How many times has this passage been used in any significant way by the WTBS?

by gubberningbody 2 Replies latest jw friends

  • gubberningbody
    gubberningbody

    "But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At daybreak, however, he again presented himself at the temple, and all the people began coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. 3 Now the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught at adultery, and, after standing her in their midst, 4 they said to him: “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of committing adultery. 5 In the Law Moses prescribed for us to stone such sort of women. What, really, do you say?” 6 Of course, they were saying this to put him to the test, in order to have something with which to accuse him. But Jesus bent down and began to write with his finger in the ground. 7 When they persisted in asking him, he straightened up and said to them: “Let the one of YOU that is sinless be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And bending over again he kept on writing in the ground. 9 But those who heard this began going out, one by one, starting with the older men, and he was left alone, and the woman that was in their midst. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her: “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said: “No one, sir.” Jesus said: “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way; from now on practice sin no more.”... John 8:1-11

  • blondie
    blondie

    *** w82 3/15 p. 24 par. 17 Loyally Advocating the Word of God ***

    Because some scribes failed to stick loyally to God’s Word, entire sections of spurious verses have crept into the "Received Text," on which the KingJamesVersion is based. These verses were added to the original inspired text. Among such are John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20.

    *** w78 5/15 p. 14 Where Did Those Verses Go? ***Finally, we can mention a couple of longer portions of the Bible where the manuscript evidence seem to scholars to be inconclusive. The ending of the book of Mark, from verse 9 on, is one of these. Another is John 7:53–8:11, about the woman caught in adultery who came to Jesus. This account first appeared in some Old Latin versions, and, in later Greek manuscripts, it is in three other locations in the Gospels. In many translations these two portions are included but separated from the main text, such as by being put in brackets or being set in smaller type.

    *** w73 10/1 p. 601 A Bible That They Approve ***Also, dubious or spurious sections, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53–8:11, were made a part of the regular text instead of appearing as footnotes. And, further, this Roman Catholic version used the term "brethren" (to convey the idea of spiritual relationship) instead of "brothers" when referring to the half brothers of Jesus, since Roman Catholics insist that Mary the mother of Jesus remained ever virgin. Clearly this was a Bible translation that was approved for Catholics but that would not be acceptable to many Protestants.

    The dubious passage of Mark 16:9-20 has been restored to the regular text but with a blank space and a footnote explaining that "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8." And similarly John 7:53–8:11 has been restored to the text, with a footnote that states: "The most ancient authorities omit 7:53–8:11." In a number of briefer instances a similar policy has been pursued. Verses that were omitted in the text in RSV, but appeared in footnotes, are now found in the text with footnotes stating that some authorities leave these out. Thus, unless the reader is careful, he will be regarding all these dubious portions as part of the inspired text of the Bible. Clearly, the Protestants yielded more than the Catholics in these matters.

    *** w70 12/15 p. 761 Basis for the New World Translation ***The foregoing accounts for many of the differences between the NewWorldTranslation and the KingJamesVersion and other old versions. The more striking differences consist of things appearing in the older versions that are not found in the later ones or that are shown only in footnotes. Why is that? Because most copyists’ errors are additions to the text rather than omissions. Thus Bible scholars today agree that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) and the first eleven verses of the eighth chapter of the Gospel of John were not part of the original writings. And neither were the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth," which are found at 1 John 5:7, 8 in the Douay and the KingJames versions.

    *** w61 12/1 p. 731 The Beloved Apostle Writes the Fourth Gospel ***The very style of the fourth Gospel gives us circumstantial evidence that an "unlettered and ordinary" man, such as John was, must have been the writer. (Acts 4:13) John’s style is extremely simple—simple words, simple sentences, using a vocabulary far smaller than most of the other writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. At the same time his is on the loftiest plane. As Westcott, noted Bible scholar of a century ago, expressed it: "John’s Gospel is the most consummate art springing from the most consummate simplicity. . . . No writing . . . has greater simplicity with more profound depths." Thus it is not surprising to learn that John 7:53 to 8:11, concerning which there is a question as to John’s having written it, "is not in John’s easily recognizable style."—TheFourGospels, Dom J. Chapman.

    *** w53 5/1 p. 262 "Keeping a Tight Grip on the Word of Life" ***Popular magazines loosen the grip of many on the Word of life. Look, February 26, 1952, tried to appear sensational by apparently suddenly discovering the Bible was filled with errors. It called attention to about half a dozen spurious passages, such as Mark 16:9-20, John 8:1-11 and 1 John 5:7. After citing these few big errors Look glibly states that Bible scholars agree that there are from 20,000 to 50,000 errors in the Bible. Does not this leave the impression that these thousands of errors are serious ones, like those mentioned, and hence that the Bible is wholly unreliable? Actually, serious errors are remarkably few, and years ago they were ferreted out and eliminated in modern translations. Scholars recognize how remarkably accurate has been the preservation of the Scriptures. In a mercenary endeavor to be sensational Look misrepresented the Bible, subtly discrediting it. The secular press in general leaps to the opportunity to shake confidence in the Bible.

    *** w52 7/1 p. 387 Subtly Discrediting God’s Word ***A recent case in point is the article "The Truth About the Bible" which appeared in the United States picture magazine Look, February 26, 1952. In an endeavor to appear sensational it presents as news that Bible scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 is no part of the original, which, among other things, states that believers "shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them". It also points out that John 8:1-11, the account of the woman taken in adultery, is no part of John’s original writing, and that 1 John 5:7, which reads: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," is likewise an interpolation, a spurious passage. A number of other minor passages are also listed as doubtful.

    After giving such examples the statement is made that Bible scholars are agreed that there are from 20,000 to 50,000 errors in the Bible. What will the average reader conclude but that there are 50,000 such spurious passages as John 8:1-11 or Mark 16:9-20. But is such a fact? Impossible! Not only would it be literally impossible for the Bible to have 50,000 such spurious passages in it but it would be impossible for the Bible to have 50,000 spurious texts such as 1 John 5:7, which speaks about three gods’ being one. Why? Because altogether there are only 31,173 verses in the KingJamesVersion. The Bible, however, does have 3,566,480 single letters.

    Actually this article is a subtle attempt to discredit the Bible by depicting as new and sensational the commonly known facts regarding certain spurious passages once thought to be a part of the Bible. More than 150 years ago, Griesbach, on whose recension the EmphaticDiaglott (a Greek-English "New Testament") is based, recognized such passages as being no part of the Bible.

    *** g88 7/22 p. 20 I Wanted to See for Myself ***The discovery of manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus is important because prior to such finds, translations had to be made from much later copies that contained many errors from being copied and even spurious passages. For example, it was the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus that indicated that the account at John 7:53–8:11 about the adulterous woman was a later addition, since neither manuscript contains it.

  • wobble
    wobble

    Sinaiticus does not contain the divine name in any of the places that the NWT puts it in, but obviously it is only good as an authority when it suits the W.T an awkward bit of teaching like this in John can be ignored, as can its not using the divine name.

    I saw a fascinating silent film tratment of these verses. as Jesus wrote in the dust, a Pharisee or scribe looked over his shoulder and saw written "Liar" or some such accusation that obviously applied to the observer,he would make his exit , showing fear on his face that Jesus knew his dark side, only to be followed by another and another, all exposed as being far from "without sin", until finally just Jesus and the woman were left.

    This story fits well with Jesus treatment of women, and his treatment of sinners, no dis-fellowshipping for Jesus, he simply asked that she sin no more.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit