Here are some important fact that most people do not know. The 6 Corporations💰, also known as the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, created their own customized translation of the “Bible” in 1950, which included the New Testament. The King James Version (KJV) they were using before caused them many problems, after they changed their doctrines so they had to stop using the KJV and create their own customized made bible, which includes significant alterations to support their core teachings. Over the years, they created many New Revised Editions, one of which was the first complete New World Translation (NWT) that included both the Old and New Testaments in 1961. Since then, newer revised editions have been released. Here are the remaining revised editions in order: 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013, all of which included more and more and more drastic alterations, such as verses removed, words altered, new words added, punctuation moved, verses restructured, and parts of chapters removed in order to support their false doctrines.
@@Jesus_Christ_Conquers you ass is fool's,, me l whish l be Jehovah witness, because they Allways obey the head of the organisation Jesus teaching, and Jesus is the son of God Almighty Jehovah,, , and Allways pot the Kingdom first Jesus teaching, and the organisation of Jehovah witness is the same as Jesus teaching,, pot the Kingdom first,, and they are the same time as Jesus say and teaching,, all lieyer against them, Jesus warm them,, Only one a God Almighty Jehovah,, and Jesus is the greatest teacher , The only shoultion for this earth is the Kingdom,, and Jesus us the king of the Kingdom, and 144,000 whit him,, , it All there in the Revelation,
@@praiseofhisgrace3178 Wow, It does not take much to impress you! So those you trust are those who slaughter their own and convert non-believers for war, wealth, and glory these organisations who support the Governments are far better trusted than those who actively turned their 'spears into ploughs sheers'... In your own version of the bible which has had many things altered and removed from it, Christ condemns all these actions, noting, By their fruits, you will know who I am using... and who I am not!
YES!!! and... MORE MORE MORE ---> look, yes, everything this brother expounds on in this fine preso, the NWT is based heavily on the demon channeled writings of Johannes Greber (see his page on Wikipedia). The WT/jw disfellowshipping policy was started by b'coz of the whistle blowers that we led (by the Ruah) to the boxes that were shipped to WT HQ of Greber's filthy demon channeled writings -- Barbara Anderson was the "ring leader", and there are videos here on YT with her testimonies
Wow 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 what a history! I had no idea the true extent of how deep this goes! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Thank you so much for all this researching! This is the most important message we could hear today!!!!
F$%%....🤬🤬🤬 I THOUGHT I HAD IT SUSSED! My brain is blowing out atm....how could Jah allow this? Mind blown, teary but grateful cause JC said THE TRUTH WILL set us free ! And THE TRUTH is coming out! 🤔🤔💖💖👋👋
Thank you for bringing up this topic. I as former JW, one of my red flag was this! When I received the 2013 of NWT and found this heartfelt scripture was gone I was so shocked and wanted to question the org, but as you might know we were constantly taught to obey the Shepherds (Men in charge of sheeple) so I had pushed it aside and was silent😢I regret I hadn’t questioned them earlier! As exjw now although am an agnostic atheist since woke, I wish sincere Bible believers will gather larger and raise their voices to this org and protest about the changes and taking away scriptures that they are doing.
Thank you so much for your lovely comment and being so kind and honest in your observation towards still believers...🙏despite you yourself not anymore. You have clearer vision, then many so called believers in regards to raising our voices...thank you for that! And I pray for you, even if you don't believe (for now) not to judge Him upon what others did to you or your loved ones... that God would open your heart again towards Him in Grace and love, my friend!❤🙏
Thank you for your in depth research on how this organisation has fooled millions in believing that they have the Truth of the Bible when in fact it's all been a LIE .This is why I left two years ago. Keep up the Great work and thank you very much. ❤
Thank you! And I’m glad you made the decision to leave! It couldn’t have been easy..! But very happy that you did and may God bless your journey to the real TRUTH that is Jesus himself! Blessings to you my friend! 🙏
@@leeBoB4257 you left because you are a lieyer,, me lm not, but l wish l was, a Jehovah worship,, The road us narrow , Jesus siad,, you are lieyer and you not love the Truth,, me lm going to start studying,, , This is the organisation of God Almighty Jehovah,,, They are not part of this world,,, like Jesus teaching,,, very truth , But Jesus siad they not believe me they not going to believe you ,, Only honest people, Jesus siad the sheep,, here my Vose,, Jesus spoke about Jehovah , all the time,,, semple
When you start studying make sure you study the Bible and not the Watchtowers twisted LYING understanding of the Scriptures. Iam going to challenge you on what you are going to be tought by the Watchtower and what the Bible truly says. Please Show me from the Scriptures where it says that Christ will return invisibly first in 1874 and then again in 1914 and then again a third time when no one knows the day or the hour. I will show you from the Scriptures that when Christ does return he won't return invisibly but visible . Then we will see who the LIAR IS. Ps I was in the so-called Truth for over 20 years. I look forward hearing from you soon.
@@leeBoB4257 see him,, 👀 He is King in Haven,, Witness are seeing him,, whit discerning and pot the Kingdom first,,, Jehovah he give his organisation ,, spictiol on the onitod 144,000,, The lettel flog,, and the big crowd,, IF his come, why? He siad my Kingdom is from Haven,, gentle time,, 2520 years,, yes 1914,,, from 607 BC,, Witness are wake,, The wouchtower is the teaching from Jehovah organisation, and Jesus is the king ,, from Haven,, 144,000 are sealed,,, Yes l know because l was for 12 years,, but l left,, not they cust me out,, The onotied are clean spiritual,, and the organisation Jehovah Almighty whit Jesus and the onitod they obey the truth for the sheep,,
Actually, they do know what they’re doing on this one. That is a spurious text and nearly every Bible translation puts it in the footnotes or brackets around it because it’s not original.
It's a viewpoint, what are Christianity's lame excuses for killing fellow believers and non-believers alike for Church and State one may ask...? or for all the horrors they have committed throughout human history... in God's name??
Thanks to you for revealing how WT removes and adding to the scriptures. I Will at the same time pay attention to Acts.20:28 - Be Shepherd of the church of God wich he bought with his own blood- (KIV) Watchtowers bible has change this verse for a reasen when they write - " wich he purchased with the blood OF HIS OWN SOON.
@@annegretheryan9908 Ah, thank you for this! what a good one, i forgot about this..! So many great verses are out there, yes, that verse actually says, he brought the church with HIS OWN BLOOD...! great example...!!! thank you!🙏❤👍
@@annegretheryan9908 “28Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”(Acts 20:28 NET) “28So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God,+ which he made his own through the blood of his Son.”(Acts 20:28 Good News Translation) “28Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.+”(Acts 20:28 Contemporary English Translation) 😉 Either the Son poured out his blood or the father did? Which one is it. It was the Son. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”(John 1:11 King James Version) ☝️Jesus “OWN” what did not accept him? Did Jesus not accept himself or was his “own PEOPLE”? Likewise God himself did not pour ANY blood, rather it was that of his “OWN SON”.
Wow wow wow bro, you're too good with your research and presentation. Am glad l left that CULT of JW. Will looking forward to your sincere follow up. Tanx again from the bottom of my heart.
They gave to make a Bible to fit their own agenda and not their religion to follow the Bible. Especially from a group that has less than zero knowledge of scholarship
You should find the reason why it's been removed by googling ... John 8th chapter 1 through 11 missing. You will then find why it was removed without someone's religious bias. The answer can also be found in Wikipedia. They are valid reasons for to doubt the authenticity of this passage.
It’s spurious. Most Bible translations will recognize this. Now, if you hold the king James version as the standard of course it looks like it’s been removed. But in reality it’s been added.
