comprising the whole of the Hebrew canon that had been fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. This then clearly excludes from the canon the Apocryphal writings which the Catholics include in the OT section of their versions of the Bible.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[JPR]

Are you even serious? or are you that delusional? I have provided you with sources that pericope adulterae was never in the bible manuscripts. If you claim that pericope adulterae is contained in the oldest bible mansucripts (codex vaticanus, sinaiticus, alexandrinus) then give us links and show us where.

If you read my whole post, you would see that at the beginning I said I couldn't post links yet on this forum

And no, you did not prove anything, I am serious. You just merely copy-pasted other people's works that only prove your point while there are people who would claim the contrary. No one can prove or disprove anything, they're only opinions. I'm not saying asking the question is wrong or it's not interesting but since it is consistant with the teachings of Jesus and his overall character, I don't see why this portion of his life is invalid or false. Whether it was put as part of another book, in another order or not chronological is irrelevant.


Here's another passage for everyone:
17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Now, before everyone starts jumping on the first two verses stomping on them and yelling "slander" and "lies", I do know these are not accepted by muslims. I just put them to illustrate my anterior point that the pericope Adultera fits with the teachings of Jesus and what we know of him. He did not condemn her but saved her. She stood condemned but because she believed in Jesus, she changed her life and was saved. That being said, you can read the three other verses and give out commentary.

Christian missionaries in my country are also actively using deceitful methods and lies to convert people to christianity, I shouldnt blame them though. They took example from Saul of Tarsus.

Wow... I now see where you are coming from. What is deceitful in bringing a message of love and forgiveness? Here's another passage:

18 If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
20 Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
21 They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
23 He who hates me hates my Father as well.

Two thousand years ago and still of actuality, you should know about it.

 

[Ramadhan]

And no, you did not prove anything, I am serious. You just merely copy-pasted other people's works that only prove your point while there are people who would claim the contrary. No one can prove or disprove anything, they're only opinions.

you keep saying this things, which actually empty,and yet have not addressed my single point from the beginning:
pericope adulterae was NEVER in the oldest bible manuscripts.

This can be proven. Codex vaticanus is stored in the vatican, while codex alexandrinus and sinaiticus are stored by the british museum. Other hebrew bibles as translated from the greek maunsripts also did not contain the pericope adulterae, which is loved by adulterous and homosexuals christians that show the acts of adulteries should not be punished.

I'm not saying asking the question is wrong or it's not interesting but since it is consistant with the teachings of Jesus and his overall character, I don't see why this portion of his life is invalid or false. Whether it was put as part of another book, in another order or not chronological is irrelevant.

It was never part of johanine uncials, and even your beloved Prof. Wallace concluded so, and it has been proven that it is not in the oldest bible manuscripts.
Whether anything fits Jesus (pbuh) is different matter, the most important thing is that it is a fabrication, and falsely attributed it to the sayings and actions of Jesus (or God, as you catholics regard jesus as God).

Wow... I now see where you are coming from. What is deceitful in bringing a message of love and forgiveness? Here's another passage:

Let's see one or two examples:

This is how a couple of christian missionaries told the lie that muslims worship moon god:

Another lie of christian missionary saying that it is not possible to build church in a muslim country (although there are tens of thousands if not hundred of thousands of churches in Indonesia - the world's largest muslims country)

The lies of missionaries in Haiti claiming "orphans" children, the same what they were doing in Thailand and Aceh:

The lies of missionaries who claimed as "ex-muslims":

Bear in mind, those people are not your run off the mill christians but they are christina missionaries, and they are very common.

So, those outright fabricated lies and hatred against Islam is what you call spreading truth and love.

Maybe it is part of christian tradition to call lies and fabrication as the truth, the same way they consider pericope adulterae was truth and plastered those lies against Jesus (pbuh)?

 

[Hiroshi]

If you read my whole post, you would see that at the beginning I said I couldn't post links yet on this forum

And no, you did not prove anything, I am serious. You just merely copy-pasted other people's works that only prove your point while there are people who would claim the contrary. No one can prove or disprove anything, they're only opinions. I'm not saying asking the question is wrong or it's not interesting but since it is consistant with the teachings of Jesus and his overall character, I don't see why this portion of his life is invalid or false. Whether it was put as part of another book, in another order or not chronological is irrelevant.

