Christians are taught to believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. It is supposed to be without error.

Last night, while in church, I challenged this within myself and I want to bring it to this forum.

John 8:1-12 has been said that it was not in the original texts but merely added and is accepted as scripture. Now why is this? Even the Watchtower has taken it out of their NWT translation

Last night another scripture was brought up in the same light. John 5:4
4 For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had.

An associate pastor said this is taken out of the ESV because it was not part of the original language. It is not in the ESV but JOhn 8:1-12 is in the ESV

What is going on?


side note.....last night was the only time I ever heard a commentary on this verse. It was said that there was superstition in Jewish culture and this verse is attributed to it. i.e. an Angel stirred up the waters to heal. I have wondered......does the bible talk about angels healing people? What about Isaiah?


Thoughts?

_________________
John

Neil may have a good point, but I do think your question is honest.

I don't have your answers and I'm not sure that your questions themselves are narrow enough to give specific answers.

Here is what I do know. The manuscripts from which our Bibles derive are in substantially complete agreement. There are some important differences; brethren will differ on how many and how important and that is where Neil's advice about discussing that on this forum is well heeded. Learn those differences as you go through your bible-reading life.

We take, more or less, what we're given from the Bible publishers. Their judgments about what is included in a translation and what is excluded is more of an issue than the translations themselves. In fact, if all of the publishers of English language bibles would simply include all of the passages found, for example, in the KJV with whatever footnotes they desire about manuscript differences, I think the English speaking American church would be much better served by our publishers. There is no small amount of intellectual and academic pride (and other issues related to sales) in these decisions. Footnoted manuscript arguments provide the transparency of scholarship needed while allowing readers to prayerfully make judgments about the bibles they read, free of the need to wade through omission/inclusion issues before they can even digest the Word itself. It would be a far better pastoral decision on the part of publishers to do this, but that doesn't seem to be their primary interest.

So, to edify you my brother -- read with confidence any of the main translations today but don't leave behind the translations which include those passages that are fodder for today's inclusion/omission debates. Because publishers have shifted some burden onto innocent readers, you should probably be prepared to read the KJV or NKJV along with your other modern translations. And, don't get caught up in the spider web of translation arguments that are easy to start and impossible to put to bed.

_________________
Tim

DEADn,

Very good question. A lot of unbelievers and heretical teachers throw this in our face in order to cause us to stumble.

The way I approach Scripture is with the assumption that it is infallible. There are a great many variants within texts that we use for Bible translation. I actually am of the thought that anything that appears to be added is actual, and anything that appears to be missing is--well--missing.

A man would have to consciously make up stuff in order for it to end up in the scripture. It was not common to thrust in commentary or side notes into the middle of the text, so that is unlikely to have occurred, although not impossible.

It is actually much easier for a man to drop out a line of text while copying or drop out a word.

And I believe these types of errors are easily reconcilable.

Let's look at the whole text with and without the passage in question:

Here it is without the text:

5 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic[a] called Bethesda,[b] which has five roofed colonnades. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed.[c] 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.



Here it is with the text:

5 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic[a] called Bethesda,[b] which has five roofed colonnades. 3 In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed waiting for the moving of the water; 4for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.[c] 5 One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had already been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be healed?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, and while I am going another steps down before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Get up, take up your bed, and walk.” 9 And at once the man was healed, and he took up his bed and walked.


So, there are plenty of arguments about why it should not be included; however, one of the best things you can do with these is see how the context acts with and without it.

Without that variant text, I am left scratching my head, saying, "What on earth does verse 7 mean????" With that variant text, I understand fully what the situation is. And that is important.

The question then becomes did an angel really do that? Well, I tend to lean toward a face-value reading of scripture. So yeah, an angel could have done that.


One of the things that I notice about passages that are in question is that they are NEVER PC passages. There is usually some hot-button issue being discussed in them. Your John 8 passage is very similar. Jesus let a woman guilty of adultery go! That is CRAAAZY!

Do I believe it happened? Yes.

In 1 John, we know the Trinitarian passage. I am a big fan that it should remain in the text.

That's how I kind of go about dealing with this.

And of course there are the last few verses in Mark which were not in the the original manuscripts. But do these verses and other verses in question change the general message of the Bible? I doubt it very seriously.

So why worry about it? Let's just read or listen to our Bibles and enjoy the presence of the Lord.

My thoughts.

Bear master

Let's not forget the witness of the Holy Spirit upon His Word.

DEADn,

You might be interested in this article on manuscript choices and Bible versions, with great statistics on how 'serious' the problem is: http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/textchoi.htm

The opinions of the writer are similar to Philologos', who has written extensively on these issues on this forum in the past. You might also find some relevant articles on http://www.bible-researcher.com/

Personally, I don't have an opinion on which manuscripts are closest to the original text. The issue certainly does not bother me.

Thank you Yuehan

I see it as a little leaven leavens the whole lump. i.e. If John 8:1-12 is not in the original text it is often used in many sermons yet if it is not in original text then it must not be the Word. It doesn't mean its intent is not good but it would not be consider a part of the Word. Then we are only preaching a moral attribute but not necessarily the Word.

I am just annoyed but these things and I am not even an OCD individual at all. I will be looking at the links you provided

I asked these questions out of honest inquiry because I am trying to understand some things and give a reason for some why's in the bible. I have often wondered what some preachers mean by the bible being infallible. Infallible, to me means everything is the Word and from the original text so when I find something that is not then it chips away at that strong belief and makes me wonder how many other things are not in the original. I often wonder if it is the reason why many skeptics are skeptics for these reasons.

_________________
John

DEADn,

That is precisely what the enemy of our souls wants. If He can cast doubt on the scriptures, so goes the rest of our faith, because now we don't know what circumstances in which the Scriptures were written, etc. It easily leads first to doubt, and then desperation, and finally disillusionment with the whole of Christianity. Exactly what post-modernism has become and is doing to the Church today.

Fortunately, we have a wonderful Savior who is able to help us.

The world considers this immature, but the way I always approach this stuff is this: "God, I will believe you, even when all the evidence seems to point to the contrary."

By and large, I generally am able to stand up to a lot of arguments. It is like a puzzle to me. I think, "There is a way this works together, I just have to figure out what it is."

In regard to the story of the woman caught in adultery, it sounds very Jesus-ish. It is exactly something He would say and do. And just because it may not be in the earliest manuscripts it does not mean it did not happen.

If you read some of the apocryphal books they are very non Jesus like.

_________________
Todd