@praiseofhisgrace3178 I am from Bulgaria 🇧🇬. I know that you are Catholic ✝️ and I am Orthodox ☦, but God loves ❤ everyone. God is one 🙏. Thank you 😊 Chaba. Kyosonom
Thank you Michail, very kind my friend🙏 I am not Catholic, I was a Jehovah’s Witness, yes, now I’m non denominational… I’m just a believer and follower of my Saviour Yeshua/Jesus Christ🙏❤️🔥🙌 and try to learn and to know Him as much as I can. God bless you Michail, and keep seeking the Lord 🙏🤗 благодаря ви
The passage John 7:53-8:11, which includes the story of the woman caught in adultery, is considered spurious or non-original by many biblical scholars. This is because there is strong manuscript evidence suggesting that this passage was not part of the original Gospel of John. Here’s what scholars say and the reasons behind their conclusions: 1. Manuscript Evidence: *Earliest and Most Reliable Manuscripts:* The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent from some of the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the 4th century. These are considered foundational manuscripts in the field of textual criticism. *Inconsistent Placement:* In other manuscripts where the passage does appear, it is placed in different locations within John (some manuscripts place it after John 21, for example), or even within Luke (after Luke 21:38). This suggests that the passage was not originally fixed within the Gospel tradition. *Later Manuscripts:* The passage begins to appear consistently in manuscripts around the 5th century, and many scholars believe it was a later insertion into the text of John. 2. Early Church Fathers: Early church fathers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian do not mention the story in their commentaries on John, which would be unusual if the story had been part of the Gospel text during their time. Augustine did reference the passage, but he speculated that earlier scribes may have removed it because it seemed to condone adultery, which he believed might have caused concern in some early Christian communities. 3. Style and Vocabulary: Many scholars point out that the style and vocabulary of John 7:53-8:11 are different from the rest of the Gospel of John. The Greek used in the passage contains words and phrases that John does not typically use, which suggests that it might have been written by a different author and inserted later. For example, the phrase “scribes and Pharisees,” used in the passage, is more common in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) than in John, who typically speaks about “the Jews” in general opposition to Jesus. 4. Scholarly Consensus: Bruce Metzger, a leading New Testament scholar, notes in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament that the passage “has all the earmarks of a later addition to the Gospel of John.” Raymond E. Brown, another prominent scholar, echoes this in his Anchor Bible Commentary on the Gospel of John. He argues that while the story may be historically true (it could have been part of the oral tradition about Jesus), it was not part of the original Gospel. F.F. Bruce and D.A. Carson, both respected scholars, agree that the passage was not original to John’s Gospel but might represent a genuine event from Jesus’ life that was preserved in the early Christian tradition. 5. Textual Criticism Conclusion: Based on textual criticism, the consensus among scholars is that John 7:53-8:11 was a later addition to the Gospel and not written by the original author of John. While many accept that it may reflect a genuine episode from Jesus’ life (which is why it continues to be included in many modern translations, often with brackets or a footnote), it is not considered part of the earliest text of John. Conclusion: Most scholars agree that John 8:1-11 is spurious in the sense that it was not originally part of the Gospel of John. This conclusion is based on manuscript evidence, the absence of the passage in early writings, differences in language and style, and inconsistent placement in various manuscripts.
Cause it is an story that suggest Jesus approved a behaviour that his father condemmed as a serious sin....and Jesus wouldnt break a law nor support someone who break a law given by his father.
😂this thumbnail is misleading and clickbait. Watchtower is not the ONLY translation that removes this part John 8. Many other translations who base their translation on the CRITICAL TEXT see that these verses in the original and EARLIER manuscripts.
@@ckelly5141 Yes but half of the epistoles are forgeries and fake. Like Paul would appoint Elders and Deacons as leaders when Jesus told that he is the ONLY leader.
@@elordon You miss greatly what Paul was doing. It’s not a title like given in the false church(especially from the second century onward) These Cong.‘s needed spiritually mature men and this what happened after receiving the free gift of the Holy Spirit for the needs of the church.(Eph.4:8) As far as half of the epistles being false, where is your proof?
@@ckelly5141 What I am telling is that half of epistles of Paul in Bible are not written from Paul. Do your search and find the truth. You do not need mediators and priests between Jesus and you, you are the Priest of your body. I am not against of Paul I am against the weeds mix in truth like Jesus told and usurped the truth to exploit people. God be with you.
Thank you for this video. When leaving Jehovahs witnesses, the Holy Spirit showed me 2 Corinthians 5:10 in the NWT. The footnote of this scripture takes you as a reference to Revelation 22:12. Their own Bible wants you to know that Jesus is God. You can’t hide the truth.
@@JohnWick-j8l uuuh NO. The theme being referenced is the “reward” not IDENTITY. The reward for conquering the world. Keep and mind what John wrote to BEGIN the revelation. 👇 “A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John,”(Revelation 1:1) 1) “A revelation of Jesus Christ [WHICH GOD GAVE HIM]” ☝️obviously Jesus was GIVEN this revelation and prior to this did not have the knowledge of what is to take place. “Apokalipsis” means “UNCOVERING”. 2) Note the apostle John doesn’t CONFLATE God AND Jesus Christ. Obviously these are 2 DISTINCT persons AND BEINGS. 3)Revelation 22:13, tells us the one talking is the “Alpha and the Omega”, the Father NOT Jesus. We know this by how God the Father and Jesus refer to the Christians DIFFERENTLY. For example, the apostles viewed Jesus as their [BROTHER].👇 “For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.”(Hebrews 2:11,12) “For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, that one is my [BROTHER] and sister and mother.”(Matthew 12:50) “We know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose; 29 because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many [BROTHERS]”(Romans 8:28,29) HOWEVER when it comes to the “Alpha and Omega” speaking we know it’s the FATHER Jehovah for he also speaks at Revelation 21:6,7. 👇 “And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my [SON].”(Revelation 21:6,7) ☝️Note the one “conquering” will become the “alpha and omega’s” SON. Jesus in the same BOOK refers to the one conquering as well . However he says that those who do will have the name of “his God” and “his FATHER”. 👇 “‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”(Revelation 3:12,13) -Jesus’ words.
John 8:1-11 was not removed form the Bible, it was added to so Bibles. The oldest Greek muskroots do bot have that passage in them. It was added at some later time. In the Reference Bible it was shown un a different text type to show that thus passage was an addition to te text. Look up any modern Bike they all have foot notes saying that passage was added. Under what authority did the King James ADD the passages. The NWT had NO association with Johannes Grebber In 1516 Erasmus started working on produced a complete Greek manuscript which at the time NO ONE HAD. He worked with about eight incomplete manicurists and the Latin Bible of the time. By comparing the eight Greek manuscripts that were no older then the 12th century and using the Latin text to fill in where there was no Greek text he produced his first edition of the Greek manuscript. After his second edition the Catholic church made him insert words 1 John 5:7 that were in the Latin text bit not in the Greek manuscripts that he had.
SBL Greek New Testament regarding John 7:53-8:11; “(These verses) are not found in the earliest and best manuscripts and are almost certainly not part of the Gospel of John; one significant group of manuscripts places it after Luke21:38.” Despite this, not one English translation has those set of verses in the book of Luke.
Take a look at these scriptures in the Silver New World's Translation of the Holy Scriptures. They have been REMOVED / DELETED from the (2013 Revision) Silver New World Translation John 8: 1-11 Mark 7:16 Mark 9:44, 46 Mark 12:26 Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28 Luke 17:36 Luke 23:17 John 5:4 Matthew 17:21 Matthew 18:11 Matthew 23:14 Acts 8:37 Acts 15:34 Acts 23:9 Acts 24:7 Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24 READ Deuteronomy 4:2 You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it.
Thank you, I did see them… since it was me who made the video. My problem is that they help themselves adjusting and chopping and adding to scripture where it doesn’t belong, matching it to their own doctrines, instead of adjusting their doctrines to scripture. Also why didn’t they removed these in earlier additions if they knew it wasn’t in the originals? Motive is essential…
The obvious reason that the adulterous woman story has been un-recognised by the JW, New World Bible Translation is the glaring fact that there is No mention of the guilty adulterous man. Leviticus. 20v10 says that both the man and the woman should die.. In the highly unlikely event that Jesus was confronted with this story, that would have been his first question. "Where is the man".?.......As to the accuracy of the NWT. It contains Jehovah's name over 7,000 times, just as the original scrolls do. Can your bible claim to be accurate if his name has been substituted with Lord ?. Especially so, as Exodus 9v16. Jehovah tell Pharoe that he kept him alive, to show his power, and in order to have My name declared in all the Earth. Not only that, at Acts 15v14 to 17. He says he is going to choose a people for his name from the Nations.! Now known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.!...........
Hello, thank you for your comment! Yes, I also address this very point in my follow up video; (the next one up) where was the dude..? As for God's name, even KJV acknowledges Yahweh/Jehovah as God's name x4 places. As your reference to Acts, I'd like to remind you that Jesus himself declares in acts 9:13-21, that HIS very name they call on, was Paul chosen to bear His name, and for His name he will suffer, and people who were called His name were destroyed in Jerusalem, etc, etc. He chose people for HIS name: Christ, Christians. As they were first called in Antioch (Ac 11:26) Peace be with you🙏
You don’t have to go to Watchtower society for the reason. Just Google that and it will tell you that the original manuscript was not found in the original bible. It was added around the 8th century. The duty of a good translator is to verify the original source. So, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this matter.
@@sjtalksandlife King James Version has many many scriptures added to original manuscripts. The scientific method is to check the Hebrew, Aramaic and Creek versions and then translate to a modern English. Plus, KJV is ancient English which is nonsense to current English language.
As in any cult you're following and believing one man and his personal interpretation of scripture. This should be the main reason to reject it. No other reason is necessary.
Interesting... But, purely speculative, What cracks me up is the 'confirmation of mistakes or errors of fellow slaves', I. E J.Ws in this case, when pitted against… What you believe is in the ‘works by these scholars’ who also missed and altered the scriptures… who, as you pointed out... committed many horrors while severing the kings of this system ‘for war’ and still do even today, despite their own translation condemning them for these acts against God. But as we all know; WAR makes MONEY for church and state. A truly trusted fruit indeed! What seems to be the problem is that Organisations are viewed 'as the source of God's wishes', not 'the tool' to fulfil God's promises. God knows there is only a short time before these are all corrupted by the spirit of this world, yet God used the Hebrews, the Ist century, and the end times, why...? Simple; there was, or is, no one else besides 'imperfection' to use, not even the complainers here are as 'perfect as they claim' just fellow slaves! Lastly, as Christ promised. "The end will not come.... 'unless the apostasy' comes first" against God himself!
