I think that we tend to put a far HIGHER view on scripture than God has and I don't mean that in a bad way.Philip wrote:I would well agree that the Periscope de Adultera passage absolutely sounds exactly what one would expect Jesus might say. In fact, I was rather shocked when I learned that it was considered suspect by many qualified to render such an opinion. The passage at the end of Mark seems contradictory and even dangerous if applied. Plus its assertions are not what we have observed to be true.Lets take into account the Periscope de Adultera, if you look at the passages does it look like something OUT of context with what Jesus preached? would have said?, No, it is very much in character with Jesus's preaching, even more so within the context of the GOJ.
We do NOT know why it was not present in the oldest manuscript, it MAY have been in the original and removed by some scribe that taught it to "forgiving" on an adulteress, or it may have come from a different copy of the GOJ that was "made into one" master copy, we simply do NOT know, but we.they DO KNOW that it does NOT go against the orthodox teachings of Christ.
If you think about it, God could have preserved His Word in some perfect pristine way that even all COPIES were IDENTICAL, no misspellings, word order mistakes, etc. - with all being precisely the same. But He didn't do that, as apparently He did not think that necessary. In fact, it might make it more suspect, that someone had systematically harmonized them. Even if someone added a MEANINGLESS passage, it has not changed the truth they tried to attach it to (nothing will do that!). Also, I would imagine that, historically, most who might have attempted to add to or change Scripture would have had evil motives to DISTORT what was already there - in an attempt to mislead or contradict what true Scripture says. This is why the other so called "lost" books are rather easy to identify.
Truly, I didn't mean to stir up anything, but to stimulate an important discussion about some passages most Christians are unaware of the debate over them - as a discussion amongst brothers. And I'm sure these teams that put these Bible's together prayed long and diligently over what cautionary comments they might make about them. These are no simple, knee-jerk reactions. And I don't think for a minute that IF they are not Scriptural, that they in any way reflect upon the integrity of the rest of Scripture. I take a very high view of God's Word.
God's WORD is Jesus and the bible comes second.
I think that all here would agree that if there was no bible, that God would find another way.
As Christ said, "even the stones would proclaim Him".
While the bible is of the upmost importance in terms of the historical writings that have been handed down to us, it is NOT more important than Christ or any other way God chooses to reveal Himself to Us.
The bible is exactly as it should be given the context(s) the various books and letters were written under and for whom they were written.
Let is ALWAYS have in mind that MAN is NOT perfect and NO WHERE do any of the writers of the various books of the bible CLAIM to be infalliable or perfect.
They do NOT and were NOT.
So where does that leave the bible and Us?
It leaves US with the responsibility to view the bible for what it is, for ALL it is and for us to NOT view it for what it never was meant to be.