[FONT=&quot]Naidamar is right, I'm afraid JPR.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Concerning John[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 7:53–8:11, these 12 verses have obviously been added to the original text of John’s Gospel. They are not found in the Sinaitic Manuscript or the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, though they do appear in the sixth-century Codex Bezae and later Greek manuscripts. They are omitted, however, by most of the early versions. It is evident that they are not part of John’s Gospel. One group of Greek manuscripts places this passage at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts it after Luke 21:38, supporting the conclusion that it is a spurious and uninspired text.[/FONT]

 

[Woodrow]

Wow... I now see where you are coming from. What is deceitful in bringing a message of love and forgiveness? Here's another passage:

I acknowledge that many if not most missionaries are not deceitful and they do act out of a desire to share not force. But the reality is the most visible are not like that. Come out to any native American reservation and learn the truth about how Native Americans were converted. Sadly many missionaries still do act like the missionaries that helped destroy Native Americans.

 

[Trumble]

I acknowledge that many if not most missionaries are not deceitful and they do act out of a desire to share not force. But the reality is the most visible are not like that. Come out to any native American reservation and learn the truth about how Native Americans were converted. Sadly many missionaries still do act like the missionaries that helped destroy Native Americans.

I'm sure. I'm also sure that the record of muslims trying to convert those from other religions, particularly my own and Hinduism, isn't exactly squeaky clean either. I'm sure that for every 'Christian' website peddling nonsense about Islam, there's an Islamic one peddling nonsense about Christianity and other religions. And I'm sure that one of the revelations from the most recent batch of Wikileaks that, somehow, was overlooked here was the large number of psychotic and/or suicidal headcases 'radicalized' by Imams and in mosques in the UK the security services hadn't been particularly bothered about before.

What I'm also sure about is that none of those things is true of any but the tiniest minority of Christians, muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or anybody else. Yet, here again another thread is dragged into a pointless Christianity bashing session, and the whole being judged and labelled on the basis of the few. In the time I've been posting here I've seen countless whines (if you'll forgive me the use of the word just this once) about how unfairly Islam is portrayed by others, and yet still we have exactly the cr*p in reverse and nobody bats an eyelid. And not just Christianity - who could forget the recent comments on Hinduism and Hindus that were both totally offensive and total BS, that were completely ignored by far more competent moderators than your utterly bizarre choice of a new trainee, who is one of the worst repeat offenders?

Comparative religion is a field of religious studies that analyzes the similarities and differences of themes, myths, rituals and concepts among the world's religions.

Hey, obviously this is an Islamic forum, but how about a little respect for other beliefs, on this particular section at least?

 

[Zafran]

Of course Deuteronomy contained the final verses in it's original form. Moses wrote almost everything so naturally the writing is attributed to him even though the last verses speak of his death.



One of our reference works "All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial" pages 300-301 says:

[FONT=&quot]Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah. Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) There is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures; the traditional Jewish canon, while including these same books, counts them as 24. Some authorities, by putting Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22, though still holding to exactly the same canonical writings. This made the number of inspired books equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The following is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Law (The Pentateuch)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 1. Genesis[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2. Exodus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3. Leviticus[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4. Numbers[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5. Deuteronomy[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Prophets[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 6. Joshua[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 7. Judges[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. Isaiah[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. Jeremiah[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12. Ezekiel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Writings (Hagiographa)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14. Psalms[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15. Proverbs[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16. Job[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17. The Song of Solomon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18. Ruth[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19. Lamentations[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20. Ecclesiastes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21. Esther[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22. Daniel[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] This was the catalog, or canon, that was accepted as inspired Scripture by Christ Jesus and the early Christian congregation. It was only from these writings that the inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted, and by introducing such quotations with expressions like “as it is written,” they confirmed these as being the Word of God. (Rom. 15:9) Jesus, in speaking of the complete inspired Scriptures written up till the time of his ministry, referred to the things recorded in “the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms.” (Luke 24:44) Here “Psalms,” as the first book of the Hagiographa, is used to refer to this whole section. The last historical book to be included in the Hebrew canon was that of Nehemiah. That this was under the direction of God’s spirit is seen in that this book alone provides the starting point for reckoning Daniel’s outstanding prophecy that “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” until the coming of the Messiah there would be a period of 69 prophetic weeks. (Dan. 9:25; Neh. 2:1-8; 6:15) The book of Nehemiah also provides the historical background for the last of the prophetic books, Malachi. That Malachi belongs in the canon of the inspired Scriptures cannot be doubted, since even Jesus, the Son of God, quoted it a number of times. (Matt. 11:10, 14) While similar quotations are made from the majority of the books of the Hebrew canon, all of which were written prior to Nehemiah and Malachi, the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures make no quotations from any so-called inspired writings written after the time of Nehemiah and Malachi down to the time of Christ. This confirms the traditional view of the Jews, and also the belief of the Christian congregation of the first century C.E., that the Hebrew Scripture canon ended with the writings of Nehemiah and Malachi.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
As noted above, Jesus himself included all of what we now list as the 39 books of the OT in Luke 24:44 when he spoke of the things recorded in "the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms[FONT=&quot].[/FONT] These were the three divisions comprising the whole of the Hebrew canon that had been fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E. This then clearly excludes from the canon the Apocryphal writings which the Catholics include in the OT section of their versions of the Bible.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