Here, you attack God 'for his choices,' proud you have 'discovered and exposed all errors, But, are you really doing God's work... one should ask? A spiritually qualified person would already know that any 'Organisation' God is using is 'by their fruits'... and respect these for that work alone, while making the truth of God's promise... their own as a faithful slave, not a wicked one!
Thank you for this video, it popped up on my recommendations. That is why I left the organization because of that scripture and many other scriptures that have been altered in the NWT. I did my research, and found others. That was a deal breaker for me. They have no business tampering with Gods word like that..smh
They cannot have the word "Bible" because the Bible is copyrighted (except for King James Version). If they use the word "Bible", their doctrine/belief in the governing body would fall apart and they would see the truth because their Bible will now have to follow mainstream Christians (I. E. They will have to believe in the trinity).
@@EXITjwDISRESPECT-d9b because Bible is a “Latin” word called “Biblias” meaning “Little Books”. This wasn’t developed until centuries later as a “Codex”. The 1st century Christians used “SCROLLS” and were referred by the Greek word “graphē”. How many times do the apostles refer to them as SCRIPTURES? 👇Let’s see: “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the [scriptures] that Jesus was Christ.”(Acts 18:28 KJV) “(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the [holy scriptures],)”(Romans 1:2 KJV) “Whatsoever things in fact were written aforetime [All] for our own instruction were written,-In order that through endurance and through the encouragement of the [Scriptures] we might have their hope.”(ROMANS 15:4 KJV) “But now is made manifest, and by the [SCRIPTURES] of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:”(Roman 16:26 KJV) “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the [SCRIPTURES]; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the [SCRIPTURES]:”(1 Corinthians 15:3,4 KJV) “As also in all letters speaking in them concerning these things,-In which [letters] are some things hard to be understood, Which the uninstructed and unstable wrest,-as also the other [SCRIPTURES],-unto their own destruction.”(2 Peter 3:16 KJV) 😉did the apostles and Jesus refer to the writings as “the Bible” or “the scriptures”? “SCRIPTURE” Are the SCRIPTURES HOLY? Yes. Hence “Holy scriptures”.
@@tedlee594 There is no scripture that says God being 3 persons in 1 God equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom. The false doctrine is supported by corrupted translations, corrupted manuscripts, false reasoning, and Greek Philosophy. The trinity is described this way: “The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible.” One or three, Christendom’s God, as here defined by the Athanasian Creed, is truly a mysterious, incomprehensible, unknown God. “We worship what we know,” said Jesus. (John 4:22) He was speaking as a member of a people to whom Moses had said: “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Yes, faithful Jews worshiped a God they knew. As to Christians, not subject to the Jewish Law covenant but brought into a new covenant, it was prophetically said of them: “They will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: ‘Know Jehovah!’ For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.” Such Christians do indeed know their God.-Deuteronomy 6:4; Hebrews 8:11.
Might want to ask the translators why John 8:1-11 is not in the New World Translation. This is a question the average person even JWs cannot answer unless they understand how translations work or have done the research to find out why those verses were omitted. The usual reason would be corrupted information or writings not recognized as authentic.
@@KGLOVE14 neither does •Worrell New Testament •Weymouth New Testament •Godbey New Testament •Rotherham translation •English Revised Version •New American Standard 😂
Seems like this content creator needs to be fact checked: Erasmus restores the true Greek text" No, Erasmus did not restore the "true Greek text." He compiled his Greek New Testament from a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts. "Known as the Textus Receptus" - The term "Textus Receptus" did not exist in 1516 when Erasmus published his work. It was first used in 1633. "Backed by 95% of Greek manuscripts in existence today" - The 95% figure is an exaggeration. While the Textus Receptus aligns with the Byzantine text-type, it is not backed by 95% of all Greek manuscripts. Is it this content creator's bias towards JW's, why he has singled them out, from the numerous bibles that also omit John 8:1-11?
@@jahtruthdefender waiting to see if the those viewing with a biased motive as well will do the research. The Codex Sianaiticus doesn’t have it either.
John 7:53-8:11 is found in the Latin Vulgate which is the work of Jerome who was commissioned by the Catholic Church in 382 or the 4th Century to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels. If anything, Matthew 28:19-20 is considered a spurious text by many scholars as the Disciples were only found to baptize in the name of Jesus, so the thought are those who were pro Trinitarian slipped in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. Why didn’t WT remove that scripture from their Bible? B/c it’s in conflict w/ their doctrine of baptizing in Jehovah’s name. Anyways, back to John 7:53-8:11, & your claim that many bibles have removed this passage: I’ve checked the following bibles to verify this claim: 1. BSB (Berean Study Bible) 2. NIV (New International Version) 3. NLT (New Living Translation) 4. KJV (King James Version) 5. ESV (English Standard Version) 6. NKJV (New King James Version) 7. NASB (New American Standard Bible) 8. Amp (Amplified Bible) 9. CSB (Christian Standard Bible) 10. HCSB (Holman Standard Christian) 11. CEV (Contemporary English Version) 12. GNT (Good News Translation) 13. ARA (Peshitta Holy Bible) 14. ASV (American Standard Version) 15. DBT (Darby Bible Translation) 16. DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible) 17. ERV (English Revised Version) 18. GWT (God’s Word Translation) 19. ISR (The Scriptures Bible - 1998 ed) 20. ISV (International Standard Version) 21. NET (New English Translation) 22. NHE (New Heart English) 23. OJB (Orthodox JEWISH Bible) 24. WEB (Word English Bible) 25. WBT (Webster Bible Translation) 26. WYB (WYCLIFFE’s Bible) 27. YLT (Young’s LITERAL Translation) 28. TNT (TYDALE New Testament) 29. WNT (Weymouth New Testament) 30. KJP (KJV Purple Letter Edition) 31. KJ2 (King James Version 2000) 32. AKJV (American KJV) That’s 32 scholarly recognized bibles that I researched, bibles that had 10’s, 100’s, if not 1000’s of Hebrew & Greek fluent scholars, cumulatively over decades, reviewing these literary pieces and EVERY ONE OF THEM have John 7:53-8:11. They all have this passage, EVEN if they’ve placed footnotes by it stating it not being found in the original text. That’s something WT used to do, as well. So what Bible r u referring to that doesn’t have this passage? Are u referring to other sectarian, fundamentalist Christians that have their own version of the Bible that’s not widely used, not scholarly recognized, that’s only used among their congregants? Pls share w/ us these other bibles that r used today that does not have this passage; I just listed 32, certainly u can list 1. Regardless, back to the subject: The attack of this passage came in the 19th Century, b/c this passage is not found in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the twin darlings of modern textual criticism; & yes, as the video highlighted, the work of Wescott & Hort spurned this idea. This work was based upon their opinion; thereafter, in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, other Bible scholars began following their lead in ?ing the validity of the text. However, much more information has come out in more recent yrs. For example: The PA appears in many ancient Greek manuscripts, including in many ancient uncial (majuscule) manuscripts. Among these are Codex Bezae (D or 05, dating from the fifth century), as well as codices E, F, G, H, K, M, U, Gamma, and Pi. It is also found in over a thousand later minuscule manuscripts, an indication of the fact that it was acknowledged as the ‘Majority’ or consensus reading of early Christianity. Lastly According to contemporary scholar Maurice A. Robinson the PA appears in at least 1,476 extant Greek mss, and it is omitted in only 267. Robinson also solidly affirms the authenticity of the PA, based in part on this overwhelming evidence. Majority Text advocate Wilbur N. Pickering likewise observes that the PA is omitted in only 15% of all extant Greek manuscripts. So in essence Wescott & Hort, based upon what they had at their disposal, made a conclusion based upon their feelings & opinions, & it’s been conjecture ever since. Maybe it is a spurious passage, but the fact is it’s in the Bible. All u have to do is place a footnote or an appendix w/ an explanation. You do not remove it b/c it’s in conflict w/ ur theology & rules. And yes, I’m a former Elder (COBE) w/in the JW religion, & also a current student in religious studies. The NWT is a highly doctored bible, removing passages, adding words, adding punctuations, removing punctuations, and JW terminology into various passages, fitting its doctrine. They used substitute words or words that may be one definition of a Greek or Hebrew translated word, but based upon the entire context of a passage, doesn’t fit. Even the few scholars (majority Unitarians) who agree w/ the translation, have all said it’s still a biased translation particularly adding in the artificial English rendition of The Tetragrammaton into its version of the New Testament, when there’s not a single Greek manuscript on earth w/ The Most High’s name in it, nor would it be since 400 yrs b4 Jesus came, the pronunciation was lost & forbidden to be used to preserve Its holiness.
