Dr. William Campbell destroyed by Dr. Zakir Naik on scientific errors in the Bible MUST WATCH!!

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
I think if a person who wants to know which is true.... I believe if they put cultural and family background to the side..... any bias or preconceptions to the side..... they simply and plainly study the Bible..... they simply and plainly study the Quran.... they examine both objectively.... they weigh objectively the arguments for and against on both sides... I believe if they engage in this process.... and I emphasize the word "process"..... this isn't something overnight.... if you are dedicated and you follow the process I have suggested.... I believe if you are objective and thorough then insha'Allah you will believe in the Quran..... and following Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is part of following the Quran, so there's no contradiction there......

People are born into a religion.

I look for tangible evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt the validity of a religion.

In the case of the Bible there are a lot of prophecies written down long before history proved them right. For example Greece would split into four kingdoms after conquering Persia and produce a king which would desecrate the Temple. Prophecies about the Jews being conquered and scattered into all nations. Prophecies about the Jews eventually returning to their land. And on and on...

There is for example a prophetic timeline until the Messiah in the book of Daniel which when correctly understood points to the spring of 33 AD. And then there is the claim that one Jesus Christ just walked out of his tomb... and there are no written old records refuting this claim. And close to Calvary there is what is known as the garden tomb standing empty to this day.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
People are born into a religion.

I look for tangible evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt the validity of a religion.

In the case of the Bible there are a lot of prophecies written down long before history proved them right. For example Greece would split into four kingdoms after conquering Persia and produce a king which would desecrate the Temple. Prophecies about the Jews being conquered and scattered into all nations. Prophecies about the Jews eventually returning to their land. And on and on...

There is for example a prophetic timeline until the Messiah in the book of Daniel which when correctly understood points to the spring of 33 AD. And then there is the claim that one Jesus Christ just walked out of his tomb... and there are no written old records refuting this claim. And close to Calvary there is what is known as the garden tomb standing empty to this day.
People are born into a religion? I was born into a Christian family. We don't have to blindly follow whatever the previous generations followed.

I beleve some of the Bible is from God. I don't believe that about, say, the stuff from Paul. I don't see him as having any authority whatsoever.

I don't even deny that there may be some accurate prophecies in the Bible.

There are accurate prophecies in the hadith. Go to Dubai. I'm sure you'll see some tall buildings.

I think some of the Bible is true. Islam doesn't entirely deny the authenticity of what's in the Bible. Islam claims that those scriptures, however, have been tampered with. And some, like Paul's writings- I don't think Paul has any authority whatsoever from an Islamic perspective. I think any sound Muslim would have to be somewhat hostile towards his theology- being that Paul's basic, overall messages boils down to attacking Tawheed. You boil down what he was saying and his writings were basically a long, sustained attack against Tawheed. I think Paul was a dangerous person.

I think 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 suggests that Paul was dealing with a shaytaan who possible was influencing him. I wonder if a shaytaan was whispering in his ear and those "teachings" were flowing from Paul. I can't copy, paste but I encourage people to look up what i cited.

Slightly off-topic.... Socrates was referred to as "demonic". I wonder if Socrates was subject to..... not benevolent..... inspiration.

I think the same about Paul to be honest. He was a murderer who suddenly became a Christian "leader" or something.

He was a murderer who it appears had an evil jinn who may have been influencing him. And then who pressured people against belief in Tawheed. I find the guy eerie.

The guy murders people, washes the blood and gives flowery dissertations on "love". That would be great for a horror movie character. Psycho might have been even more spooky if Hitchcock had had Norman Bates give a lectures on "love".

Now obviously, to find Paul's attack against Tawheed shocking... obviously we have to accept Tawheed in the first place. So if you haven't accepted that, obviously I don't think it will be convincing. Although it's weird the murderer-turned-religious-leader thing.

If someone is a murderer and then supposedly discovers God.... hopefully God forgives them and that's nice.... but I don't think that's who I'd want as a religious leader. Muhammad (PBUH) was a military leader, that is true, but he wasn't a murderer. There's a difference between Patton and Norman Bates.

Anyways..... evidence. You want to talk about evidence. Let's talk about evidence.

This thread has gone on for 60-something pages and I'm still waiting for anyone to refute this:


Can you refute this?

