Disputed Passages

Like most disputed passages, the account appears in some MSS but not in others. What people have a tendency to do is to try to find some way to discredit whatever they find in scripture that does not measure up to personal convictions. I have noticed that people will disregard even overwhelming evidence for a test in order to hold on to personal conviction. I am not suggesting this is what you are doing with these verses, especially since you have been rather nebulous about what it is you question about this passage.

Yes, it's not a variant. It is an interpretation either way - sin offering or sin. If the latter, why was the word υπέρ added to the second instance of αμαρτία instead of just αμαρτία as it is in the first instance in that verse? υπέρ αμαρτία is used in Hebrews 5:1 regarding sin sacrifices of the high priest. And αμαρτία with a preposition (e.g., υπέρ, περί) is how sin offering is written in the LXX. In the Hebrew it's the same way - sin + preposition (i.e., for sin).

Of all the disputed passages in the Bible 1 John 5:7 has the poorest of any of them.

Well of course I want someone else to do all of the work for me regarding these other disputed passages, but I'll go see if I can find a list like the one oldhermit gave and post it here for the woman caught in adultery passage. One that shows which mss it's in and which it isn't. Might take me a while but I'll come back and post it.

This is a very good thread. If I could rate it as I could on the old site I would certainly do so!

What is your evidence to suggest any manipulation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. There is no grammatical correlation between these two verses. Hebrew 5:1 shay the high priest made "offerings for sin." Here, there is no need to speculate about the meaning. It is quite clear. In 2Cor. 5:1 Paul says he was "made sin for us." Here, there is no word for offering and not grammatical justification for inserting it.

So does that mean that the these three Spirits, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost are not one LORD? Considering that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Spirit, and the Word was Spirit. John 7:39-40
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

So does that mean that the these three Spirits, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost are not one LORD? Considering that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the Spirit, and the Word was Spirit. John 7:39-40
(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

'Do not tempt the Lord thy God.'

Incredible coincidence! Almost an hour ago I was relating a story to one of my co-workers about my crazy party days. I woke up with a terrible thirst after the previous nights activities. We had a dark brown Ice-tea container that we had used for yrs, so you couldn't see through it. It was left out on the kitchen counter, and like the slob I was, I picked it up to chug right out of it.

Now my mom would periodically pour bleach, and let it sit in it to sterilize because of slobs like me! I don't know if she diluted it, or by how much, but as soon as I chugged it I thought "Oh my God! That's it! I'm dead!". I can't describe how awful it was and how it took my breath away for a minute or so.

After that minute, and I really don't know how long it was, I discovered there were no ill effects from it! I am certain now thinking about it, that was yet another in a ridiculously long number of times, that it MUST have been the Lord protecting me from many insanely stupid acts I have done. I'm pretty certain I wasn't a true, born again Christian back then, but the Lord knew that one day I'd be His child! Praise His Holy Holy Name!!

i'm really just wondering what the evidence for/against is. i know that most English translations either bracket it or at least put a footnote saying that it's not found in some manuscripts, and if i remember right, i think i've read that the prose doesn't exactly match John's writing style ((??))

what i find puzzling about the account is mainly a question of on what grounds Christ commuted the sentence the Law required. there seems to have been no question about whether there were sufficient witnesses, but the text says they brought her to Him intending to 'trap' Him. what was the 'trap' ? what were they expecting Him to do, directly abrogate the Law by forgiving her? they'd seen Him openly prove that He had authority to forgive sin already ((the paralytic lowered through the roof, e.g.)); was this just to establish what He'd already said and shown with miracles, so they could have Him on record teaching against the commandment that she be stoned? because that was what they expected Him to do? with their 'traps' they thought ahead, ok, He will either answer this way or that, and either way we'll have Him -- what was the alternative they expected Him to do? what's the opposite of say 'no one should stone her' and how would that have been a justification to accuse Him of something? maybe i just haven't figured it out.
the other thing is that there's nothing in the account suggesting this woman had faith at all, nothing to indicate she was innocent ((if that's how some interpret it)) -- we have her saying "no one, lord" when He asks who is left to accuse her; that's kind of flimsy evidence to say she believed He is the Son of God - though it might actually be, it just doesn't seem to match other accounts of people saying they believe. it looks theologically almost like universal salvation - a clearly guilty woman, with no clear indication of faith, belief or repentance, forgiven without pre-requisite. before the Cross.
it's kind of weird.

not saying i reject it -- just that it's not entirely clear to me what is going on here, what is implied by what happened.
accepting it, it would be one of the strongest indications that He has authority above the Law, to change or disregard it. i don't disagree with that premise: He is the Author and the "pen" belongs to Him. John's gospel is written with the singular purpose of proving that Jesus is the Divine Messiah: authority to abrogate the Law would certainly be in keeping with his theme.

so i'm just wondering just how strong the case is that it shouldn't be in John's book. how puzzled do i need to be, lol

What people have a tendency to do is to try to find some way to discredit whatever they find in scripture that does not measure up to personal convictions. I have noticed that people will disregard even overwhelming evidence for a test in order to hold on to personal conviction.

The point is there is no word for sin offering in either Greek or Hebrew. The way sin offering is written in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is the same way it is written everywhere else in the bible (e.g., for sin, concerning sin, regarding sin).

I am really not sure what point you are trying to make. There is no grammatical correlation between these two verses. Hebrew 5:1 shay the high priest made "offerings for sin." Here, there is no need to speculate about the meaning. It is quite clear. In 2Cor. 5:1 Paul says he was "made sin for us." Here, there is no word for offering and not grammatical justification for inserting it.

aye, & some other people try to get around what the Bible says, when they don't like it, by changing the definitions of words, lol.
this way they convince themselves they believe the whole book, i guess, instead of trying to delete passages altogether.

I apologize. Hebrews 5:1 is not the right verse. That one actually does have the word offering. I was thinking of Hebrews 10:26 (and others).
Hebrews 10:6 and 2 Corinthians 5:21 are written basically the same. Ezekiel frequently uses υπέρ instead of περί.

... υπέρ ημών αμαρτίαν ... 2 Corinthians 5:21

... περί αμαρτίας ... Hebrews 10:6