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 *Misleading Claims about the Latin Vulgate*: While you mention that John 7:53-8:11 is found in the Latin Vulgate, this does not validate its authenticity. Jerome included many texts that were under debate during his time. Just because it appears in the Vulgate doesn't mean it should be accepted as genuine scripture. *Flawed Argument on Matthew 28:19-20*: You argue that Matthew 28:19-20 is spurious because early disciples baptised only in Jesus’ name. This is a gross oversimplification. The presence of this passage in various manuscripts and its widespread acceptance undermines your claim. Dismissing it without engaging with the manuscript evidence is intellectually dishonest. *Your List of Bibles is Irrelevant*: Regardless of whether the evidence is explicitly shown or just referenced essentially lead to the same conclusion: the verses are being treated as inadmissible in terms of their authenticity or authority. The presence of notes indicating their questionable status serves to effectively omit them from being accepted as genuine or authoritative text, regardless of their physical inclusion in the Bibles. Therefore, your reference to those Bibles does not strengthen your position; it inadvertently reinforces mine. *Ignoring Manuscript Evidence*: You mention Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as “twin darlings,” yet their absence of this passage is significant. The lack of support in early manuscripts is a critical factor in determining a text's authenticity. Ignoring this fact weakens your argument considerably. *Misrepresentation of Majority Text*: The Majority Text argument you rely on is fundamentally flawed. The mere existence of a high number of manuscripts does not guarantee authenticity, especially when many are late and not representative of the earliest Christian texts. *Dismissal of Wescott & Hort's Work*: You call their conclusions mere opinions. This dismissal is unfounded and reflects a lack of understanding of textual criticism. Their methodologies have been foundational in the field and should not be lightly dismissed without addressing their rigorous analytical framework. *Baseless Accusations Against the NWT*: Claiming the NWT is “highly doctored” is a serious accusation that lacks specific evidence. Instead of making blanket statements, provide concrete examples of how it misrepresents scripture. Otherwise, it comes off as an unfounded attack rather than a substantiated critique. *Misunderstanding of the Tetragrammaton*: Your claim about the Tetragrammaton being forbidden is misleading. The historical context regarding its use is complex, and the absence of the name in Greek manuscripts does not definitively prove it was never used. This claim requires more nuance and should not be stated as a fact without proper evidence. You say that the Tetragrammaton's pronunciation being lost 400 years before Jesus should ideally cite specific historical references or scholarly research to substantiate your claims. Without that support, such statements can come across as unfounded and misleading. No bible translation is completely free from bias, as all translations involve some level of interpretation influenced by the translators' theological perspectives, cultural contexts, and language choices. In summary, your comments are riddled with inaccuracies, selective reasoning, and a failure to engage with the core issues of textual criticism. Instead of presenting a thoughtful critique, you resort to sweeping generalizations that do nothing to strengthen your position. The evidence surrounding John 7:53-8:11’s authenticity is far from solid, and your argument lacks the rigour needed to be taken seriously in scholarly discussions.
@@jahtruthdefender John 1:1 Col 1:15-16 Changing the phrase “worship Jesus” to “do obeisance” Adding the name Jehovah to the New Testament These r not accusations, these r facts. I can provide over 500 scriptures in which the WTBTS have taken liberties to doctor various passages to fit their narratives. Here’s the thing in which u egregiously failed at: 1. I asked u VERY SPECIFICALLY to provide a bible rendition, translation, besides the NWT, that have removed this passage, a bold claim u made; yet, u did not. 2. Just b/c u r quoting from an Appendix in the 2013 version of the NWT regarding the Tetragrammaton, & pawning it off as a scholarly take doesn’t mean u r correct. The loss of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was during the Hellenistic period some 400 yrs prior to Jesus Christ. Jesus not once used the actual pronunciation of The Most High, & the baseless claim that since early disciples were quoting from scrolls, therefore it’s OK to put the Tetragrammaton in these places is mere conjecture being that over 5,000 ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts do not have the Tetragrammaton. 3. I noticed how u didn’t address Matt. 28:19,20 compared to John 7:53-8:11. So if Matt. 28:19,20 is considered spurious, why is not removed? This is the same baseless argument that’s used for adding “the missing indefinite article” to alter John 1:1. The indefinite article is missing from various vs. after John 1:1 in the same chapter! The Greek language, as any scholar knows, has a definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article in its language (a, an). So if anything that passage would read “& the word was the God” not “a God.” Yet, b/c WTBTS is a Unitarian religion, they’ve used biased confirmation, including its main source Johannes Greber who was a spiritist to justify this perversion. 4. There’s nothing “misleading” about any of the claims when I literally posted that about 15% of manuscript does not contain PA, & I specifically said it “may” be spurious, but other bibles STILL have that passage w/ a footnote &/or reference point. That’s why reading & comprehension is fundamental as opposed to having a preconceived notion and bias. 5. U’ve contradicted urself, & the WTBTS numerous times in this reply, which is exactly why ppl have a difficult time trusting the Bible when u just admitted bibles can be tainted w/ bias; but, for some reason u believe the NWT is an authentic, word for word translation w/o bias? 6. The WTBTS have removed several footnotes, reference points, brackets to show original renderings, sources, or inserted words they, themselves put in based upon “their opinions” which was at least an honest translation (see the Rbi8 Bible) to the now bastardized 2013 version that have remove several passages, &/or brackets highlighting their adjustments to various passages, giving the illusion these scriptures are original & authenticated. In conclusion, u appear to be another disobedient JW apologist, going against the direction of the Faithful & Discreet Slave, a slave that was said to be appointed in 1919, which also contradicts original teachings that Charles T. Russell was the original Faithful Slave appointed b4 1919 (but that’s a totally different subject) The WTBTS has various sources they’ve quoted that are less than credible, &/or provide biased sources to validate their claims. Said claims have been refuted time & time again, often by the direct source, themselves, as this organization have given partial or incomplete statements manipulating the minds of readers. Ur rebuttal lack rigor, & the fact u tried to accuse someone of making false claims while not providing any shred of evidence to back ur claim that “many Bibles” have removed this passage have made ur long winded rebuttal moot. So until u can provide a bible that have removed this passage like the NWT, don’t reply. I don’t care about anything else except this claim.
I am a Born Again Believer in Christ/Christian and have never been JW. I consider myself an apologetic and spend a lot of time witnessing to JWs and pray that God convict their heart and bring them out. The NWT is a terrible translation indeed but to their credit, many Christian Scholars have discovered that the story of the adulterous lady is not found in earlier manuscripts. Although majority of the modern translation still have it, scholars do want the reader to be aware of it. However, the WT explanation of mentioned manuscripts is totally distorted and false
Thank you for your lovely comment, very well constructed! For me it was wether or not this story was in the original manuscripts, I've just highlighted that until VERY recently they've included it in their own translations, despite knowing that it might not be in the originals... Also the source of their own translation is highly questionable. But at the same time claiming nothing can corrupt it and taken away or add to it... May your wonderful evangelising and witnessing work be blessed for the JWs and for them to find Christ even in their own "Bibles"...! Blessing to you my friend!🙏
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are some important fact that most people do not know. The 6 Corporations💰, also known as the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, created their own customized translation of the “Bible” in 1950, which included the New Testament. The King James Version (KJV) they were using before caused them many problems, after they changed their doctrines so they had to stop using the KJV and create their own customized made bible, which includes significant alterations to support their core teachings.
Over the years, they created many New Revised Editions, one of which was the first complete New World Translation (NWT) that included both the Old and New Testaments in 1961. Since then, newer revised editions have been released. Here are the remaining revised editions in order: 1970, 1971, 1981, 1984, and 2013, all of which included more and more and more drastic alterations, such as verses removed, words altered, new words added, punctuation moved, verses restructured, and parts of chapters removed in order to support their false doctrines.
Awesome breakdown and good research! Thanks! i just focused on those two in this one.
@@Jesus_Christ_Conquers you ass is fool's,, me l whish l be Jehovah witness, because they Allways obey the head of the organisation Jesus teaching, and Jesus is the son of God Almighty Jehovah,, , and Allways pot the Kingdom first Jesus teaching, and the organisation of Jehovah witness is the same as Jesus teaching,, pot the Kingdom first,, and they are the same time as Jesus say and teaching,, all lieyer against them, Jesus warm them,, Only one a God Almighty Jehovah,, and Jesus is the greatest teacher , The only shoultion for this earth is the Kingdom,, and Jesus us the king of the Kingdom, and 144,000 whit him,, , it All there in the Revelation,
@@praiseofhisgrace3178 Wow, It does not take much to impress you! So those you trust are those who slaughter their own and convert non-believers for war, wealth, and glory these organisations who support the Governments are far better trusted than those who actively turned their 'spears into ploughs sheers'... In your own version of the bible which has had many things altered and removed from it, Christ condemns all these actions, noting, By their fruits, you will know who I am using... and who I am not!
YES!!! and... MORE MORE MORE ---> look, yes, everything this brother expounds on in this fine preso, the NWT is based heavily on the demon channeled writings of Johannes Greber (see his page on Wikipedia). The WT/jw disfellowshipping policy was started by b'coz of the whistle blowers that we led (by the Ruah) to the boxes that were shipped to WT HQ of Greber's filthy demon channeled writings -- Barbara Anderson was the "ring leader", and there are videos here on YT with her testimonies
Excellent video brother. Thank you for the details on Wescott & Hort and Johannes Greber.