@Red Sky at Morning I didn't advocate forming a conclusion and then finding stuff to back up a predetermined conclusion. I've studied both sides. I'm well aware of the Christian side. Having studied both, I believe the Muslim side is stronger in terms of logic and evidence. I think people reject Islam for cultural reasons.

Also, your response to Bart Ehrman is throwing a smoke grenade. You make the issue seem more complex and confusing than it really is. If people read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH)- it is very clear that the Bible has been tampered with and he shows you basically a mountain of evidence.

And the Bereans... I believe good Bereans if they are objective and rightly guided will become Muslim. It is a matter of good Bereanship or not. Being a good Berean will lead people to Islam.
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
People are born into a religion? I was born into a Christian family. We don't have to blindly follow whatever the previous generations followed.

I beleve some of the Bible is from God. I don't believe that about, say, the stuff from Paul. I don't see him as having any authority whatsoever.

I don't even deny that there may be some accurate prophecies in the Bible.

There are accurate prophecies in the hadith. Go to Dubai. I'm sure you'll see some tall buildings.

I think some of the Bible is true. Islam doesn't entirely deny the authenticity of what's in the Bible. Islam claims that those scriptures, however, have been tampered with. And some, like Paul's writings- I don't think Paul has any authority whatsoever from an Islamic perspective. I think any sound Muslim would have to be somewhat hostile towards his theology- being that Paul's basic, overall messages boils down to attacking Tawheed. You boil down what he was saying and his writings were basically a long, sustained attack against Tawheed. I think Paul was a dangerous person.

I think 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 suggests that Paul was dealing with a shaytaan who possible was influencing him. I wonder if a shaytaan was whispering in his ear and those "teachings" were flowing from Paul. I can't copy, paste but I encourage people to look up what i cited.

Slightly off-topic.... Socrates was referred to as "demonic". I wonder if Socrates was subject to..... not benevolent..... inspiration.

I think the same about Paul to be honest. He was a murderer who suddenly became a Christian "leader" or something.

He was a murderer who it appears had an evil jinn who may have been influencing him. And then who pressured people against belief in Tawheed. I find the guy eerie.

The guy murders people, washes the blood and gives flowery dissertations on "love". That would be great for a horror movie character. Psycho might have been even more spooky if Hitchcock had had Norman Bates give a lectures on "love".

Now obviously, to find Paul's attack against Tawheed shocking... obviously we have to accept Tawheed in the first place. So if you haven't accepted that, obviously I don't think it will be convincing. Although it's weird the murderer-turned-religious-leader thing.

If someone is a murderer and then supposedly discovers God.... hopefully God forgives them and that's nice.... but I don't think that's who I'd want as a religious leader. Muhammad (PBUH) was a military leader, that is true, but he wasn't a murderer. There's a difference between Patton and Norman Bates.

Anyways..... evidence. You want to talk about evidence. Let's talk about evidence.

This thread has gone on for 60-something pages and I'm still waiting for anyone to refute this:


Can you refute this?

@Red Sky at Morning I didn't advocate forming a conclusion and then finding stuff to back up a predetermined conclusion. I've studied both sides. I'm well aware of the Christian side. Having studied both, I believe the Muslim side is stronger in terms of logic and evidence. I think people reject Islam for cultural reasons.

Also, your response to Bart Ehrman is throwing a smoke grenade. You make the issue seem more complex and confusing than it really is. If people read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH)- it is very clear that the Bible has been tampered with and he shows you basically a mountain of evidence.

And the Bereans... I believe good Bereans if they are objective and rightly guided will become Muslim. It is a matter of good Bereanship or not. Being a good Berean will lead people to Islam.
If people were to read Bart Ehrman alongside Lee Strobel and (on the authenticity of the Bible) Dr Bill Cooper, they would at least have heard both sides of the issue.

As to making your own mind up on things, that's fine - I will leave you to it Etagloc.

https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Naik/biblecontras.htm

P.s. for a "corrupt" Book, the Bible is doing pretty well on the prophetic side. Isaiah 53, perhaps 700 years before Jesus was born sets out Gods plan and purpose in sending Jesus, just in case anyone thought it was Paul who invented the Gospel!


Things happening in our world now are looking perilously close to Isaiah 17, Psalm 83, Ezekiel 38 and so many more. This is not idle talk, we are truly at the door.

 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
Rewinding a bit to the topic of Body, Soul and Spirit, it is fairly obvious that this structure of Man was well known to our Creator as illustrated by His design of the portable Tabernacle given Moses in the wilderness.

 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
People are born into a religion? I was born into a Christian family. We don't have to blindly follow whatever the previous generations followed.
Yes usually people are born into a religion or lack of one and more or less stick to that. There are exceptions of course but converting from one religion to another do not prove the objective validity of either religion... it's just subjective preference.


I beleve some of the Bible is from God. I don't believe that about, say, the stuff from Paul. I don't see him as having any authority whatsoever.

I don't even deny that there may be some accurate prophecies in the Bible.
If the God of the Bible is the Creator of the universe and Maker of angels man and animals... we must suppose that the God of the Bible has been able to protect and preserve His words for us.


There are accurate prophecies in the hadith. Go to Dubai. I'm sure you'll see some tall buildings.
Yea well that don't impress me much as mankind has a recorded history of building tall buildings.


I think some of the Bible is true. Islam doesn't entirely deny the authenticity of what's in the Bible. Islam claims that those scriptures, however, have been tampered with. And some, like Paul's writings- I don't think Paul has any authority whatsoever from an Islamic perspective. I think any sound Muslim would have to be somewhat hostile towards his theology- being that Paul's basic, overall messages boils down to attacking Tawheed. You boil down what he was saying and his writings were basically a long, sustained attack against Tawheed. I think Paul was a dangerous person.

I think 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 suggests that Paul was dealing with a shaytaan who possible was influencing him. I wonder if a shaytaan was whispering in his ear and those "teachings" were flowing from Paul. I can't copy, paste but I encourage people to look up what i cited.
2 Cor 12 suggests that Paul was caught up to Paradise. And so not to become proud God gave him an infirmity... so as to keep him grounded.



I think the same about Paul to be honest. He was a murderer who suddenly became a Christian "leader" or something.

He was a murderer who it appears had an evil jinn who may have been influencing him. And then who pressured people against belief in Tawheed. I find the guy eerie.

The guy murders people, washes the blood and gives flowery dissertations on "love". That would be great for a horror movie character. Psycho might have been even more spooky if Hitchcock had had Norman Bates give a lectures on "love".

Now obviously, to find Paul's attack against Tawheed shocking... obviously we have to accept Tawheed in the first place. So if you haven't accepted that, obviously I don't think it will be convincing. Although it's weird the murderer-turned-religious-leader thing.

If someone is a murderer and then supposedly discovers God.... hopefully God forgives them and that's nice.... but I don't think that's who I'd want as a religious leader. Muhammad (PBUH) was a military leader, that is true, but he wasn't a murderer. There's a difference between Patton and Norman Bates.

Paul thought he was doing God of Israel a service by persecuting and stoning blasphemers. All that changed when Christ appeared to him...



Anyways..... evidence. You want to talk about evidence. Let's talk about evidence.

This thread has gone on for 60-something pages and I'm still waiting for anyone to refute this:


Can you refute this?
Compared to for example the short simple verses in the Quran the Bible is an epic. If not one single simple mistake crept into centuries of copying and translating the Bible... we might as well elevate it into God.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Compared to for example the short simple verses in the Quran the Bible is an epic. If not one single simple mistake crept into centuries of copying and translating the Bible... we might as well elevate it into God.
"Short simple verses"... bring a Surah.

The Bible has not one single mistake???

If anyone wants to know the truth of that claim- let them read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH) by Bart Ehrman. It's very clear from the evidence that the claim is false.

@Red Sky at Morning

suggested reading Lee Strobel- the "Case For Christ" guy. I've read that book. The book is weak. That's the one where he does the detective thing where he pretends like he's a detective. The detective thing was entertaining but there was an Amazon review that said the book would only be convincing to the convinced or something along those lines- that is my view of the book. I think I have a copy of that book somewhere. If I find it, insha'Allah someone can have it. It's weak stuff. I encourage people- read the Lee Strobel book and read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH). Read them both. Misquoting Jesus (PBUH) is strong. I read the Lee Strobel book. It's weak. I haven't read the other author Red Sky mentioned... Dr. Bill Cooper? The "Behold a Pale Horse" guy?? I assume this is a different Bill Cooper.

apparently this is him https://www.billcooper.org.uk

Insha'Allah at some point I'll check some of his stuff out and see for myself what he says.

