Was Jesus misquoted? New evidence points to yes!?

Question

one of the most familiar verses in the New Testament, in which Jesus tells the group who brought her, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her," John 8:7.
This story, however, is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of John's Gospel. Until the fourth century when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity,

When scribes translated the Greek manuscripts into Latin, for example, they embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity, which is the Christian belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."

Can you at least critically answer these questions? Without saying something like "Nope God said it, never question God". Or how about "No errors every occur during translations."
Accept the reality people. The bible as we know it today is FLAWED.

Answer 1

i missed the new evidence part.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Answer 2

That's not exactly true. Although some manuscripts do not include this story, some 900 do. Also, for these other accusations, it would be helpful if you could name reliable sources that are accepted by most scholars. Without those, these arguments that you have have no background. In regards to the NT, its formulation began in the first century, still 200 years before Constantine was born. You infer that Constantine doctored the Bible, as some would say, doing away with the books that dealt with Christ’s human traits, and embellishing the one’s that made Him godlike. Not only is there no historical evidence of this, but to recall thousands of handwritten manuscripts in the fourth century would have been impossible, and one can bet that if such a thing had occurred, at least one of the church fathers would have written about it. None did. And neither is there any mention of this elsewhere. The Bible that we have today is very accurate, and the only error that can be found is in the ones reading it, like you and me. Hope this helps, and God bless!

2 Timothy 3:16 (NLT)
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right.

Answer 3

In this situation, I don't think it matters that Jesus was misquoted - the point of the passage is to demonstrate that you shouldn't judge another person for a sin you've also committed, or to put it simply, don't be a hypocrite. What you have to remember with the Council of Nicaea is that the council members chose specifically what Gospels would go into the Bible - they wanted passages that focused on Jesus' divinity, not humanity, because at that point in history there was mass confusion over whether Jesus was God or Man or both, and how any of that was possible. People were spreading different stories about Christ because of it - the Airian Heresy is a prime example. Check out the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo for examples of counteractions against the confusion. They also wanted passages that would focus on Jesus' message for us, so yes, it's entirely possible that they maybe revised some of the stories, HOWEVER, I've never heard of that being done, so I'd like to see where you got your information from.

As for your question about the Trinity, once again it's possible they embellished, but as I haven't heard of it, I'd like to see your sources because you may in fact be right. The reasons I could see the early Church ephasizing the Trinity is that like the issue of Jesus' divinity, early Christians also had a hard time understanding the Trinity & how God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could be three persons in one being. Now, with the quote, it depends on the order of which the persons go in. If "Spirit, water, and blood" are meant to be taken as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in that order with no exceptions, then you have a problem. If not, spirit, water, and blood can be used SYMBOLICLY as representatives for the Trinity. (You cannot take the Bible completely literally, there is too much information and meaning lying beneathe the surface) Blood being a symbol for Christ's crucifixtion and therefore a symbol of Christ (heard of the saying "Christ's body & blood" as symbols for bread and wine?), Water a symbol of the Holy Spirit (study Baptism to see the symbol's meaning) and Spirit being God the Father. It is entirely possible that in order to avoid further confusion on the subject of the Trinity, the translators dropped the symbols and instead put in what they represent to make it easier for those trying to understand the religion.

As a side note, Constantine was not a complete Christian - making the empire's official religion Christianity was a political move in order to stabilize an empire torn between Paganism to the Roman gods and the upsurge of Christianity. There is evidence to suggest that he secretly remained pagan until his deathbed, and it was then and there that he was Baptised - before he was about to die.

Answer Queen makes a good point though - if you're claiming that the Bible is flawed (and I'm not saying that's impossible), then how do you know that the documents you're basing your information off of aren't flawed as well? Next time please leave a tag to the website or something.

Answer 4

You don't quote or give a source for your "new evidence". That being said, of course Jesus is misquoted in the bible! Scholars agree that much of what is written that is attributed to Him was written 60 years or more after the fact by other people. Nobody has complete recall over that length of time, inspired or not. Ever play the game telephone? The original words are never the same by the time the phrase has gone around a few retellings. Especially if language translations are involved.

Not to mention which, some of the events that are retold are by people who weren't present when the actual event happened. In Matthew 28:1-11, Mary Magdalene and Jesus' mother Mary went to look at the tomb. They ran to tell the diciples what had happened. So it is a second-hand account of what was said by the angel and Jesus.

It doesn't change the fact that the bible does have many good teachings we should follow, such as "Thou shalt not kill" and "Blessed are the peacemakers". Most Christians base their faith on these writings, and therefore get riled up when someone questions the divinity of the writings. However, my opinion is, if the bible is the divine inspired writings of a certain time, why can't there be writings that are equally inspired in today's society? God is never-changing, so if you're going to live your life based off of letters and geneologies from 2,000 years ago, why not do so from writings of today? By telling non-Christians that one can't put God in a box, Christians are doing so by limiting their lives to a book that is not as accurate or true as they would like it to be.

Answer 5

Because we have no documents anywhere close to the 1st century, but only copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. - oldest does not necessarily mean best. The Aramaic Peshitta text may be the most reliable of the versions, but is from the 5th century. The Alexandrian texts are earlier, but many think are more likely to be corruptions because the Pehistta may have an earlier source in the tounge the disciples and many of the early followers used and the Alexandrian originals be more so influenced by subsequent theologies of the 2nd century.

I agree in the sense that what we have today is probably wrong in many places (at least some - can be proven so actually by known changes made in some of the same texts that we do have), but not many are major differences and there is still a story being told.

Answer 6

I will be honest with you on the matter of translation and I do adhere to the Bible very closely. I grew up in a Baptist church with a pastor who is very into the languages. He knows Greek and Hebrew and I always thought this was boring when he would go back to the old languages in his sermons. As an adult I see why he did so. It clarifies scripture greatly and what God was really saying and wanting from us. The Trinity is a man's word and not of God. It is never printed in the Bible. God is only one and has made Himself visible to man in many ways but it is always the one true God. Immanual is God with us.

Answer 7

Okay, so there may be error........ afterall to err is human!
In my opinion, even if the whole bible is flawed, it's better advise and guidance to self awareness than any other book out there and wisdom rings true from way back then all the way till now. Following and believing, even if flawed, develops a better society! From way back then all the way to now.......... it is still the best book for bringing out the best in people and, if nothing else, allows all of us to have permission to be loved so we may love back; I will take the flaws, for even if the bible is only a bunch of misinterpretations, it's better to give it a chance than not and find out it was all true.....

Answer 8

Constantine never converted -- that was a political move! The Scriptus Receptus ws not tampered with as wher the ones use by Horte and Wescott to produce the more modern and paraphrase bibles.

Answer 9

I read that article too. That's weird. It must be tough to be catholic because nothing is true. The bible is a great work of fiction. Probably no truer than Harry Potter. Just older.

Answer 10

Blah Blah Blah