Well done.
thank you Brother, my pleasure!
@@praiseofhisgrace3178 - also, Constantine Simonides is worth a look. He claimed to have created the sinaiticus.
Wow 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 what a history! I had no idea the true extent of how deep this goes! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Thank you so much for all this researching! This is the most important message we could hear today!!!!
Thank you So much my dear Sister!🙏❤🔥
Thank you very much for being a support for Christ, the ONLY way to everlasting life!
Thank you so much! All praise and glory to Yeshua/Jesus ❤🔥🙏❤🔥🙌 The Way, the Truth, the Life and the ONLY Way to the Father🙏
FINALLY... a deep digging YT Channel around WT & deeper spiritual things... AllaluYAHUAH!
Awesome video. I can't wait for part 2.
F$%%....🤬🤬🤬 I THOUGHT I HAD IT SUSSED! My brain is blowing out atm....how could Jah allow this? Mind blown, teary but grateful cause JC said THE TRUTH WILL set us free ! And THE TRUTH is coming out! 🤔🤔💖💖👋👋
…yep..! Thank you 🙏💖
They altered their bible which is an abomination to our LORD.
Thank you for bringing up this topic. I as former JW, one of my red flag was this! When I received the 2013 of NWT and found this heartfelt scripture was gone I was so shocked and wanted to question the org, but as you might know we were constantly taught to obey the Shepherds (Men in charge of sheeple) so I had pushed it aside and was silent😢I regret I hadn’t questioned them earlier! As exjw now although am an agnostic atheist since woke, I wish sincere Bible believers will gather larger and raise their voices to this org and protest about the changes and taking away scriptures that they are doing.
Thank you so much for your lovely comment and being so kind and honest in your observation towards still believers...🙏despite you yourself not anymore. You have clearer vision, then many so called believers in regards to raising our voices...thank you for that! And I pray for you, even if you don't believe (for now) not to judge Him upon what others did to you or your loved ones... that God would open your heart again towards Him in Grace and love, my friend!❤🙏
@@praiseofhisgrace3178 Thank you for a kind reply and best wishes.
@@lh1673 God bless you my friend!
They had to remove this so they could disfellowship members.
…Bingo…!😢
Thank you for your in depth research on how this organisation has fooled millions in believing that they have the Truth of the Bible when in fact it's all been a LIE .This is why I left two years ago.
Keep up the Great work and thank you very much. ❤
Thank you! And I’m glad you made the decision to leave! It couldn’t have been easy..! But very happy that you did and may God bless your journey to the real TRUTH that is Jesus himself!
Blessings to you my friend! 🙏
@@leeBoB4257 you left because you are a lieyer,, me lm not, but l wish l was, a Jehovah worship,, The road us narrow , Jesus siad,, you are lieyer and you not love the Truth,, me lm going to start studying,, , This is the organisation of God Almighty Jehovah,,, They are not part of this world,,, like Jesus teaching,,, very truth , But Jesus siad they not believe me they not going to believe you ,, Only honest people, Jesus siad the sheep,, here my Vose,, Jesus spoke about Jehovah , all the time,,, semple
When you start studying make sure you study the Bible and not the Watchtowers twisted LYING understanding of the Scriptures. Iam going to challenge you on what you are going to be tought by the Watchtower and what the Bible truly says. Please Show me from the Scriptures where it says that Christ will return invisibly first in 1874 and then again in 1914 and then again a third time when no one knows the day or the hour. I will show you from the Scriptures that when Christ does return he won't return invisibly but visible . Then we will see who the LIAR IS.
Ps I was in the so-called Truth for over 20 years. I look forward hearing from you soon.
@carmelovella9728 why am I still waiting for you to support your accusations of me being a lier .
@@leeBoB4257 see him,, 👀 He is King in Haven,, Witness are seeing him,, whit discerning and pot the Kingdom first,,, Jehovah he give his organisation ,, spictiol on the onitod 144,000,, The lettel flog,, and the big crowd,, IF his come, why? He siad my Kingdom is from Haven,, gentle time,, 2520 years,, yes 1914,,, from 607 BC,, Witness are wake,, The wouchtower is the teaching from Jehovah organisation, and Jesus is the king ,, from Haven,, 144,000 are sealed,,, Yes l know because l was for 12 years,, but l left,, not they cust me out,, The onotied are clean spiritual,, and the organisation Jehovah Almighty whit Jesus and the onitod they obey the truth for the sheep,,
The watchtower society always has a lame excuse
Or maybe the reader has no earthly idea what they are talking about.
Actually, they do know what they’re doing on this one. That is a spurious text and nearly every Bible translation puts it in the footnotes or brackets around it because it’s not original.
why not begin a study of the bible with jehovahs wittnesses ?
It's a viewpoint, what are Christianity's lame excuses for killing fellow believers and non-believers alike for Church and State one may ask...? or for all the horrors they have committed throughout human history... in God's name??
@@matrix5062 when you begin your bible study all your questions will be answered
What a brilliant explanation! I never realised you were such a Bible scholar. Highly interesting!... By the way, What a huge garden you have got!! Lol
lolol
Hehe 😅 Thanks! Just been on a little early weekend off in the mountains and thought why not..!?😅🤗
Thanks brother!
Thanks to you for revealing how WT removes and adding to the scriptures. I Will at the same time pay attention to Acts.20:28 - Be Shepherd of the church of God wich he bought with his own blood- (KIV) Watchtowers bible has change this verse for a reasen when they write - " wich he purchased with the blood OF HIS OWN SOON.
@@annegretheryan9908 Ah, thank you for this! what a good one, i forgot about this..! So many great verses are out there, yes, that verse actually says, he brought the church with HIS OWN BLOOD...! great example...!!! thank you!🙏❤👍
@@annegretheryan9908 “28Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”(Acts 20:28 NET)
“28So keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of the church of God,+ which he made his own through the blood of his Son.”(Acts 20:28 Good News Translation)
“28Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock he bought with the blood of his own Son.+”(Acts 20:28 Contemporary English Translation)
😉
Either the Son poured out his blood or the father did? Which one is it. It was the Son.
“He came unto his own, and his own received him not.”(John 1:11 King James Version)
☝️Jesus “OWN” what did not accept him?
Did Jesus not accept himself or was his “own PEOPLE”?
Likewise God himself did not pour ANY blood, rather it was that of his “OWN SON”.
Brilliant video Chaba. So many Scriptures have been messed around with. NWT can not be called a bible because it's so twisted 🙄. Very well done ❤
Thank you dear Karen!!! Glad you've enjoyed it! Really appreciate it!!🙏❤🙌
Wow wow wow bro, you're too good with your research and presentation. Am glad l left that CULT of JW. Will looking forward to your sincere follow up. Tanx again from the bottom of my heart.
My absolute pleasure! Glad you've enjoyed it!🙏
They gave to make a Bible to fit their own agenda and not their religion to follow the Bible.
Especially from a group that has less than zero knowledge of scholarship
You should find the reason why it's been removed by googling ... John 8th chapter 1 through 11 missing. You will then find why it was removed without someone's religious bias. The answer can also be found in Wikipedia. They are valid reasons for to doubt the authenticity of this passage.
It’s spurious. Most Bible translations will recognize this. Now, if you hold the king James version as the standard of course it looks like it’s been removed. But in reality it’s been added.
This is fantastic 👏 👌. Thank you Chaba. Are you from Hungary 🇭🇺??
Thank you so much🙏Yes, I am Hungarian by birth…🤣 Can’t hide the accent !🤭
@praiseofhisgrace3178 I am from Bulgaria 🇧🇬. I know that you are Catholic ✝️ and I am Orthodox ☦, but God loves ❤ everyone. God is one 🙏. Thank you 😊 Chaba. Kyosonom
Thank you Michail, very kind my friend🙏
I am not Catholic, I was a Jehovah’s Witness, yes, now I’m non denominational… I’m just a believer and follower of my Saviour Yeshua/Jesus Christ🙏❤️🔥🙌 and try to learn and to know Him as much as I can.
God bless you Michail, and keep seeking the Lord 🙏🤗 благодаря ви
Very good information. Thank you.
nice job connecting the historical dots
Excellent video thank you
thank you Kathy!
Great explanation, really 😊. Knowledge is power.
Thank you so much! 🙏👍
@@praiseofhisgrace3178Isaiah 8:10, 2thimoty 3:7-9, 2Peter 2:1-3.
Wow!! Thank you.
They are a law into themselves.. they have set themselves above God almighty himself!
BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE ORIGINAL COPIES. PERIOD.
The passage John 7:53-8:11, which includes the story of the woman caught in adultery, is considered spurious or non-original by many biblical scholars. This is because there is strong manuscript evidence suggesting that this passage was not part of the original Gospel of John. Here’s what scholars say and the reasons behind their conclusions:
1. Manuscript Evidence:
*Earliest and Most Reliable Manuscripts:* The story of the woman caught in adultery is absent from some of the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of John, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the 4th century. These are considered foundational manuscripts in the field of textual criticism.
