Space Merchant

I think it is pretty clear that scholarship does not matter to her and that she uses her special ‘anointed’ sense to tell if a passage is any good or not. If it helps her in her battle against her ‘rival anointed,’ is is golden. Which is true because in a majority of threads and posts, you can see not only the use of spurious text, but some teachings that even the Watchtower would not even attest to. Reasons why Pearl was called out several times, even other former Witnesses. She mixes beliefs together, as well, attesting to the idea that The Judges of Israel somehow had a "Church" which justifies attempting to change God's order, and or assuming that Satan was somehow sent by God to deal with the Egyptians. Therefore, it can even be seen that she herself is misguided, and evidence of that is not only on this forum, but outside of it too. This is the problem Christians outside of the MSC and Muslims often times call out Former JWs who dwell some level for apostasy. There was a guy who goes by the name Kel who stated that when someone leaves a faith, they most often times are misguided. We can even attest to the fact that some former JWs who haven't turned apostate, fight the ones that have turned to apostasy, example, the 1975 video that apostasy among former JWs not only took down, but terminated the channel itself. This misguidance can also translate to why a lot of people are misinformed during the pandemic vs those who attack misguided preachers with the facts concerning the Bible. If you take Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower out of the equation, in regards to such threads, you can see where the evidence of misguidance is greatly. Mainstream Christendom is what will be an obstacle for many, even JWs will be facing them. Mainstream Christendom is where literally 90% of the Trinitarians come from, that remaining 10% are those who dwell on the ideologies of such ones. Most Christians outside of the MSC are neutral with each other, and they refute those part of the MSC, this seems to be the case with the spurious text which I brought up, with the evident struggle to even seek an answer yet when a JW answers, then they are ready to talk. That being said, the MSC themselves will be in big trouble for Babylon has already claimed the majority of them. It would not be a surprise to me if the usual cohorts that do what they do on this forum is easily taken away by such, which is a high possibility because when asked to be enduring towards an enemy, they brush it off and say they don't worry about it, which reminds me of 1 Peter 5:8.

Someone already said it was not in their Bible, hence omission regarding the NWT. The Greek text in their modern revision (even their other ones) originated from Westcott & Hort for the New Testament. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are hardcore Textual Analytics. In respects the AS, NIV and ESV uses the Novum Testamentum Graece. Like Westcott & Hort, Kurt Aland and his crew were much more the same. On the other side of the spectrum, the Bibles that use the Textus Receptus like the KJV, are known to have these assertions of texts/passages. The problem here isn't the NWT alone, but rather, the Textual basis/source used. Everything expect the TR usually sticks to the earliest and most reliable source possible in order to remain true and authentic to the inspired word. This is why when it comes to such things, it is a distinction between Christians and Christians of MSC. Granted, if you can recognize John 1:1 in it's true authorship regarding Apostle John, I don't see why you can't do the same for others. Like I said to the others, it is recommended that you know the History of the Scriptures; the history of what you have in your hands to read - The Holy Bible. @TrueTomHarley It can also be said that many Church Fathers recognizing at the time that the Adulterous Woman story was not in the most ancient manuscript copies of the New Testament before the Codex Bezae (Greco-Roman manuscript), which is 5th century Greek/Latin manuscripts, for this is noted as a late mss. Moreover, earliest commenters on it knew it as a non-scriptural. It isn't surprising that those of the MSC crowd would attempt to twist their words in order to justify anything spurious, @Costried that many times and @Jesus.defender. Speaking of Latin, some Christians argue that it was because of things getting Latinized, which contributed to some of these assertions, hence the mention of Jerome. That being said, in regards to Textual Criticism, it can also come down to Interpolation (which is connected with oral tradition), which is a disregard to what God said in Deuteronomy 4:2, as is with Jesus in John 10:33-34, or anything related in reference to Peter, and the inspired ones who speak about them being inspired writers. The fact that no one is able to find an early manuscript sources, copies of what was written, it very telling, so to accept oral tradition over written word of those God chosen, is questionable. Spurious text, in this regards, is always defended by Mainstream Christendom, as is often justified by Trinitarians, who push their influence on to the rest of the MSC.