of course Deuteronomy contained the final verses in it's original form. Moses wrote almost everything so naturally the writing is attributed to him even though the last verses speak of his death.

what? you just said before that the bible had more then one author??? now your saying Moses pbuh wrote everything - come one make your mind up. This ones a clear flaw these verses were clearly added on after Moses pbuh.

Your claiming that the Catholics keep apocryphal writings in there cannon - which is disagreed by the catholics themselves (Obvious) - as I said you cant seem to agree what is and what isnt apocryphal - what about the Orthodox church - it took a few hundred Years to sort out the bible?

 

[JPR]

Yes Naidamar, my first source of information is indeed Youtube. The best place where you can find truly un-biased information. I watched a couple of videos and I just laughed really, really hard, I just hope you never turn in a scholarly paper using these sources...

Back to our the adulterous woman:

Here's a quote from Dydimus the Blind making a commentary on John 8

Translation:
"We find then in certain gospels a woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place where that was customary to be done. The saviour, it says, when he saw her and observed that they were prepared to stone her, to those intending to cast the stones upon her he said,
"Whoever has not sinned,
let him lift up a stone and cast it."
...[that is, ] 'If anyone thinks himself not to have sinned,
let him take a stone and smite her.'
And no one dared, since they understood among themselves and knew that they themselves were also guilty in some things: so they did not dare to strike her."
- Didymus the Blind,
Commentary on Ecclesiastes,
(Tura Papyrus, discovered 1942)

Here's the kicker, since you liked to quote Metzger AND Ehrman:

At least one Greek father, 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.

Metzger, writing in 1971 is hardly unaware of this important find.

In fact, Bart Ehrman, who was chosen as 'editor' of the 2nd(3rd) edition of Metzger's book (2000 A.D.), felt compelled to correct this 'oversight' with a footnote, even though he himself is against the authenticity of the passage.

The claims of liberal critics, that "No Greek Church Father prior to the 12th century comments on the passage,..." (cf. Metzger etc.) must finally be laid to rest as an inaccuracy, a misled conclusion caused by the widespread burning of the works of early commentators in the Middle Ages.


There, Dydimus is responsible for pretty much the NT cannon and he was quoting John 8 extensively. Oh, by the way, here's a piece of work by Bart Ehrman:

The New Testament Canon of Didymus the Blind
Bart D. Ehrman

Vigiliae Christianae
Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1983), pp. 1-21

In there you will find a great analysis by Bart Ehrman on how Dydimus set up the cannon of the NT.(I found this one using JSTOR)

I'm still waiting for anyone to show me using the Qu'ran or hadith the treatment of adulterous women. I've been directed to other parts of the forum but people gladly offered quotes from the Qu'ran at the beginning of my post to offer an alternative view or to confirm what I posted.

Also, no one dared or proposed to comment this:

18If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.
19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me.
22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.
23He who hates me hates my Father as well.

 

[gmcbroom]

Naidamar,
Here's an interesting question. If the Koran says the Gospel or Injeel is corrupted. How can the Koran turn around and say that proof of Mohammed is in the Gospel or Injeel? That's like saying the parts we don't like are corrupted and the parts we do like or help affirm our position are good. That doesn't strike me as logical.

Peace be with you

 

[Zafran]

Naidamar,
Here's an interesting question. If the Koran says the Gospel or Injeel is corrupted. How can the Koran turn around and say that proof of Mohammed is in the Gospel or Injeel? That's like saying the parts we don't like are corrupted and the parts we do like or help affirm our position are good. That doesn't strike me as logical.

Peace be with you

Thats not what the Quran says and the NT and the injeel are not the same thing - the Injeel of christ is a book given to christ - what you have today is an intresting works of people and paul who never met christ.

which gospel do you mean anyway - the gospel according to John, Luke, Matthew or mark???

peace