*Inconsistent Placement:* In other manuscripts where the passage does appear, it is placed in different locations within John (some manuscripts place it after John 21, for example), or even within Luke (after Luke 21:38). This suggests that the passage was not originally fixed within the Gospel tradition.
*Later Manuscripts:* The passage begins to appear consistently in manuscripts around the 5th century, and many scholars believe it was a later insertion into the text of John.
2. Early Church Fathers:
Early church fathers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian do not mention the story in their commentaries on John, which would be unusual if the story had been part of the Gospel text during their time.
Augustine did reference the passage, but he speculated that earlier scribes may have removed it because it seemed to condone adultery, which he believed might have caused concern in some early Christian communities.
3. Style and Vocabulary:
Many scholars point out that the style and vocabulary of John 7:53-8:11 are different from the rest of the Gospel of John. The Greek used in the passage contains words and phrases that John does not typically use, which suggests that it might have been written by a different author and inserted later.
For example, the phrase “scribes and Pharisees,” used in the passage, is more common in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) than in John, who typically speaks about “the Jews” in general opposition to Jesus.
4. Scholarly Consensus:
Bruce Metzger, a leading New Testament scholar, notes in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament that the passage “has all the earmarks of a later addition to the Gospel of John.”
Raymond E. Brown, another prominent scholar, echoes this in his Anchor Bible Commentary on the Gospel of John. He argues that while the story may be historically true (it could have been part of the oral tradition about Jesus), it was not part of the original Gospel.
F.F. Bruce and D.A. Carson, both respected scholars, agree that the passage was not original to John’s Gospel but might represent a genuine event from Jesus’ life that was preserved in the early Christian tradition.
5. Textual Criticism Conclusion:
Based on textual criticism, the consensus among scholars is that John 7:53-8:11 was a later addition to the Gospel and not written by the original author of John. While many accept that it may reflect a genuine episode from Jesus’ life (which is why it continues to be included in many modern translations, often with brackets or a footnote), it is not considered part of the earliest text of John.
Conclusion:
Most scholars agree that John 8:1-11 is spurious in the sense that it was not originally part of the Gospel of John. This conclusion is based on manuscript evidence, the absence of the passage in early writings, differences in language and style, and inconsistent placement in various manuscripts.
Thank you for sharing that! It is very interesting.
Misleading.
Cause it is an story that suggest Jesus approved a behaviour that his father condemmed as a serious sin....and Jesus wouldnt break a law nor support someone who break a law given by his father.
Jesus hat sich geopfert, damit jede Sünde vergeben ist.
😂this thumbnail is misleading and clickbait. Watchtower is not the ONLY translation that removes this part John 8. Many other translations who base their translation on the CRITICAL TEXT see that these verses in the original and EARLIER manuscripts.
Yeah, you're right, but making it a JW thing ups the viewer ratings🙂
They should remove the Paul forgery epistoles too
Paul was hand chosen by Christ.(Acts 26:12-17)
@@ckelly5141 Yes but half of the epistoles are forgeries and fake. Like Paul would appoint Elders and Deacons as leaders when Jesus told that he is the ONLY leader.
@@elordon You miss greatly what Paul was doing. It’s not a title like given in the false church(especially from the second century onward) These Cong.‘s needed spiritually mature men and this what happened after receiving the free gift of the Holy Spirit for the needs of the church.(Eph.4:8) As far as half of the epistles being false, where is your proof?
@@ckelly5141 What I am telling is that half of epistles of Paul in Bible are not written from Paul. Do your search and find the truth. You do not need mediators and priests between Jesus and you, you are the Priest of your body. I am not against of Paul I am against the weeds mix in truth like Jesus told and usurped the truth to exploit people. God be with you.
Amen to that!
Thank you for this video. When leaving Jehovahs witnesses, the Holy Spirit showed me 2 Corinthians 5:10 in the NWT. The footnote of this scripture takes you as a reference to Revelation 22:12. Their own Bible wants you to know that Jesus is God. You can’t hide the truth.
@@JohnWick-j8l uuuh NO. The theme being referenced is the “reward” not IDENTITY. The reward for conquering the world.
Keep and mind what John wrote to BEGIN the revelation. 👇
“A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John,”(Revelation 1:1)
1) “A revelation of Jesus Christ [WHICH GOD GAVE HIM]”
☝️obviously Jesus was GIVEN this revelation and prior to this did not have the knowledge of what is to take place. “Apokalipsis” means “UNCOVERING”.
2) Note the apostle John doesn’t CONFLATE God AND Jesus Christ. Obviously these are 2 DISTINCT persons AND BEINGS.
3)Revelation 22:13, tells us the one talking is the “Alpha and the Omega”, the Father NOT Jesus. We know this by how God the Father and Jesus refer to the Christians DIFFERENTLY.
For example, the apostles viewed Jesus as their [BROTHER].👇
“For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.”(Hebrews 2:11,12)
“For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, that one is my [BROTHER] and sister and mother.”(Matthew 12:50)
“We know that God makes all his works cooperate together for the good of those who love God, those who are the ones called according to his purpose; 29 because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many [BROTHERS]”(Romans 8:28,29)
HOWEVER when it comes to the “Alpha and Omega” speaking we know it’s the FATHER Jehovah for he also speaks at Revelation 21:6,7. 👇
“And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O·meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my [SON].”(Revelation 21:6,7)
☝️Note the one “conquering” will become the “alpha and omega’s” SON.
Jesus in the same BOOK refers to the one conquering as well . However he says that those who do will have the name of “his God” and “his FATHER”. 👇
“‘The one who conquers-I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’”(Revelation 3:12,13) -Jesus’ words.
Revelation 22 is a shocking, hair raising journey when you are able to read it without the influence of the anti christ organization.
John 8:1-11 was not removed form the Bible, it was added to so Bibles. The oldest Greek muskroots do bot have that passage in them. It was added at some later time. In the Reference Bible it was shown un a different text type to show that thus passage was an addition to te text. Look up any modern Bike they all have foot notes saying that passage was added.
Under what authority did the King James ADD the passages.
The NWT had NO association with Johannes Grebber
In 1516 Erasmus started working on produced a complete Greek manuscript which at the time NO ONE HAD. He worked with about eight incomplete manicurists and the Latin Bible of the time. By comparing the eight Greek manuscripts that were no older then the 12th century and using the Latin text to fill in where there was no Greek text he produced his first edition of the Greek manuscript. After his second edition the Catholic church made him insert words 1 John 5:7 that were in the Latin text bit not in the Greek manuscripts that he had.
@benburns1197 you are wrong. He was brought up in earlier Watchtower and was mentioned about. You were told to destroy older Watchtowers.
My apologies --- I wrote my comment b4 he got to the Johannes Greber info :)
SBL Greek New Testament regarding John 7:53-8:11;
“(These verses) are not found in the earliest and best manuscripts and are almost certainly not part of the Gospel of John; one significant group of manuscripts places it after Luke21:38.”
Despite this, not one English translation has those set of verses in the book of Luke.
Take a look at these scriptures in the Silver New World's Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
They have been REMOVED / DELETED from the (2013 Revision) Silver New World Translation
John 8: 1-11
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44, 46
Mark 12:26
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 23:9
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
READ Deuteronomy 4:2 You must not add to the word that I am commanding you, neither must you take away from it.
Thank you, I did see them… since it was me who made the video.
My problem is that they help themselves adjusting and chopping and adding to scripture where it doesn’t belong, matching it to their own doctrines, instead of adjusting their doctrines to scripture.
Also why didn’t they removed these in earlier additions if they knew it wasn’t in the originals? Motive is essential…
The obvious reason that the adulterous woman story has been un-recognised by the JW, New World Bible Translation is the glaring fact that there is No mention of the guilty adulterous man. Leviticus. 20v10 says that both the man and the woman should die..
In the highly unlikely event that Jesus was confronted with this story, that would have been his first question. "Where is the man".?.......As to the accuracy of the NWT. It contains Jehovah's name over 7,000 times, just as the original scrolls do. Can your bible claim to be accurate if his name has been substituted with Lord ?.
Especially so, as Exodus 9v16. Jehovah tell Pharoe that he kept him alive, to show his power, and in order to have My name declared in all the Earth. Not only that, at Acts 15v14 to 17. He says he is going to choose a people for his name from the Nations.! Now known as Jehovah's Christian Witnesses.!...........
Hello, thank you for your comment!
Yes, I also address this very point in my follow up video; (the next one up) where was the dude..?
As for God's name, even KJV acknowledges Yahweh/Jehovah as God's name x4 places.
As your reference to Acts, I'd like to remind you that Jesus himself declares in acts 9:13-21, that HIS very name they call on, was Paul chosen to bear His name, and for His name he will suffer, and people who were called His name were destroyed in Jerusalem, etc, etc.
He chose people for HIS name: Christ, Christians. As they were first called in Antioch (Ac 11:26)
Peace be with you🙏
You don’t have to go to Watchtower society for the reason.
Just Google that and it will tell you that the original manuscript was not found in the original bible.
It was added around the 8th century.
