Are all the libtarded parts of the Bible later additions?

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 3446b1e56caaf5a⋯.jpg (62.45 KB, 382x400, 191:200, JesusForgivesAdulterousWom….jpg)

Are all the libtarded parts of the Bible later additions? Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 01:52:05 b198ab No.621134

Seems this way sometimes…

Jesus saving the slut caught in adultery:

https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html

>The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery.

>The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).

>There is internal evidence, too, that John 7:53—8:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of John’s narrative. Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in his book—except in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel.

Jesus forgiving his crucifiers:

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2013/03/16/from-the-lips-of-jesus-or-a-scribal-hand-father-forgive-them-for-they-do-not-know-what-they-are-doing-2/

>A few years ago I wrote a paper entitled, “Luke 23:34a: From the Lips of Jesus or a Scribal Hand?” I argued that this saying of Jesus on the cross has significant textual doubt to its originality. It was sometime during the second century, probably the middle to the late part, that this saying was added, probably to a gospel harmony, and from then on it eventually found its way into all the text-types and the majority textual history thereafter.

Any other examples of this?

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 01:59:02 19b9e7 No.621137

The periscope adulterae and the johennine comma are the two big ones in the bible that aren't in the Bible. The rest of this is just textual criticism FUD.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 02:04:55 00be48 No.621139

>>621134

>Calling someone a slut who Jesus Himself saved, calling the section libtarded.

HOW DARE YOU.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 02:14:15 17b745 No.621143

>(((textual criticism)))

>Libtarded parts of the bible

>slut

>James "Theopneustos" White

>James "We don't know why Jesus veiled his knowledge of the Apocalypse" White

The absolute state of this thread

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 02:31:04 b2eabc No.621147

I go with textual precedency on issues of textual comparison because it's been a universally observed phenomena that religious texts have been modified and edited with doctrinal interpolations and clarifications. It really doesn't affect the overall message in the texts significantly and even less so than the variance in other sorts of writings.

Also the skepticism over the timing of the early manuscripts discoveries can be answered with the fact that they simply took place and gradually as a result of the scientific discoveries that took place after the medieval era and with the global Anglo and general western predominance that enabled researchers to make many finds. The fact is also that the critical text compilations are largely based on a couple of complete manuscripts of an earlier date but from a period after the formal imperial recognition of the faith and not so much the from the pre-Constantinian papyrus fragments.

The textual traditionalists may make all sorts of excuses to doubt the veracity of the Alexandrian finds but will otherwise recognize other forms of archaeological science when it may corroborate the veracity of biblical accounts.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 02:51:15 9f0b61 No.621150

>Can I discard all the parts of Scripture that I personally don't agree with?

Fixed.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 03:01:36 feae72 No.621152

>>621134

Christ Condemned none for any sin, and healed / delivered all who came to him.

Most of the current Christian churches have no ability to cast out or heal, they are heavily infiltrated and undermined. We need to do something about this immediately.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 03:35:45 b198ab No.621158

>>621139

Adultery isn't slutty behavior? If the story is true and she repented she's no longer a slut, bit she was prior to that. I apologize for and repent of calling those disputed passages libtarded. What I should've said is they are often used by liberals. And no, I wouldn't reject scripture based on my own likes and dislikes, it just seems like these passages were not in the original manuscripts. Only after noticing that did it occur me that these two disputed sections both tilt our view of Jesus in a particular direction.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 04:46:39 5ef19c No.621184

>>621158

More like they were censored from some early manuscripts.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 14:55:12 79f6e7 No.621357

First of all:

>aomin

>gotquestion

LMAO

Second of all:

S. Jerom (l. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Lat. and Gr. copies. S. Amb. (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. S. Aug. expounds them, tract. in Joan, &c.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 15:38:53 0027b5 No.621368

>>621134

This is probably a bait thread made by a left-winger or jew, but I'll bite.

>Jesus saving the slut caught in adultery:

You missed the point of the scriptures. The point of him saving the prostitute wasn't to state that prostition is good (if he wanted to say that it was good, he wouldn't say "Go and sin no more"), it's to state that you shouldn't be killed for violating a sin.

>Jesus forgiving his crucifiers:

He forgave them because it was essential for him to fulfill prophecy.

Christanon 03/19/18 (Mon) 23:06:05 0ad1d9 No.621588

>>621368

? Wut? OPs not asking about the meaning of the passages, he's asking about the fact they're citied as being later additions to the original manuscripts