But the Lee Strobel book I've read and that book is very, very week. I encourage everyone to read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH). That book basically shows you a mountain of evidence and it makes it pretty clear that the Bible has been tamperef with.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
"Short simple verses"... bring a Surah.
Compared to the epicness of the Bible... the Quran is simply short and simple.



The Bible has not one single mistake???

If anyone wants to know the truth of that claim- let them read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH) by Bart Ehrman. It's very clear from the evidence that the claim is false.
If the Bible did not have one single mistake... it would be God. But it's not... God is not a Book.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
"Short simple verses"... bring a Surah.

The Bible has not one single mistake???

If anyone wants to know the truth of that claim- let them read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH) by Bart Ehrman. It's very clear from the evidence that the claim is false.

@Red Sky at Morning

suggested reading Lee Strobel- the "Case For Christ" guy. I've read that book. The book is weak. That's the one where he does the detective thing where he pretends like he's a detective. The detective thing was entertaining but there was an Amazon review that said the book would only be convincing to the convinced or something along those lines- that is my view of the book. I think I have a copy of that book somewhere. If I find it, insha'Allah someone can have it. It's weak stuff. I encourage people- read the Lee Strobel book and read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH). Read them both. Misquoting Jesus (PBUH) is strong. I read the Lee Strobel book. It's weak. I haven't read the other author Red Sky mentioned... Dr. Bill Cooper? The "Behold a Pale Horse" guy?? I assume this is a different Bill Cooper.

apparently this is him https://www.billcooper.org.uk

Insha'Allah at some point I'll check some of his stuff out and see for myself what he says.

But the Lee Strobel book I've read and that book is very, very week. I encourage everyone to read Misquoting Jesus (PBUH). That book basically shows you a mountain of evidence and it makes it pretty clear that the Bible has been tamperef with.
When Lee Strobel set out to write "The Case for Christ" it was intended as a piece to debunk the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. His primary concern was not an investigation on biblical textual integrity but to address the three points of whether Jesus really loved, was really crucified and was actually raised on the third day.

In the process he interviewed people who had far greater depth in the topics Lee questioned them on than was possible to portray in a mere chapter of a book, thus each investigation be ones an abstract for deeper study. Everyone has different questions and topics of difficulty and question. Lee investigated the ones that were an issue to him. You, @Etagloc may have different questions and that's fine.

On the specific criticisms of Bart Ehrman, he elevates the maimed and altered Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and best", shows the departures from the majority text and infers that these additions are there as a result of the Church trying to improve or solidify it's emerging doctrines. Simultaneously he downplays the authenticity, reliability etc of the Antiochan line of texts. You can create a compelling story from this but does it stand scrutiny?

This is where Dr Bill Cooper, the Christian, non conspiracy one comes in. @Kung Fu originally prompted me to search this information out and I have not stopped studying it since as it has proved to be such a blessing.

Other resources I found specifically countering the foundational claims of Bart are found at https://www.billcooper.org.uk as well as sinaiticus.net. By all means find out what Bart has to say, but be prepared to find that his narrative may not be the whole story.

Other useful resources:

Discussion Forum Groups

1. Pure Bible Forum http://purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65

@Steven Avery continues to post relevent information from his literature searches and other research efforts to accumulate an easy to search collection information on a number of Biblical issues including Codex Sinaiticus

2. Facebook Sinaiticus Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/

A Facebook group for posting and commenting on Sinaiticus related information in a social media setting so that it can be easily shared and widely distributed.

3. Bible Criticism & History Forum http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017

A thread on the Bible Criticism & History forum focussing on the colour of Codex Sinaiticus, including Codex Friderico-Augustanus and pages held in the British Library, Saint Catherine's Monestary, and the National Library of Russia.