The duty of a good translator is to verify the original source.
So, do yourself a favor and educate yourself on this matter.
Well even still they should not have removed it. It's in the King James translations amongst many others..🤔
@@sjtalksandlife
King James Version has many many scriptures added to original manuscripts.
The scientific method is to check the Hebrew, Aramaic and Creek versions and then translate to a modern English.
Plus, KJV is ancient English which is nonsense to current English language.
As in any cult you're following and believing one man and his personal interpretation of scripture. This should be the main reason to reject it. No other reason is necessary.
Interesting... But, purely speculative, What cracks me up is the 'confirmation of mistakes or errors of fellow slaves', I. E J.Ws in this case, when pitted against… What you believe is in the ‘works by these scholars’ who also missed and altered the scriptures… who, as you pointed out... committed many horrors while severing the kings of this system ‘for war’ and still do even today, despite their own translation condemning them for these acts against God. But as we all know; WAR makes MONEY for church and state. A truly trusted fruit indeed!
What seems to be the problem is that Organisations are viewed 'as the source of God's wishes', not 'the tool' to fulfil God's promises. God knows there is only a short time before these are all corrupted by the spirit of this world, yet God used the Hebrews, the Ist century, and the end times, why...? Simple; there was, or is, no one else besides 'imperfection' to use, not even the complainers here are as 'perfect as they claim' just fellow slaves! Lastly, as Christ promised. "The end will not come.... 'unless the apostasy' comes first" against God himself!
Here, you attack God 'for his choices,' proud you have 'discovered and exposed all errors, But, are you really doing God's work... one should ask? A spiritually qualified person would already know that any 'Organisation' God is using is 'by their fruits'... and respect these for that work alone, while making the truth of God's promise... their own as a faithful slave, not a wicked one!
Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting too
Thank you for this video, it popped up on my recommendations. That is why I left the organization because of that scripture and many other scriptures that have been altered in the NWT. I did my research, and found others. That was a deal breaker for me. They have no business tampering with Gods word like that..smh
Thank you so much and thank you for sharing this🙏
*Watchtower Bible and Trash Society doesn't even call it a Bible anymore* The cover says "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures"
they can't... it ain't God's Word anymore..
They cannot have the word "Bible" because the Bible is copyrighted (except for King James Version). If they use the word "Bible", their doctrine/belief in the governing body would fall apart and they would see the truth because their Bible will now have to follow mainstream Christians (I. E. They will have to believe in the trinity).
@@EXITjwDISRESPECT-d9b because Bible is a “Latin” word called “Biblias” meaning “Little Books”. This wasn’t developed until centuries later as a “Codex”. The 1st century Christians used “SCROLLS” and were referred by the Greek word “graphē”. How many times do the apostles refer to them as SCRIPTURES? 👇Let’s see:
“For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the [scriptures] that Jesus was Christ.”(Acts 18:28 KJV)
“(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the [holy scriptures],)”(Romans 1:2 KJV)
“Whatsoever things in fact were written aforetime [All] for our own instruction were written,-In order that through endurance and through the encouragement of the [Scriptures] we might have their hope.”(ROMANS 15:4 KJV)
“But now is made manifest, and by the [SCRIPTURES] of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:”(Roman 16:26 KJV)
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the [SCRIPTURES]; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the [SCRIPTURES]:”(1 Corinthians 15:3,4 KJV)
“As also in all letters speaking in them concerning these things,-In which [letters] are some things hard to be understood, Which the uninstructed and unstable wrest,-as also the other [SCRIPTURES],-unto their own destruction.”(2 Peter 3:16 KJV)
😉did the apostles and Jesus refer to the writings as “the Bible” or “the scriptures”?
“SCRIPTURE”
Are the SCRIPTURES HOLY? Yes. Hence “Holy scriptures”.
@@tedlee594
There is no scripture that says God being 3 persons in 1 God equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom.
The false doctrine is supported by corrupted translations, corrupted manuscripts, false reasoning, and Greek Philosophy.
The trinity is described this way:
“The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible.” One or three, Christendom’s God, as here defined by the Athanasian Creed, is truly a mysterious, incomprehensible, unknown God.
“We worship what we know,” said Jesus. (John 4:22) He was speaking as a member of a people to whom Moses had said: “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” Yes, faithful Jews worshiped a God they knew. As to Christians, not subject to the Jewish Law covenant but brought into a new covenant, it was prophetically said of them: “They will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: ‘Know Jehovah!’ For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them.” Such Christians do indeed know their God.-Deuteronomy 6:4; Hebrews 8:11.
Might want to ask the translators why John 8:1-11 is not in the New World Translation. This is a question the average person even JWs cannot answer unless they understand how translations work or have done the research to find out why those verses were omitted. The usual reason would be corrupted information or writings not recognized as authentic.
Look at Mark 9:44;in NWT
Yep…it ain’t there…
Dashes! So disrespectful and blasphemous
@@KGLOVE14 neither does
•Worrell New Testament
•Weymouth New Testament
•Godbey New Testament
•Rotherham translation
•English Revised Version
•New American Standard
😂
@@KGLOVE14 or the Codex Sinaitcus 4th century.
This video explains why
Seems like this content creator needs to be fact checked:
Erasmus restores the true Greek text" No, Erasmus did not restore the "true Greek text." He compiled his Greek New Testament from a limited number of late Byzantine manuscripts.
"Known as the Textus Receptus" - The term "Textus Receptus" did not exist in 1516 when Erasmus published his work. It was first used in 1633.
"Backed by 95% of Greek manuscripts in existence today" - The 95% figure is an exaggeration. While the Textus Receptus aligns with the Byzantine text-type, it is not backed by 95% of all Greek manuscripts.
Is it this content creator's bias towards JW's, why he has singled them out, from the numerous bibles that also omit John 8:1-11?
@@jahtruthdefender waiting to see if the those viewing with a biased motive as well will do the research. The Codex Sianaiticus doesn’t have it either.
@@alonsogalindo1428 Exactly, individuals like these repeatedly make a video, using the same dishonesty they claim to be exposing.
John 7:53-8:11 is found in the Latin Vulgate which is the work of Jerome who was commissioned by the Catholic Church in 382 or the 4th Century to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels.
If anything, Matthew 28:19-20 is considered a spurious text by many scholars as the Disciples were only found to baptize in the name of Jesus, so the thought are those who were pro Trinitarian slipped in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.
Why didn’t WT remove that scripture from their Bible? B/c it’s in conflict w/ their doctrine of baptizing in Jehovah’s name.
Anyways, back to John 7:53-8:11, & your claim that many bibles have removed this passage:
I’ve checked the following bibles to verify this claim:
1. BSB (Berean Study Bible)
2. NIV (New International Version)
3. NLT (New Living Translation)
4. KJV (King James Version)
5. ESV (English Standard Version)
6. NKJV (New King James Version)
7. NASB (New American Standard Bible)
8. Amp (Amplified Bible)
9. CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
10. HCSB (Holman Standard Christian)
11. CEV (Contemporary English Version)
12. GNT (Good News Translation)
13. ARA (Peshitta Holy Bible)
14. ASV (American Standard Version)
15. DBT (Darby Bible Translation)
16. DRB (Douay-Rheims Bible)
17. ERV (English Revised Version)
18. GWT (God’s Word Translation)
19. ISR (The Scriptures Bible - 1998 ed)
20. ISV (International Standard Version)
21. NET (New English Translation)
22. NHE (New Heart English)
23. OJB (Orthodox JEWISH Bible)
24. WEB (Word English Bible)
25. WBT (Webster Bible Translation)
26. WYB (WYCLIFFE’s Bible)
27. YLT (Young’s LITERAL Translation)
28. TNT (TYDALE New Testament)
29. WNT (Weymouth New Testament)
30. KJP (KJV Purple Letter Edition)
31. KJ2 (King James Version 2000)
32. AKJV (American KJV)
That’s 32 scholarly recognized bibles that I researched, bibles that had 10’s, 100’s, if not 1000’s of Hebrew & Greek fluent scholars, cumulatively over decades, reviewing these literary pieces and EVERY ONE OF THEM have John 7:53-8:11. They all have this passage, EVEN if they’ve placed footnotes by it stating it not being found in the original text. That’s something WT used to do, as well.
So what Bible r u referring to that doesn’t have this passage? Are u referring to other sectarian, fundamentalist Christians that have their own version of the Bible that’s not widely used, not scholarly recognized, that’s only used among their congregants?
Pls share w/ us these other bibles that r used today that does not have this passage; I just listed 32, certainly u can list 1.
Regardless, back to the subject:
The attack of this passage came in the 19th Century, b/c this passage is not found in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the twin darlings of modern textual criticism; & yes, as the video highlighted, the work of Wescott & Hort spurned this idea. This work was based upon their opinion; thereafter, in the late 19th - early 20th centuries, other Bible scholars began following their lead in ?ing the validity of the text.