Well things won't get back to normal anytime soon. There are 2 types of normal, the one you once had, then you have the Orwellian Normal. Evidently, you will be in subjection to added protection. EU will be hit the hardest in the next few months, UK, Germany, etc.

Indeed. God has made him the Lord and Christ, and has resurrected him, he has been made to be immortal, incorruptible, as is being the king above mankind's kings (1 Timothy 6:15, 16). In relation to what you addressed, this goes hand in hand with the references to the above verses, which can be found in concerning the church Matthew 16 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

@Pudgy The image reminds me of the old man who preached the gospel during Halloween. The key in question is in the reference from the verse. The opposite view doesn't make sense, for why would Satan be given a key to his own prison? Let alone do nothing to the Locust army; for they do not attack God's people. But if we go with the Bad View, the one most Christians had concerning locusts and Abaddon for a time, then I guess we can call it a skeleton key. That is like giving El Chapo the keys to his cell, of course he won't lock himself in there, he will run off. As a side note, some Unitarians, even Biblical Unitarians use to address the locust as a scourge, and we did compare them to God's enemies for a time, until we ourselves connected the dots. My take is - the description threw a lot of people off, with both Abaddon and the Locust. You can't really blame people back then.

You focused on the notation of locusts, in regards to what connects to them, therefore, no evidence of you in regards to the off topic remark. You also noted that the WT does not know or had confused the notation of locusts, and the mention of the angel of the abyss does not deviate from the Locust information, or wormwood, or the star, granted this all connect with each other in Revelations, so, a second time, no evidence of going off topic, I even linked your thread of which you ran from. That being said, as a preacher, no one is going to take that from you in the general public when these questions arise. Also unwise to call someone out, and flee right afterwards, that is MSC mentality. Speaking about misinformation, another make or break question was addressed to you, granted you did say I was wrong. Concerning the locust and Abaddon, who is the star? I know you won't answer that, even when it relates to the WT link you posted. If you cannot answer that, it shows you are not too sure if the latter is misleading people, or use the bible alone to attest to claim. Let alone that comment from Witness because her view on this is drastically different, of which I will post soon.

First time I have seen you speak your peace. The theme was address already. But of course, in regards to this, there is context and Hermeneutics. Abaddon not only have relating Strong's, but also roots, but in regards to who he is in Revelations, is key. Speaking of keys, most people do not realize who gave him the key and or where he got it prior to tossing Satan into an abyss for 1,000 years.

Where is your evidence I was off topic concerning The book of Revelations? Also it is without question in regards to Revelation, you do not know who the star is.

@TrueTomHarley So essentially, concerning Bible errors and spurious text, if it sounds good, but not proven to be written by anyone of God's inspired men, in her eyes is acceptable. It contradicts some of things said by her in the past in some instances. If anything, Witness is just as much as a victim has all in the MSC, reasons why I always said a small error can mislead, even her. This is what is taking place during the pandemic as some are seeking God, errors of scripture can result in adhering to things that can be problematic. One would realize that a Christian would stick to the earliest sources. As pointed out even Muslims are aware and they've called out Trinitarians and Christians of MSC for their error. That being said, in the early years of debates I have been in, I used the ESV Bible, which does not have such errors, but when challenged by a KJV Onlyist, I was not aware of these omissions until I did the research. Often times from research I would get confused by manuscripts due to cross connecting a lot of things, but later learned to simplify everything. Therefore nowadays, debating this, it can easily be challenged via early source vs later source. The only good thing regarding the pandemic, silly stuff such as this, enables people to do research concerning the Bible. More and more people being aware, no longer tied to the MSC.

