The Sacred Field Ministry Stopped by a Bad Flu?

[Space Merchant]

@Witness If I recall you were asked for early evidence. You don't need the WT in order to find that out, concerning the passage. I will tell you this, even before Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible students, the passage was deemed spurious.

 

Keep in mind this verse - 2 Peter 1:21 

[Witness]

42 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

@Witness If I recall you were asked for early evidence. You don't need the WT in order to find that out, concerning the passage. I will tell you this, even before Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible students, the passage was deemed spurious.

 

Keep in mind this verse - 2 Peter 1:21 

I really don't know why you expect people to jump at your command.  I gave you a link to a comprehensive article.  I have given my opinion on the scriptures.  You have given yours.  If that is not good enough, nothing will be good enough for you - a man who demands obedience to his rules.  Sheesh, SM, this is a forum of opinions, thoughts and feelings, and facts.  Whatever you contribute, I'm fine with it, but don't expect me to follow your lead!

 

[Space Merchant]

5 minutes ago, Witness said:

I really don't know why you expect people to jump at your command.  I gave you a link to a comprehensive article.  I have given my opinion on the scriptures.  You have given yours.  If that is not good enough, nothing will be good enough for you - a man who demands obedience to his rules.  Sheesh, SM, this is a forum of opinions, thoughts and feelings, and facts.  Whatever you contribute, I'm fine with it, but don't expect me to follow your lead!

It was in relation to what you said to me as shown here

The link didn't show any early evidences concerning the verse, of which is why I asked you. Your link displays, the majority, later sources.

So, do you have any evidence to said early evidence in this matter? After all to quote you:

8 minutes ago, Witness said:

this is a forum of opinions, thoughts and feelings, and facts. 

Right now, the facts is of focus concerning the passage, as is with John's authorship.

 

[Space Merchant]

 

@Witness 

Also your link is problematic because of specific theology of MSC. You don't believe Jesus to be God, as I addressed a while ago, John 7:53-8:11 is defended by Trinitarians. They also defend the KJV, for your link is of KJV-Onlyist origin, Lion Tracks Ministries.

Why would you a source such as this if you are an Anti-Trinitarian?

[Witness]

 

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Also your link is problematic because of specific theology of MSC. You don't believe Jesus to be God, as I addressed a while ago, John 7:53-8:11 is defended by Trinitarians. They also defend the KJV, for your link is of KJV-Onlyist origin, Lion Tracks Ministries.

Why would you a source such as this if you are an Anti-Trinitarian?

Do all "Trinitarians" think alike?  Do all "Anti-Trinitarians" think alike?  Obviously not.  This is one "Anti-Trinitarian" that believes John 7:53-8:11 is a true account, and the account has nothing to do with the trinity.   I so appreciated how you described the qualities of Jesus Christ, but even though we are both “Anti-Trinitarians”, I don’t believe in all that you believe. You have to accept that.  In fact, I think you tend to focus on the worldly and not on the spiritual. You apply earthly concepts to the meaning of prophecy as JWs do, which comes through the eyes of a “natural man”.  (1 Cor 2:14)

 I very much appreciated how the link I provided was laid out clearly for me, even though the writer may be a “Trinitarian”.  So, what am I to do, shun all Trinitarians even though there may be some truth to their words in other topics?  If I am to shun all Catholics, I should be shunning my brother and his family and all of his friends.  Yet, my Catholic sister-in-law has worked in the soup kitchen for many years, providing for the homeless.  I am not in charge of reading her heart, or the hearts of my family.  They accepted me for my “anti-trinitarian” + Watchtower beliefs…for years. My sons are now agnostic. Should I shun them because they fit in some category?   Their judgment is in the hands of God, as is mine.  I am not in charge of reading the hearts of all "Trinitarians"; are you?  

 I am an “Anti-Trinitarian” as you say, as are the people I have come from.  I don’t shun them for not believing in their organization, but they shun me for my actions/words against it.   Can you see how lumping people into a specific group of "trinitarian" and "anti-trinitarian", is going a little overboard?   It is just another form of bias.

This is the time of confusion, which will eventually be cleared up for all righteous-hearted people, who will come to the knowledge of truth.  Isa 2

 

[Space Merchant]

@Witness You ignored the fact I said MSC, for anyone of this fold tends to defend this verse, as is with Trinitarians.

If you read what I said, I stated the following

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Also your link is problematic because of specific theology of MSC

Also everything else is irrelevant to what you're being asked, is there early evidence to John's authorship or is there not? As addressed, your link only shows everything later on, nothing pertaining to early sources. We talked about this before concerning Mark 16:9-20.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Witness said:

Well, it is true that the Wt. cannot tolerate these "spurious" scriptures because they would diminish the power of disfellowshipping.  

The reason the Wt cannot tolerate these “spurious” scriptures is because they are “spurious.” Nobody else worth his salt in the world of biblical scholarship can tolerate them either. Just because a passage appeals to sentimentality does not mean it belongs in the word of God.

Up till now I thought you at least knew scriptures, if not their proper application. Now it appears you do not know scripture either. Any tear-jerker of a passage you uncritically accept.

What “proofs” does your website offer to counter the fact that it is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts? Besides the fact that it appeals to you, I can see only:

1) Jesus said a lot of things, all the scrolls in the world could not contain them, so probably this is one of those things.

2) It is not vague but has specific details.

That’s it!

I could write a biblical passage to meet these criteria, and you would probably accept it.

