help
- Thread starter Jruiz
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
First off one must come to the understanding that the adulterous woman was caught in the act. How is that possible without the pharisees being involved first so they could try to trap Jesus? Obviously they were referring to the law that God gave to Moses. When Jesus wrote in the dust with His finger, I would think that he was writing the law in relation to what it truly was instead of how the pharisees were distorting it for the wrong purpose. The pharisees were obviously doing something different than what they clearly knew that was defined in the original law. They were righteously convicted of distortion, for the husband of the adulterous woman wasn't present as we read what happened in that scripture. A good example relating to this can be found in Numbers 5:15-28
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance .
16 And the priest shall bring her near , and set her before the LORD:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath , and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled , and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to ro , and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell , and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say , Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse : and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled , and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell , and her thigh shall rot : and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled , but be clean; then she shall be free , and shall conceive seed.
In truth, I don't know what all this means in the spiritual aspects, but I believe that it can be related to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:2 in a certain relationship to the woman caught in the act of adultery. If it isn't exacted correctly then it isn't valid as I see it.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."
"When Jesus had lifted up himself , and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said , No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go , and sin no more." John 8:10-11
She wasn't excused to do the same thing again.
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance .
16 And the priest shall bring her near , and set her before the LORD:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath , and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled , and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to ro , and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell , and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say , Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse : and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled , and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell , and her thigh shall rot : and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled , but be clean; then she shall be free , and shall conceive seed.
In truth, I don't know what all this means in the spiritual aspects, but I believe that it can be related to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:2 in a certain relationship to the woman caught in the act of adultery. If it isn't exacted correctly then it isn't valid as I see it.
"For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ."
"When Jesus had lifted up himself , and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said , No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go , and sin no more." John 8:10-11
She wasn't excused to do the same thing again.
E
Well there will always be someone who GOD allows to challenge our Faith. This is not to cause us to have doubt but to strengthen us. So do not be disturbed by it embrace it and the questions that have been asked for you to answer go to GOD for answers thus Pray before Studying the Bible and expect HOLY SPIRIT to Reveal to you the TRUTH for which your Faith must stand. Notice prior to your confusion GOD had you focus on HIM and now since someone has challenged you, you now feel uncertain. First of all+6 the Bible has not been changed it has been translated in order for all to read and study. 2 Timothy 3:16. Matthew and John are mentioned in Mathew 10:2 as JESUS Disciples/Apostles, Mark is mentioned in Acts 12:12 and Luke is mentioned in Acts 20:5. A Witness of JESUS CHRIST is one who has had an encounter with HIM not one who has seen HIM Face to face (we are witnesses of JESUS). The +TRINITY is hard until GOD has Revealed it to them. The Bible does not use the word TRINITY but it does use GODHEAD. Colossians 2:9. The Bible speaks of the FATHER, SON/WORD/JESUS and HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT (TRINITY/GODHEAD) ex: Hebrews 1:8-10.
For one to have gone from Christianity to muslim or any other belief was not grounded in Faith. Many claim with no roots or Fruit to produce such claim. John 17:12. What I suggest you to do is Pray, Ask, Seek and Knock for GOD to Reveal to you. Request Revelation Knowledge and apply it to your life. Then shall you see and have no doubts, will not waiver and will be able to stand against anyone who challenges you with disbelief.
Know you are not losing your mind nor your salvation and no HOLY SPIRIT did not leave you. You are just being challenged to study and grow more.
Blessings!!!!!!!
For one to have gone from Christianity to muslim or any other belief was not grounded in Faith. Many claim with no roots or Fruit to produce such claim. John 17:12. What I suggest you to do is Pray, Ask, Seek and Knock for GOD to Reveal to you. Request Revelation Knowledge and apply it to your life. Then shall you see and have no doubts, will not waiver and will be able to stand against anyone who challenges you with disbelief.
Know you are not losing your mind nor your salvation and no HOLY SPIRIT did not leave you. You are just being challenged to study and grow more.
Blessings!!!!!!!
So much to say here =o). It's good to have a working knowledge of how we got our Bible using sources outside of the Bible, or we just look silly using perpetual circular reasoning using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. Ironically, the fact that such a document written over so many centuries by so many different men has such continuity does count for a lot in proving its validity, but since it has been handled by mankind through the ages, an external examination is not unreasonable.