I didn't go off topic. Abaddon has a strong connection to the Locusts. So anyone reading Joel or Revelations has to understand who Abaddon is. You locked it because you didn't want to expose yourself. Granted the WHO factor can make or break anyone's state, which was the case with Witness. You were asked WHO he was not HIS name/title. evidence below: The reason one must know WHO he is, is due to the fact that he controls/leads the Locust Army. Unlike you, I don't cower from questions, for I adhere to 2 Timothy 3:16. You? I guess that is for you to find out. That being said, next time you mention Locust, know what these things are, for a preacher of the gospel, running from such a thing only proves the point Christians and Muslims make about former witnesses. More so, your reaction proves me right.

Not here, you were the only one to utter JWs and NWT. This is in relation to Translations in general that follow the TR and those that do not follow the TR, in correlation with manuscripts. If you want to use the NWT, then by all means, go ahead, for if that can help you against TR related translations. This is why Textual Criticism when TR is addressed is vital relation to those verses. This is Textual Criticism based, John. To determine if a word/passage is added or not, you have to know what Strong's and or roots that violates the text itself. "God/Deity/Divine" or "a God/a Deity" isn't a violation unless it is something other than, outside of THEOS. Likewise with your tortures stake remark, if it has no connection to what a Stavros entails, then you have a violation. So, address the violations instead of just looking at the verse at face value. Those verses are no different from 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 10:48 or Acts 16:7. That being said, if you are using the NWT or anything that isn't based on TR, I don't see how you can address the above. TR is based off of Greek New Testament from Erasmus, where as the verses mentioned are the effected ones in the KJV If I remember correctly, the NWT is based off of Westcott and Hort. That being said, the verse you misquoted, but was attempting to quote was Matthew 27:32.

This longer version was founded much later on, was never part of the original. The Long part can only be read in the KJV and or translations that follow the later sources. The Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8, hence Mark 16:1-8. There are 2 of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies. Since and the oldest manuscripts do not verses 9 to 20, it is concluded and affirmed that these verses were added later by scribes, again, like the Adulterous Woman, this passage isn't only defend by Trinitarians or that of MSC as a whole, it is viewed as spurious as well. In the 4th century, Early Church Fathers like Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them didn't really have any evidence of this longer version, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed in their time. Irenaeus himself may have known about other long endings because he made a note to it, however, these Church Fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the 4th century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings or any other one, in the originals. As seen in the verse what is marked in red was added, no Strong's or root even supports this. The added part was mostly from later sources which has no connection to the early ones. Also there is no question as to why it was added, it was for a gain on the MSC side of Christianity. 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. Among all forgeries, this is the biggest one - The Comma Johanneum. The real verse is For there are three that testify: [these three witnesses] Trinitarian and those of MSC NOW admit this verse was not written by the hand of John. Having access to collections of hundreds of manuscripts, modern scholars are able to determine this verse was introduced into the Bible long after John wrote this letter. The evidence is so clear as day that it cannot be denied. However, there are still those out there, especially KJV Onlyists of the MSC crowd, who are unwilling to accept the facts on this matter and claim this verse is authentic. My quote to Brando regarding Jesus Defender: My quote for this one was to Srecko when he addressed Bible errors and inspired text: Jesus Christ was replaced with Lord. The Strong's show us a strong indicator that Jesus Christ (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is suppose to be in the verse, however, we see Lord instead. The verse should either have in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah or in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This some would only catch by accident if they're not paying attention, however, it can easily be missed. Similar to Acts 10:48, but the difference between most translations and the KJV is that of Jesus or Jesus is unfounded. A parallel with the verses in Acts, for the verses has added by Jesus Christ. There is no Strong's or root to even attest to that addition being true, more evidence to that is the Codex Sinaiticus That being said, some of these are known by some, even by you JWs, but the others you mentioned are of the tricky kind, but in the realm of Hermeneutics and Textual Criticism, these are often discussed.