Research Papers and Articles

1. New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
Ihor Ševcenko
http://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1964_num_18_1_3197

2. Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus: The Saga Continues (2005)
Michael D. Peterson,
http://books.google.com/books?id=DLSMIdACXbUC&pg=PA75

3. Constantine Tischendorf and his Greek Manuscripts (2013)
Natalie Tchernetska
http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/COMSt_Newsletter_5_2013.pdf

4. Symposium: "Science Deceived: A Genius Fools Europe.Symposium for the 194th birthday of Konstantinos Simonides" (2014)
https://www.facebook.com/events/907268512636367/
https://www.academia.edu/9287395/Science_deceived._A_Genius_Fools_Europe_Die_getäuschte_Wissenschaft_Ein_Genie_betrügt_Europa._Exhibition_catalogue_

Speakers
https://www.academia.edu/8883341/Simonides_Programme_Folder


P.s. VCF threads on related topics:-

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/deceit-the-jesuits-and-an-ancient-codex.393/

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/

And if you would rather watch than read:-

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-best-six-hours-i-ever-invested.3486/
 
Last edited:

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
When Lee Strobel set out to write "The Case for Christ" it was intended as a piece to debunk the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. His primary concern was not an investigation on biblical textual integrity but to address the three points of whether Jesus really loved, was really crucified and was actually raised on the third day.

In the process he interviewed people who had far greater depth in the topics Lee questioned them on than was possible to portray in a mere chapter of a book, thus each investigation be ones an abstract for deeper study. Everyone has different questions and topics of difficulty and question. Lee investigated the ones that were an issue to him. You, @Etagloc may have different questions and that's fine.

On the specific criticisms of Bart Ehrman, he elevates the maimed and altered Alexandrian texts as the "oldest and best", shows the departures from the majority text and infers that these additions are there as a result of the Church trying to improve or solidify it's emerging doctrines. Simultaneously he downplays the authenticity, reliability etc of the Antiochan line of texts. You can create a compelling story from this but does it stand scrutiny?

This is where Dr Bill Cooper, the Christian, non conspiracy one comes in. @Kung Fu originally prompted me to search this information out and I have not stopped studying it since as it has proved to be such a blessing.

Other resources I found specifically countering the foundational claims of Bart are found at https://www.billcooper.org.uk as well as sinaiticus.net. By all means find out what Bart has to say, but be prepared to find that his narrative may not be the whole story.

Other useful resources:

Discussion Forum Groups

1. Pure Bible Forum http://purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65

@Steven Avery continues to post relevent information from his literature searches and other research efforts to accumulate an easy to search collection information on a number of Biblical issues including Codex Sinaiticus

2. Facebook Sinaiticus Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/

A Facebook group for posting and commenting on Sinaiticus related information in a social media setting so that it can be easily shared and widely distributed.

3. Bible Criticism & History Forum http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017

A thread on the Bible Criticism & History forum focussing on the colour of Codex Sinaiticus, including Codex Friderico-Augustanus and pages held in the British Library, Saint Catherine's Monestary, and the National Library of Russia.

Research Papers and Articles

1. New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
Ihor Ševcenko
http://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1964_num_18_1_3197

2. Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus: The Saga Continues (2005)
Michael D. Peterson,
http://books.google.com/books?id=DLSMIdACXbUC&pg=PA75

3. Constantine Tischendorf and his Greek Manuscripts (2013)
Natalie Tchernetska
http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/COMSt_Newsletter_5_2013.pdf

4. Symposium: "Science Deceived: A Genius Fools Europe.Symposium for the 194th birthday of Konstantinos Simonides" (2014)
https://www.facebook.com/events/907268512636367/
https://www.academia.edu/9287395/Science_deceived._A_Genius_Fools_Europe_Die_getäuschte_Wissenschaft_Ein_Genie_betrügt_Europa._Exhibition_catalogue_

Speakers
https://www.academia.edu/8883341/Simonides_Programme_Folder


P.s. VCF threads on related topics:-

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/deceit-the-jesuits-and-an-ancient-codex.393/

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/

And if you would rather watch than read:-

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-best-six-hours-i-ever-invested.3486/
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Now I may be just a simple country folk..... not knowing of them fancy words like Sinaiticus.......

but even to the non-erudite the truth appears indubitable in the case of this matter:

Bart Ehrman's Book
Misquoting Jesus
(Pages 63,64,65)

The Woman Taken in Adultery


The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.


The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.


Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."



It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?



Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.


How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel.The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.



How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.


That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.


http://darkness2noor.blogspot.com/2014/08/bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus-fabricated.html
 
Top