Regarding Original Manuscripts/Canonization
Regarding the Old Testament: Scribes of the Scriptures of Israel were noted perfectionists. There is not much question that the OT Scriptures have been closely guarded through the ages, even when translated into Greek over the 200 B.C - 100 C.E. era. There of course is debate over modern translations, but that is a different issue, and one I'll address in a bit.
Regarding the New Testament: We have so many copies (MSS) of the New Testament Scriptures because as the Body of Christ grew, they made copies of Apostolic letters and passed them around to area churches. There are a couple of different 'streams' of manuscripts that have been identified over time, and the study and evaluation of those manuscripts is called, "Textual Criticism". The differences are minor (though there are those who, with the propensity to make mountains out of molehills, would disagree), and do not affect doctrine. The texts of ancient NT manuscripts VASTLY agree with each other. Following are some resources that address the issues around Textual Criticism and whether or not we can rely on the Bible we have today in its original languages.
Since it seems that some doubts are coming from a Muslim source, I'll put this resource first, though the following resources are a bit easier to sort through and are a bit more comprehensive, in my opinion:
Regarding Definitions/Meanings of Words
Much is made of this issue from religion to religion and from sect to sect.
When there is more than one definition for a word (and this is not uncommon in any language), context determines meaning.
These issues of grammar, concepts and more come into the picture when determining the contextual meanings of words, verses, passages, chapters, letters/books, and the Scriptures as a whole.
NOTE: Be careful not to go to, or let someone take you to, root words in either the English or the original languages to define what actually appears in a Scripture. Interpretive fallacies called 'Root Word Fallacy' along with 'Selective Use of Meaning' are widely used among sects to manipulate Scriptures to mean something that context and the actual word appearing in a text actually means. From this article, which would be beneficial to read in full, items 4 and 6:
4. Etymological root fallacy: Looking to the root etymology of a word to discover its meaning.
The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.
From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:
“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.” Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word ‘nice’, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.” It is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.” But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”
6. Selective use of meaning: Selecting the meaning you like best.
This is like the illegitimate totality transfer in reverse. Instead of the word carrying all the possible nuances, the interpreter will select which nuance he or she likes best. We must remember that the context determines the nuance, not the interpreter.
The Hebrew/Greek Bait and Switch
When looking at Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words, be careful not to try to (or let others) switch Hebrew/Aramaic for Greek and Greek for Hebrew/Aramaic. Some sects will take NT Scriptures (originally penned in Greek) and try to replace key Greek words with Hebrew words to change the shades of the meaning of that verse. Since Hebrew was a more concrete language, and Greek is a more abstract language, this often ends in confusion and a mutilation of what God ordained to be communicated.
Which brings us to translations. I wrote another post about that here at CC . Click the link for that =o).
I hope that is helpful to you. I just want to encourage you to put your eyes back on Christ. And don't feel bad. When Peter took his eyes of Christ, he sank like a rock. Continue to search out why you believe what you believe; that's a good thing. Take heart - those of us who have walked your path have found the Scriptures to be sound, and better still, have found that He Who inspired them is real and faithful. The paper Bibles that most of us possess today could all disappear tomorrow, yet HE will remain.
In the midst of the doubts, don't underestimate the Living God inside of you. He's there to help =o):
6Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
Regarding Original Manuscripts/Canonization
Regarding the Old Testament: Scribes of the Scriptures of Israel were noted perfectionists. There is not much question that the OT Scriptures have been closely guarded through the ages, even when translated into Greek over the 200 B.C - 100 C.E. era. There of course is debate over modern translations, but that is a different issue, and one I'll address in a bit.
Regarding the New Testament: We have so many copies (MSS) of the New Testament Scriptures because as the Body of Christ grew, they made copies of Apostolic letters and passed them around to area churches. There are a couple of different 'streams' of manuscripts that have been identified over time, and the study and evaluation of those manuscripts is called, "Textual Criticism". The differences are minor (though there are those who, with the propensity to make mountains out of molehills, would disagree), and do not affect doctrine. The texts of ancient NT manuscripts VASTLY agree with each other. Following are some resources that address the issues around Textual Criticism and whether or not we can rely on the Bible we have today in its original languages.