@Witness You ignored the fact I said MSC, for anyone of this fold tends to defend this verse, as is with Trinitarians. If you read what I said, I stated the following Also everything else is irrelevant to what you're being asked, is there early evidence to John's authorship or is there not? As addressed, your link only shows everything later on, nothing pertaining to early sources. We talked about this before concerning Mark 16:9-20.

I will address the below briefly because apparently when someone "calls" you to claim, they run away from even the basics of asking. I will also repost key points of a debate I had regarding this topic with better quotations, this because when forums update, some words or punctuations turn into symbols. What is Abaddon, and what does that name/title means: Abaddon (אֲבַדּוֹן‎) is a Hebrew term, that derives Avaddon, meaning either Destruction or Doom. Like the Hebrew term, the Greek equivalent is Apollyon (Ἀπολλύων) which means Destroyer [The Destroyer]. This appears in the Scriptures in both instances, in regards to a place of destruction, as for the angel in question, it is interpreted as an Archangel of the abyss. Who is Abbadon: As shown in the other thread, it is obvious as to what the name/title means, however, it was never addressed who it is, clearly there is reason behind that because there are only 2 sides concerning the Angel of the Abyss - one good, and one bad, which can make or break a viewpoint not only verily easily, but quickly. Running from such does not help either. For this angel is very well connected with the Locust Army itself. In the Hebrew text, Abaddon is used with reference to a Bottomless Pit, often appearing alongside the place שְׁאוֹל (Sheol), meaning the realm of the dead. Notes: Hebrew Text The term Abaddon appears six times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; Abaddon means destruction or "place of destruction", or the realm of the dead, and is accompanied by Sheol. In the Hebrew Old Testament, Abaddon, is mentioned several times, in a sense, often in reference to the grave (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Psalms 88:11; Proverbs 15:11; 27:20). Even when it comes to oral traditions of legends of Rabbinical Literature, Abaddon is identified as a separate realm where those in damnation are laid dead in both fire and snow, moreover, shown as one of several places in Gehenna that Moses the Levite has visited. Greek Text We see the appears of Abaddon in the Greek text as well. In Revelation 9:11, this is the first known depiction of Abaddon as an individual entity instead of a place. Because of this, this left the identity of Abaddon open to interpretation. In 1708, a Protestant, Matthew Henry believed Abaddon, to be The Antichrist, another such as Jamieson-Fausset Brown in 1871, as well as Henry Hampton Halley in 1922, didn't believe Abaddon to be The Antichrist, but rather, Satan the Devil. This is also in contrast for some the Methodist publication, The Interpreter's Bible, which states that Abaddon is an angel, but not of Satan, instead, but from God, performing his work of destruction at God's bidding, all this by citing the context at Revelations 20:1-3. Likewise, for most Restorationist, including Jehovah's Witnesses, also cite Revelation 20:1-3 where the angel having the key of the abyss is actually shown to be a representative of God, which brings the conclusion of Abaddon being Jesus (Michael for some), in title after resurrection. Secondary Notes: Destroyer can equate to other things/persons as well 1 Corinthians 10:7-10, this passage is about Apostle Paul’s focus on those of Israel who succumb to murmuring and putting God to the test, and the "Destroyer" here is regarding God’s messenger sent to destroy – that is, if you take into account the context of the references. Isaiah 33:1 or chapter 33 in general is regarding the "Destroyer" (The Assyrian/Assyria). Who in turn is eventually destroyed by another, an Angel (Angel of Death also known as a Destroyer). For the history of Sennacherib, who is an Assyrian, for Assyria (the Destroyer mentioned in Isaiah 33:1) threatened to destroy Jerusalem, which at the time its ruler being Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz. God responded by sending an Angel, and this Angel, who was sent, took out, or as some would say, steamrolled 185,000 Assyrian Soldiers as they prepared to enter the city (2 Kings 18-19, Isaiah 37:33-38). For none do not see Satan or Jesus, but an Angel, and before that we know of Assyria, who was a Destroyer themselves, thus the God of Hezekiah, going with Prophet Isaiah has said, destroyed the destroyer, which is, Assyria with the destroyer that was sent. [When you have ceased to destroy, you will be destroyed;] Another example is that God sent an angel to take action, Hebrews 11:28, the "Destroyer" here was indeed an Angel also known as "The Angel of Death" called by some or other translations. This same verse is a quotation found in Hebrews 11:28 which reads: By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them. So we can identify the “Destroyer” here to be an Angel, sent by God during the days of Moses and Aaron and their ordeal with Egypt’s Pharaoh. With that in mind, the destroyer(s) often relates to enemies of God's people, as is, with those in support of God's people, i.e. angels. in this case. Where does that put Abaddon? Is this person a friend, or is he a foe? The Good: There are those who later come to understand that Abaddon is an Angel of God, some even assume that Abaddon is the same Angel who had dealt with the Assyrians back in the days of King Hezekiah. Some assume the Angel to be Michael The