Discrepancies between the Bible and the “King of Kings” version

[The Sojourner]

Astounding. It contradicts AJH false teaching that the only thing that matters is following the mosaic law, because they reject that Christ can grant mercy to whom he will.
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father.”
This passage even breaks AJHs 12th commandment, do not judge, because all judgement has been given to the Jesus. And honoring the Son as they honor the Father certainly will send Freeman into a frenzy of a hundred or so copy and pasted texts when all I did is quote the verse as is.

No they don't.
And following the Mosaic Law (with the spiritual dimension that was added to it by Christ's Teaching of the New Covenant) is not the only thing that matters because you have to have Faith too, as it says in the New Covenant.

It says we have to learn to sing the New Song, which is the Song of Moses AND The Lamb.

Revelation
14:12 Here is the patience of the holy ones: here [are] they that KEEP the Commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@The Soujourner, I am adding this from the other thread because it is so important. https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/comparison-of-jahtruths-the-way-home-or-face-the-fire-to-the-bible.10878/

You just accidentally showed us ANOTHER DELIBERATE CHANGE that JAHtruth made to the bible. He completely omitted the woman caught in adultery story. He left out verses 3 - 11.

KOK 8:1 Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into The Temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3 Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the Light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of Life.

KJV
8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
----
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

---
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


--
@The Soujourner, can you see how AJH left out a very important account showing Jesus' mercy towards sinners - including people caught in adultery (e.g. King Charles III IF he has truly repented and believes in Jesus now)?
Jesus forgives those who believe in Him even if they have broken God's commandments.

Anthony John Hill doesn't have the merciful heart of Jesus.

That story of the Pericope Adulterae is left out of the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Westcott and Hort elevated these two texts as authoritative and they became the “go-to, original and best” critical text on which the Revised Version (and most subsequent modern versions) was based.

A good intro:

Many new translations include footnotes that bow to these manuscripts but their authenticity and reliability is questionable (as discussed here):

The "Critical Text" Criticized

So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums. From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be. What...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

What is very interesting from the perspective of Bible study is how chiastic structures help provide a check on the correct text. e.g. structure of the book of Revelation:



If you have never come across them, they are textual elements where the narrative might form particular symmetry. The fact is that the “woman caught in adultery” scene just so happens to fall within such a wider narrative structure, making its inclusion probable, and it’s removal discordant:

Ask a Scholar: Pericope and Chiasm by Todd D. Moore | NAS

www.nas.org

 

[The Sojourner]

That story is left out of the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Westcott and Hort elevated these two texts as authoritative and they became the “go-to, original and best” critical text on which the Revised Version (and most subsequent modern versions) was based.

Many new translations include footnotes that bow to these manuscripts but their authenticity and reliability is questionable (as discussed here):

The "Critical Text" Criticized

So many times the question of the authenticity of the Bible seems to come up in these forums. From people feeling that an original, more gnostic Christianity has been whitewashed and moved away from, to others who feel that certain important texts have been removed by the powers that be. What...

vigilantcitizenforums.com

What is very interesting from the perspective of Bible study is how chiastic structures help provide a check on the correct text. If you have never come across them, they are textual elements where the narrative might form particular symmetry. The fact is that the “woman caught in adultery” scene just so happens to fall within such a wider narrative structure, making its inclusion probable, and it’s removal discordant:

Ask a Scholar: Pericope and Chiasm by Todd D. Moore | NAS

www.nas.org

Hi @Red Sky at Morning
I'm glad you pointed out that the authenticity of the passage in question has been long debated.
There are problems with the passage itself, for people who want to try and accept it as genuine.

The passage/story claims to say, that they had caught a woman "in the very act" of adultery and wanted to stone her.

But what of the guilty man?

According to The Law, both the man and the woman would be equally guilty and both of them, would have to be brought to face the Judgment.

But conspicuously, the guilty man (how was he not also caught "in the very act", along with the woman caught "in the very act of adultery", by them?)... is MIA. He's missing.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Hi @Red Sky at Morning
I'm glad you pointed out that the authenticity of the passage in question has been long debated.
There are problems with the passage itself, for people who want to try and accept it as genuine.

The passage/story claims to say, that they had caught a woman "in the very act" of adultery and wanted to stone her.

But what of the guilty man?

According to The Law, both the man and the woman would be equally guilty and both of them, would have to be brought to face the Judgment.

But conspicuously, the guilty man (how was he not also caught "in the very act", along with the woman, by them?) is missing.

“Argument by silence” I believe the rhetorical technique?

Btw - nobody is building a case on the idea that the Pharisees applied justice in an even-handed manner.

 

[The Sojourner]

“Argument by silence” I believe the rhetorical technique?

Btw - nobody is building a case on the idea that the Pharisees applied justice in an even-handed manner.

It's not in any of the other Gospels or New Testament Letters, either. Surely, an event like this, which many consider to be not only very important but also fundamental, would be expected to be found in more than one instance backing it up; not only in one instance, that has been disputed over with regards to it being genuine or not, because of the lack thereof in certain manuscripts. Most NT scholars have reached the consensus that it is not part of the original Gospel of John:

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It's not in any of the other Gospels or New Testament Letters, either. Surely, an event like this, which many consider to be not only very important but also fundamental, would be expected to be found in more than one instance backing it up; not only in one instance, that has been disputed over with regards to it being genuine or not, because of the lack thereof in certain manuscripts. Most NT scholars have reached the consensus that it is not part of the original Gospel of John:

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most NT scholars accept the critical text revisions and elevate the Alexandrian manuscripts as more authoritative than the Textus Receptus. On the other hand, most NT scholars also bow to the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP), the Lucian Recention, allegorise Genesis etc etc.

Majority rule doesn’t work with truth.