Since it seems that some doubts are coming from a Muslim source, I'll put this resource first, though the following resources are a bit easier to sort through and are a bit more comprehensive, in my opinion:
- New Testament Textual Criticism and the True Significance of the Variants (from the site, Answering Islam)
- Textual criticism - what is it? - An article giving a good, basic overview of what Textual Criticism is
- How We Got Our Bible - a really well-organized paper in outline form with the following categories:
- Course Description 3
- Introduction to “How We Got the Bible” 4
- Revelation: God Has Spoken 5
- Inspiration: The God-breathed Scriptures 8
- Structure and Divisions of the Bible 11
- The Making of the Bible 17
- Canonicity: Determining and Discovering the God-inspired Books 20
- Development of the Old Testament Canon 23
- Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 28
- Development of the New Testament Canon 36
- New Testament Antilegomena, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 42
- Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament 44
- Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament 47
- Textual Criticism 51
- History of the English Bible 53
- Recommended Books 62
- Bibliography 63.
You don't need to read it all the way through (though it is very good information to have!); it's organized in such a way that you can glean the information that you feel you need.
- Introduction to “How We Got the Bible” 4
- Revelation: God Has Spoken 5
- Inspiration: The God-breathed Scriptures 8
- Structure and Divisions of the Bible 11
- The Making of the Bible 17
- Canonicity: Determining and Discovering the God-inspired Books 20
- Development of the Old Testament Canon 23
- Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 28
- Development of the New Testament Canon 36
- New Testament Antilegomena, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 42
- Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament 44
- Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament 47
- Textual Criticism 51
- History of the English Bible 53
- Recommended Books 62
- Bibliography 63.
You don't need to read it all the way through (though it is very good information to have!); it's organized in such a way that you can glean the information that you feel you need.
- The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture - This article deals more with the canonization of the Scriptures, which is also a very important topic.
Regarding Definitions/Meanings of Words
Much is made of this issue from religion to religion and from sect to sect.
When there is more than one definition for a word (and this is not uncommon in any language), context determines meaning.
- Is the word a noun or a verb or an adjective, etc. (wind the watch -or- the wind blew)?
- Is the word (in its context) concrete or abstract (he was a member of the Smith family -or- the Smiths were like family to him)?
- In what era does the word defined appear (concepts of salvation, repentance, priest, servant, and son in relation to God in the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant, for example)?
These issues of grammar, concepts and more come into the picture when determining the contextual meanings of words, verses, passages, chapters, letters/books, and the Scriptures as a whole.
NOTE: Be careful not to go to, or let someone take you to, root words in either the English or the original languages to define what actually appears in a Scripture. Interpretive fallacies called 'Root Word Fallacy' along with 'Selective Use of Meaning' are widely used among sects to manipulate Scriptures to mean something that context and the actual word appearing in a text actually means. From this article, which would be beneficial to read in full, items 4 and 6:
4. Etymological root fallacy: Looking to the root etymology of a word to discover its meaning.
The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.
From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:
“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.” Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word ‘nice’, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.” It is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.” But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”
6. Selective use of meaning: Selecting the meaning you like best.
This is like the illegitimate totality transfer in reverse. Instead of the word carrying all the possible nuances, the interpreter will select which nuance he or she likes best. We must remember that the context determines the nuance, not the interpreter.
The Hebrew/Greek Bait and Switch
When looking at Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words, be careful not to try to (or let others) switch Hebrew/Aramaic for Greek and Greek for Hebrew/Aramaic. Some sects will take NT Scriptures (originally penned in Greek) and try to replace key Greek words with Hebrew words to change the shades of the meaning of that verse. Since Hebrew was a more concrete language, and Greek is a more abstract language, this often ends in confusion and a mutilation of what God ordained to be communicated.
Which brings us to translations. I wrote another post about that here at CC . Click the link for that =o).
I hope that is helpful to you. I just want to encourage you to put your eyes back on Christ. And don't feel bad. When Peter took his eyes of Christ, he sank like a rock. Continue to search out why you believe what you believe; that's a good thing. Take heart - those of us who have walked your path have found the Scriptures to be sound, and better still, have found that He Who inspired them is real and faithful. The paper Bibles that most of us possess today could all disappear tomorrow, yet HE will remain.
In the midst of the doubts, don't underestimate the Living God inside of you. He's there to help =o):
6Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, 7 rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (from Col. 2)
Grace and peace to you,
-JGIG
What do you mean how does a Christian respond to this? If it's not in the original writing, then it's simply not in the original writing. I don't understand the problem.
...of course, concluding that it wasn't original means you must know what the original looked like. And if you already know that, then what's really the issue here? I don't see any.
...of course, concluding that it wasn't original means you must know what the original looked like. And if you already know that, then what's really the issue here? I don't see any.