Archangel, to others, this angel, thus being associated with Michael The Archangel, will say that Abaddon is the Lord himself - Jesus Christ, and the Locust, whom follower their King, are on his side. Abaddon is often spoken of as God's Right Hand. The Bad: Very early on, since the symbolism of Revelations was not 100% understood, there are those who associate Abaddon with Satan The Devil or some unknown Demon. This also led them to believe that The Devil, or this Demon controls an Army of evil Locusts to cause trouble for God's people. What is Abaddon's role and how does the Locust play into all this: Abaddon, being the angel of the abyss is very simple - Revelation 9:1-12 He is the one given the keys to the abyss. Revelation 9:1 - And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. Not only the Locusts were released, freed from it (Revelations 9:3), it is the same place where Satan the Devil is hurled into the abyss, held in captivity (Revelations 20:3). Some would find this part confusing for if Abaddon was Satan or an ally of Satan, why would he lock up his own boss, with a key given to him? For this point right here is where most of Christendom later changed their understanding, hence restoration, mainly when it came to them having connected Joel and Revelations 100%. Likewise as to the Locust not attacking God's people, or having the spirit poured to them, which rf. Acts 2:39, which drew question and further study as more and more people began to not just read Scripture, but commit themselves to research. What are Locusts: Locusts are a group of certain species of short-horned grasshoppers in the family Acrididae that have a swarming phase. These insects are usually solitary, but under certain circumstances they become more abundant and change their behavior and habits, becoming gregarious. No taxonomic distinction is made between locust and grasshopper species; the basis for the definition is whether a species forms swarms under intermittently suitable conditions. In ancient times, the Study of literature shows how pervasive plagues of locusts were over the course of history. The insects arrived unexpectedly, often after a change of wind direction or weather, and the consequences were devastating. The Ancient Egyptians carved locusts on tombs in the period 2470 to 2220 BC. A devastating plague in Egypt is also mentioned in the Book of Exodus, committed by this swarm. The Iliad mentions locusts taking to the wing to escape fire. Plagues of locusts are also mentioned in the Quran. In the 9th century, the Chinese authorities appointed anti-locust officers, for such a swarm was that intense to deal with. Who represents the Locusts: Although some are quick to equate these symbolic representations with demons, a scourge of wickedness, an undead army, etc. They fall to see what this represents, mainly due to the fact the Locusts mentioned here do not harm God's people. Locusts in figurative use can equate to 2 groups (3 if you count Nahum). Babylonians - Joel’s prophecy relates to an attack as shown in Joel 1:6; 2:1, 8, and 11, and this attack is concerning Babylonian soldiers which has been revealed in 2:25 to deal with the Israelites who disobeyed God. The army evidently organized and was able to overwhelm the Israelites like, of which they are described as, a Locust swarm. They overran and ransacked the Israelites' dwelling very quickly. Soldiers of the Babylonian Army. The Locust representation although similar they are different, which brings us to God's people. God's People - In Revelation 9:1-11. Some in the past connected the Locusts in Joel in relations to the actions and operations of the gospel work, therefore, they make a similar connection in the role of the Locust in the Book of Revelations. The prophecy in question is a swarm of Locusts that have human faces, adorn golden crowns, and have long hair, and teeth like that of a lion, all going into battle (Revelations 9:7-8) We come to see that they torment those an enemy to God who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. The connection to Joel also reflects life-span, for there is an limited amount of time, a period of 5 months, for these Locusts to commit their act, something of which is also spoken of in commentary, which is no different from life-span of and operations of literal Locusts. Words of Nahum concerning Assyrians - Although not the focus, but the representation of Locust can also be equated to The Assyrian Army. Nahum 3:16-17 when they were compared to Locusts that remain in their dwelling in cold weather, thus making them unable to act and remain numb. But the second the sun shines, this will result in them rushing away from their dwelling, fleeing - flying away. Between the 2 who [focused] represented as Locusts, there is a difference. Reasons why Joel and Revelations connect with each other via references is because [A] Locusts swarm at great numbers [B] They operate and take various actions. In this case we can see the differences though, for we have Locusts that attack the Israelites, and the latter only attacks, symbolically, those who are not of God. One swarms as a means to cause problems, the latter, swarms as a means to commit to what God has tasked them. One takes judgement in a way to suppress, the latter proclaims judgement. What is there role: The events of old had past, however when Satan is locked away in the abyss, those who represent the Locust are to commit to the work - God's people. But their gospel message will not be good news always, but also judgement. Granted this was talked about for sometime now, everything mentioned is brief, for the other thread was locked due to question dodging.