However, much more information has come out in more recent yrs. For example:
The PA appears in many ancient Greek manuscripts, including in many ancient uncial (majuscule) manuscripts. Among these are Codex Bezae (D or 05, dating from the fifth century), as well as codices E, F, G, H, K, M, U, Gamma, and Pi. It is also found in over a thousand later minuscule manuscripts, an indication of the fact that it was acknowledged as the ‘Majority’ or consensus reading of early Christianity.
Lastly
According to contemporary scholar Maurice A. Robinson the PA appears in at least 1,476 extant Greek mss, and it is omitted in only 267. Robinson also solidly affirms the authenticity of the PA, based in part on this overwhelming evidence. Majority Text advocate Wilbur N. Pickering likewise observes that the PA is omitted in only 15% of all extant Greek manuscripts.
So in essence Wescott & Hort, based upon what they had at their disposal, made a conclusion based upon their feelings & opinions, & it’s been conjecture ever since. Maybe it is a spurious passage, but the fact is it’s in the Bible. All u have to do is place a footnote or an appendix w/ an explanation. You do not remove it b/c it’s in conflict w/ ur theology & rules.
And yes, I’m a former Elder (COBE) w/in the JW religion, & also a current student in religious studies. The NWT is a highly doctored bible, removing passages, adding words, adding punctuations, removing punctuations, and JW terminology into various passages, fitting its doctrine. They used substitute words or words that may be one definition of a Greek or Hebrew translated word, but based upon the entire context of a passage, doesn’t fit.
Even the few scholars (majority Unitarians) who agree w/ the translation, have all said it’s still a biased translation particularly adding in the artificial English rendition of The Tetragrammaton into its version of the New Testament, when there’s not a single Greek manuscript on earth w/ The Most High’s name in it, nor would it be since 400 yrs b4 Jesus came, the pronunciation was lost & forbidden to be used to preserve Its holiness.
@@bygeorgehemayberite8385 *Misleading Claims about the Latin Vulgate*: While you mention that John 7:53-8:11 is found in the Latin Vulgate, this does not validate its authenticity. Jerome included many texts that were under debate during his time. Just because it appears in the Vulgate doesn't mean it should be accepted as genuine scripture.
*Flawed Argument on Matthew 28:19-20*: You argue that Matthew 28:19-20 is spurious because early disciples baptised only in Jesus’ name. This is a gross oversimplification. The presence of this passage in various manuscripts and its widespread acceptance undermines your claim. Dismissing it without engaging with the manuscript evidence is intellectually dishonest.
*Your List of Bibles is Irrelevant*: Regardless of whether the evidence is explicitly shown or just referenced essentially lead to the same conclusion: the verses are being treated as inadmissible in terms of their authenticity or authority. The presence of notes indicating their questionable status serves to effectively omit them from being accepted as genuine or authoritative text, regardless of their physical inclusion in the Bibles. Therefore, your reference to those Bibles does not strengthen your position; it inadvertently reinforces mine.
*Ignoring Manuscript Evidence*: You mention Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as “twin darlings,” yet their absence of this passage is significant. The lack of support in early manuscripts is a critical factor in determining a text's authenticity. Ignoring this fact weakens your argument considerably.
*Misrepresentation of Majority Text*: The Majority Text argument you rely on is fundamentally flawed. The mere existence of a high number of manuscripts does not guarantee authenticity, especially when many are late and not representative of the earliest Christian texts.
*Dismissal of Wescott & Hort's Work*: You call their conclusions mere opinions. This dismissal is unfounded and reflects a lack of understanding of textual criticism. Their methodologies have been foundational in the field and should not be lightly dismissed without addressing their rigorous analytical framework.
*Baseless Accusations Against the NWT*: Claiming the NWT is “highly doctored” is a serious accusation that lacks specific evidence. Instead of making blanket statements, provide concrete examples of how it misrepresents scripture. Otherwise, it comes off as an unfounded attack rather than a substantiated critique.
*Misunderstanding of the Tetragrammaton*: Your claim about the Tetragrammaton being forbidden is misleading. The historical context regarding its use is complex, and the absence of the name in Greek manuscripts does not definitively prove it was never used. This claim requires more nuance and should not be stated as a fact without proper evidence. You say that the Tetragrammaton's pronunciation being lost 400 years before Jesus should ideally cite specific historical references or scholarly research to substantiate your claims. Without that support, such statements can come across as unfounded and misleading. No bible translation is completely free from bias, as all translations involve some level of interpretation influenced by the translators' theological perspectives, cultural contexts, and language choices.
In summary, your comments are riddled with inaccuracies, selective reasoning, and a failure to engage with the core issues of textual criticism. Instead of presenting a thoughtful critique, you resort to sweeping generalizations that do nothing to strengthen your position. The evidence surrounding John 7:53-8:11’s authenticity is far from solid, and your argument lacks the rigour needed to be taken seriously in scholarly discussions.
@@jahtruthdefender
John 1:1
Col 1:15-16
Changing the phrase “worship Jesus” to “do obeisance”
Adding the name Jehovah to the New Testament
These r not accusations, these r facts. I can provide over 500 scriptures in which the WTBTS have taken liberties to doctor various passages to fit their narratives.
Here’s the thing in which u egregiously failed at:
1. I asked u VERY SPECIFICALLY to provide a bible rendition, translation, besides the NWT, that have removed this passage, a bold claim u made; yet, u did not.
2. Just b/c u r quoting from an Appendix in the 2013 version of the NWT regarding the Tetragrammaton, & pawning it off as a scholarly take doesn’t mean u r correct.
The loss of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was during the Hellenistic period some 400 yrs prior to Jesus Christ. Jesus not once used the actual pronunciation of The Most High, & the baseless claim that since early disciples were quoting from scrolls, therefore it’s OK to put the Tetragrammaton in these places is mere conjecture being that over 5,000 ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts do not have the Tetragrammaton.
3. I noticed how u didn’t address Matt. 28:19,20 compared to John 7:53-8:11. So if Matt. 28:19,20 is considered spurious, why is not removed? This is the same baseless argument that’s used for adding “the missing indefinite article” to alter John 1:1. The indefinite article is missing from various vs. after John 1:1 in the same chapter! The Greek language, as any scholar knows, has a definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article in its language (a, an). So if anything that passage would read “& the word was the God” not “a God.” Yet, b/c WTBTS is a Unitarian religion, they’ve used biased confirmation, including its main source Johannes Greber who was a spiritist to justify this perversion.
4. There’s nothing “misleading” about any of the claims when I literally posted that about 15% of manuscript does not contain PA, & I specifically said it “may” be spurious, but other bibles STILL have that passage w/ a footnote &/or reference point. That’s why reading & comprehension is fundamental as opposed to having a preconceived notion and bias.
5. U’ve contradicted urself, & the WTBTS numerous times in this reply, which is exactly why ppl have a difficult time trusting the Bible when u just admitted bibles can be tainted w/ bias; but, for some reason u believe the NWT is an authentic, word for word translation w/o bias?
6. The WTBTS have removed several footnotes, reference points, brackets to show original renderings, sources, or inserted words they, themselves put in based upon “their opinions” which was at least an honest translation (see the Rbi8 Bible) to the now bastardized 2013 version that have remove several passages, &/or brackets highlighting their adjustments to various passages, giving the illusion these scriptures are original & authenticated.
In conclusion, u appear to be another disobedient JW apologist, going against the direction of the Faithful & Discreet Slave, a slave that was said to be appointed in 1919, which also contradicts original teachings that Charles T. Russell was the original Faithful Slave appointed b4 1919 (but that’s a totally different subject)
The WTBTS has various sources they’ve quoted that are less than credible, &/or provide biased sources to validate their claims. Said claims have been refuted time & time again, often by the direct source, themselves, as this organization have given partial or incomplete statements manipulating the minds of readers.
Ur rebuttal lack rigor, & the fact u tried to accuse someone of making false claims while not providing any shred of evidence to back ur claim that “many Bibles” have removed this passage have made ur long winded rebuttal moot.
So until u can provide a bible that have removed this passage like the NWT, don’t reply. I don’t care about anything else except this claim.
Anti-Catholic gibberish
I am a Born Again Believer in Christ/Christian and have never been JW. I consider myself an apologetic and spend a lot of time witnessing to JWs and pray that God convict their heart and bring them out. The NWT is a terrible translation indeed but to their credit, many Christian Scholars have discovered that the story of the adulterous lady is not found in earlier manuscripts. Although majority of the modern translation still have it, scholars do want the reader to be aware of it. However, the WT explanation of mentioned manuscripts is totally distorted and false
Thank you for your lovely comment, very well constructed!
For me it was wether or not this story was in the original manuscripts, I've just highlighted that until VERY recently they've included it in their own translations, despite knowing that it might not be in the originals... Also the source of their own translation is highly questionable. But at the same time claiming nothing can corrupt it and taken away or add to it...
May your wonderful evangelising and witnessing work be blessed for the JWs and for them to find Christ even in their own "Bibles"...!
Blessing to you my friend!🙏
@praiseofhisgrace3178 thank you and God bless you for the wonderful videos you are creating. Keep it uo
Cult…
As you stated NWT is no bible. Just like Jehovahs Witnesses are not part of the body of Christ Yesua (the Church)…
unfortunately very true...