I'm sorry, Billy, but I fear that you aren't using the same definition of 'manuscript' as what most Muslims, and for that matter most textual critics regardless of faith, would use. When these people talk about manuscripts, they are talking about ancient hand written copies of the NT texts, usually in Greek. I am not sure what you meant by manuscripts (perhaps you meant English translations?), but I assure you, the passage is absent in a great many Greek manuscripts.
Here is my opinion, and the current opinion of scholarship, on the basis of the evidence - the woman caught adultery was not originally in John's gospel. The earliest manuscript we see the Pericope in is Codex Bezae ('D'), which is fifth century, and Byzantine in character in the gospels. It is absent in two of the papyrii (P66 and P75), it is absent in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), a host of other codices, and various uncial texts, including many from the Byzantine tradition. Several manuscripts also place this section in different parts of John (often at the end of John), or mark it with asterisks, which usually indicates a problem or uncertainty about a piece of text. A couple of manuscripts even include the passage in various places in Luke!
However, some have argued (including the likes of Bart Ehrman, who isn't a Christian) that the passage is still primitive, and may actually be contemporary with the sources behind the gospel of Luke. There is a paper on the topic here, if anyone is interested in reading up on it. Certainly, to me, it is much more probable that the passage comes from Lukan material, and Luke simply didn't, for whatever reason, include it in in his gospel, compared to the probability of it being composed by John (many people have also noted the Lukan, rather than Johannine, characteristics of the passage). I haven't quite made up my mind on this topic, but I am near certain the passage isn't original to John.
None of which, of course, impinges on the integrity of the New Testament - it is quite clear on review of the manuscripts what the situation of the text is, and as I said earlier, this kind of examination of the earliest reading is simply not available to Muslims, who can only ever arrive at an artificial and theoretical purity of the text. This passage is, in terms of text size, by far the largest questionable passage in the entire manuscript tradition.
Here is my opinion, and the current opinion of scholarship, on the basis of the evidence - the woman caught adultery was not originally in John's gospel. The earliest manuscript we see the Pericope in is Codex Bezae ('D'), which is fifth century, and Byzantine in character in the gospels. It is absent in two of the papyrii (P66 and P75), it is absent in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B), a host of other codices, and various uncial texts, including many from the Byzantine tradition. Several manuscripts also place this section in different parts of John (often at the end of John), or mark it with asterisks, which usually indicates a problem or uncertainty about a piece of text. A couple of manuscripts even include the passage in various places in Luke!
However, some have argued (including the likes of Bart Ehrman, who isn't a Christian) that the passage is still primitive, and may actually be contemporary with the sources behind the gospel of Luke. There is a paper on the topic here, if anyone is interested in reading up on it. Certainly, to me, it is much more probable that the passage comes from Lukan material, and Luke simply didn't, for whatever reason, include it in in his gospel, compared to the probability of it being composed by John (many people have also noted the Lukan, rather than Johannine, characteristics of the passage). I haven't quite made up my mind on this topic, but I am near certain the passage isn't original to John.
None of which, of course, impinges on the integrity of the New Testament - it is quite clear on review of the manuscripts what the situation of the text is, and as I said earlier, this kind of examination of the earliest reading is simply not available to Muslims, who can only ever arrive at an artificial and theoretical purity of the text. This passage is, in terms of text size, by far the largest questionable passage in the entire manuscript tradition.
For we believe in what is unseen, thus having hope.
For Faith is the evidence of things unseen.
There will always be someone or something that will challange your faith, such is the actions of the theif
Jesus said the thief come to steal, kill and destroy. The theif being satan.
We all eventually come to a place where we decide to have faith, or seek proof.
Proof is of the world, flesh, and will always be fallible.
It is by faith, that we see the unseen.
Look to Jesus in faith, trusting all to God Our Father.
That your faith will be like Mt Zion, unshakeable.
In Jesus
God bless
pickles
For Faith is the evidence of things unseen.
There will always be someone or something that will challange your faith, such is the actions of the theif
Jesus said the thief come to steal, kill and destroy. The theif being satan.
We all eventually come to a place where we decide to have faith, or seek proof.
Proof is of the world, flesh, and will always be fallible.
It is by faith, that we see the unseen.
Look to Jesus in faith, trusting all to God Our Father.
That your faith will be like Mt Zion, unshakeable.
In Jesus
God bless
pickles
Then how on earth do you know what wasn't originally in the text (such as John 8) if you don't know what the original text looked like? This is your claim, you defend it. Knowing that John 8 wasn't original implies that you know what was original, which defeats your argument and objection. Since you must know what was original, you can't object to not having the original text.
Based on what?
Based on what?