@Witness Also your link is problematic because of specific theology of MSC. You don't believe Jesus to be God, as I addressed a while ago, John 7:53-8:11 is defended by Trinitarians. They also defend the KJV, for your link is of KJV-Onlyist origin, Lion Tracks Ministries. Why would you a source such as this if you are an Anti-Trinitarian?

It was in relation to what you said to me as shown here The link didn't show any early evidences concerning the verse, of which is why I asked you. Your link displays, the majority, later sources. So, do you have any evidence to said early evidence in this matter? After all to quote you: Right now, the facts is of focus concerning the passage, as is with John's authorship.

@Witness If I recall you were asked for early evidence. You don't need the WT in order to find that out, concerning the passage. I will tell you this, even before Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible students, the passage was deemed spurious. Keep in mind this verse - 2 Peter 1:21

@Patiently waiting for Truth I believe he said to keep it Bible Scripture Only, you constantly bring up JW this and that as if you check under your bed for them in fear of a heart attack. As for the 2 verses mention, be it Strong's or Root, there is no issue, especially the root. Also you got your verses mixed up. That being said, textual criticism is focused on the verses mentioned, in the realm of criticism, you won't be happy with the answer for the verses you addressed. FYI Matthew 27:4 - saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” @Equivocation You want these all Textual based or brief? If so, references will be made for anything in and out of the TR. 1 Timothy 3:16 is probably the easiest one, I made a thread about this and I debated a Trinitarian regarding this. The Roots being He Who He [Was] He [who] Which Christ came as a human Christ is Revealed He was revealed in the flesh etc.... Are in respects to the Concordances. God or a God in relations to THEOS, is not. I'll deal with the other ones later. The Thread, may be hard to read due to images being disabled and the constant change of this forums reveals symbols in the typed text: As for my comment from the debate:

Correct, as for what is deemed inspired, anything that is very early is what is true, for the authorship of such ones wrote what God has enabled them to write. Things would have been much more different if there was not fighting or death taking place in the history of the Translation of the Bible. So essentially, this long fight for the Scriptures, Christians were thrown into, Christians of both camps, so the spirit of the Council, in this sense, still remains at large today. The only difference is you have those of the Islam faith involved, and they themselves are very open about it in the EU, specifically the United Kingdom.