In fact the Trutomicom excerpt, unjustly excluded from modern Bibles, but I have found an ancient manuscript of such in my glove box, includes the following “missing” passage from Revelation:

”And loud voice was heard from the rider of the white horse, crying “Whoa!!!” As the angelic troops ground to a screeching halt, amidst the whinnying and neighing  and snorting of horses, the rider’s voice rang out:

”Really, what business is this of ours? Here below we see ones who do not know their right hand from their left. It’s their affair! Let the one who has no sin among them throw the first bolt. Since there is not such a one, I forgive them as well.* Now let’s go home.

*all except for the sins of a certain 8 men in New York State. They really tick me off! I’ll let all sins slide except for theirs. They’re gonna fry!”

Happy?

[Space Merchant]

@TrueTomHarley So essentially, concerning Bible errors and spurious text, if it sounds good, but not proven to be written by anyone of God's inspired men, in her eyes is acceptable. It contradicts some of things said by her in the past in some instances. If anything, Witness is just as much as a victim has all in the MSC, reasons why I always said a small error can mislead, even her. This is what is taking place during the pandemic as some are seeking God, errors of scripture can result in adhering to things that can be problematic.

One would realize that a Christian would stick to the earliest sources. As pointed out even Muslims are aware and they've called out Trinitarians and Christians of MSC for their error.

That being said, in the early years of debates I have been in, I used the ESV Bible, which does not have such errors, but when challenged by a KJV Onlyist, I was not aware of these omissions until I did the research. Often times from research I would get confused by manuscripts due to cross connecting a lot of things, but later learned to simplify everything. Therefore nowadays, debating this, it can easily be challenged via early source vs later source.

The only good thing regarding the pandemic, silly stuff such as this, enables people to do research concerning the Bible. More and more people being aware, no longer tied to the MSC.

[Witness]

23 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The reason the Wt cannot tolerate these “spurious” scriptures is because they are “spurious.” Nobody else worth his salt in the world of biblical scholarship can tolerate them either. Just because a passage appeals to sentimentality does not mean it belongs in the word of God.

 

You live in a spiritual haven where love can be turned off at the drop of an announcement - "disfellowshipped!"  So I understand why you are so adamant that these scriptures are "spurious", never to have been added to God's word at any time over history.    And, it can't be dismissed that its presence in your Bible would be a challenge to overcome, if a JW brought them up in a judicial meeting. Because it isn't in there, it makes life for your judges so much easier to follow their rules, instead of the law of love in Jesus Christ.

 

 

 

 

[Space Merchant]

2 hours ago, Witness said:

And, it can't be dismissed that its presence in your Bible would be a challenge to overcome, if a JW brought them up in a judicial meeting. Because it isn't in there, it makes life for your judges so much easier to follow their rules, instead of the law of love in Jesus Christ.

Someone already said it was not in their Bible, hence omission regarding the NWT. The Greek text in their modern revision (even their other ones) originated from Westcott & Hort for the New Testament. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are hardcore Textual Analytics. In respects the AS, NIV and ESV uses the Novum Testamentum Graece. Like Westcott & Hort, Kurt Aland and his crew were much more the same. On the other side of the spectrum, the Bibles that use the Textus Receptus like the KJV, are known to have these assertions of texts/passages. The problem here isn't the NWT alone, but rather, the Textual basis/source used. Everything expect the TR usually sticks to the earliest and most reliable source possible in order to remain true and authentic to the inspired word. This is why when it comes to such things, it is a distinction between Christians and Christians of MSC. Granted, if you can recognize John 1:1 in it's true authorship regarding Apostle John, I don't see why you can't do the same for others. Like I said to the others, it is recommended that you know the History of the Scriptures; the history of what you have in your hands to read - The Holy Bible.

@TrueTomHarley It can also be said that many Church Fathers recognizing at the time that the Adulterous Woman story was not in the most ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament before the Codex Bezae (Greco-Roman manuscript), which is 5th century Greek/Latin manuscripts, for this is noted as a late mss. Moreover, earliest commenters on it knew it as a non-scriptural. It isn't surprising that those of the MSC crowd would attempt to twist their words in order to justify anything spurious, @Costried that many times and @Jesus.defender.

Speaking of Latin, some Christians argue that it was because of things getting Latinized, which contributed to some of these assertions, hence the mention of Jerome.

That being said, in regards to Textual Criticism, it can also come down to Interpolation (which is connected with oral tradition), which is a disregard to what God said in Deuteronomy 4:2, as is with Jesus in John 10:33-34, or anything related in reference to Peter, and the inspired ones who speak about them being inspired writers. The fact that no one is able to find an early manuscript sources, copies of what was written, it very telling, so to accept oral tradition over written word of those God chosen, is questionable. Spurious text, in this regards, is always defended by Mainstream Christendom, as is often justified by Trinitarians, who push their influence on to the rest of the MSC.

[Witness]

On 8/16/2021 at 11:18 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

The reason the Wt cannot tolerate these “spurious” scriptures is because they are “spurious.” Nobody else worth his salt in the world of biblical scholarship can tolerate them either. Just because a passage appeals to sentimentality does not mean it belongs in the word of God.

Your early spiritual fathers must have tolerated them, at least for awhile.  Were those individuals not worth their salt?  The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, was produced by the WT.  The 1985 version is on the JW website, and in there are the spurious scriptures.  

How dare the GB (who are not worth their salt perhaps?)  allow it, right?

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

Next thing you know, she’ll have the wrongdoer ascending with Jesus to paradise that day, nevermind how it conflicts with the rest of the scriptures.

16 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Everything expect the TR usually sticks to the earliest and most reliable source possible in order to remain true and authentic to the inspired word.

I think it is pretty clear that scholarship does not matter to her and that she uses her special ‘anointed’ sense to tell if a passage is any good or not. If it helps her in her battle against her ‘rival anointed,’ is is golden.