The link @Witness had in her response also proves the point made earlier. No early evidence. She did this before with Mark 16:9-20, even when warned several times. As addressed, if anyone understood 2 Peter 1:21 then they would be very cautious with spurious verses, passages, and apocryphal text. Early on, many people claim that John, Paul and Enoch wrote this and that, but there is no authorship of such to bring as evidence at all. That being said, those who claim certain people who are aware of Textual Analytics, even going as far as to call them false for removing passages or verses, they themselves are in error, thus misleading people.

@Witness The WHY is due to a gain on the opponent's end. It all points back to the councils.

Subordinationism is what is true.

The passage only appeared in later manuscripts, not the earliest Greek ones. Reasons why the Vulgate was mentioned. John 7:53-8:11 was of oral tradition, therefore the consensus was undetermined, and later deemed spurious. The only thing we should consider inspired text is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit - 2 Peter 1:21. Actually, those who attest to or even add spurious text do have something to gain. This is why Acts 7:59 is also mentioned. Not only were things added or omitted, there were some verses that were altered completely to the point someone reading the text would not notice it, even by a punctuations, which is why I mentioned to @BroRando if he was familiar with the Granville Sharp's Rule, something that can literally be weaponized against any new Bible reader. That being said, whenever there is any form of Bible tampering, there is a gain by some, likewise, with some who alter or twist even the words of church fathers. @Patiently waiting for Truth The reason for these Bible changes/errors was because there is conflict between 2 main parties in Christendom.

And that alone creates a problem, often most for the unsuspecting person who is told this verse. Trinitarians will jump to this to prove Jesus is God, likewise with the false version of Revelations 1:11. Correct, but this passage alone shows a distinction between the two factions of Christianity. The prosperity preacher, Mr. Chan has often used this passage time and time again, his whole following assumes this passage to be authentic. Some Trinitarians were later called out for this, as is, with Mark 16:9-20. To mislead. Likewise to what the Gnostics attempt to do a long time ago. It isn't that much of a shock for people to believe such things. And you would of thought he would have addressed that since day one in regards to a spurious narrative; regardless those such as the man of Lyons, and those like him, are right concerning heresies and uninspired text. Yes, Jesus also becomes a giant. This is The Gospel of Peter/Gospel according (Peterkata Petron euangelion). A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, also exaggerated, which ascribes responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate. Since the focus has shifted to late sources, 3rd century and beyond, this Gospel was most likely written in the 8th or 9th century, and just like Apostle John, some tried to, unknowingly, pin this spurious gospel on Peter. Like the Adulterous Woman passage, this Gospel was fought against too. The earliest mention of the Gospel of Peter was made by Bishop Serapion of Antioch (c. AD 200) in a letter titled “Concerning what is known as the Gospel of Peter.” In this letter Serapion advised church leaders not to read this Gospel to their church congregations because of its Docetic content. He also condemned the Gospel of Peter as a forgery. In the gospel there is also a very different version of Mark 15:34, which mirrored that of the Qur'an's Sura 4:157-158. The gospel shows this version of Mark 15:34 - The Gospel of Peter says that on the cross Jesus cried out, “My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me,” rather than “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me? As for the Qur'an's Sura 4:157-158 - But Allah took him up unto Himself. Docetism is one form of Docetism (Marcionism - was an early Christian dualistic belief system) that maintains the idea that the Christ was so divine He could not have been human. I brought this up in a debate before a while back. He only appeared to be made of flesh and blood, His body being a phantasm. Some groups attested that while Jesus was a man in the flesh, Christ was a separate entity who entered Jesus’ body in the form of a dove at His baptism, empowering Him to perform miracles. The Christ entity then abandoned Jesus after he dies via crucifixion. Docetic view was unequivocally rejected at the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 (everything apparently starts here) a heresy. Docetism largely died out during the first millennium, which left some views to survive afterwards, Gnosticism, Subordinationism which later birthed Restorationism, then you have the Trinitarians and Binitarians.

Correct. A good response because Trinitarians and Prosperity preachers can often use this verses in a way to fool others.