Space Merchant

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I can easily see that …. Perhaps …. The reason it was omitted from the earliest manuscripts is that elements of the first century “church” realized that if forgiveness was so freely given, it would subvert the authority of the rapidly developing corrupt precursor to what would become the Catholic Church. 
It is just a guess on my part, but the Scripture about Jesus forgiving the adulterous woman would subvert the grip the corrupt “Elders” were trying to establish as God’s sole representatives, in the same way that the concept of a burning “hell of torment” did, in reverse.

Perhaps (?) centuries later, this omission was corrected, when those political influences that had the scripture removed were not as strong, and immediately dangerous. 
 

For me, I believe the Scripture is the words of Jesus, because contextually, there is no reason to believe they are not the words of Jesus. 
 

The ONLY thing I can see that anybody would gain by spuriously inserting that text is ….. Nothing!

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.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Yes, the kjv bible - And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

 

The NWT reads - 

As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 

Other translations also left out God, and kept Lord.

Notice in all of them, only the kjv and the new kjv shows God. This is as you pointed out another verse often used by some, and we can see that there is a problem. The fact that "God" is mentioned this close with Jesus being mentioned here, some would assume Jesus to be God. This is one of those verses some people, I just the new thought crowd, trinitarians and even some former jws often attack the NWT on, not realizing that "God" isn't part of the verse. Revelation 1:11 is a conundrum on it's own, and an obvious form of forgery.

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.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Well I guess very true since it can be seen here lol. Although a good passage, sadly, it isn't part of Scripture.

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.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

Why would you think some people would go to great lengths to "add" or "remove" to trick many, even resulting false teachings? I mean we got the whole trinity thing squared off, and immortal soul teaching.

Even while preaching, we run into these things sometimes.

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.

1 hour ago, Equivocation said:

@JW Insider Thank you, the thread alone has more detail.

It wasn't much when @Patiently waiting for Truth said the 2 points he addresses, which didn't have that much detail as seen here -

• 1. Jesus allowed an immoral woman to wash His feet with her tears, then wipre His feet with her hair, then she anointed His feet with oil. Then Jesus said to her "Your sins are forgiven you "  
• 2.  The Jewish way of life, The Law, demanded death.  However the New way, through Christ, demanded mercy and forgiveness. Jesus and the disciples never punished anyone by killing them. 

But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for, not sure as to why he didn't bring that up early before his usual boxing match with SM. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious, even us JWs, reason why I cited JW library, and my pervious post was from a study, where I quoted my old comment about the history of that passage. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.

Thanks again because you took literally a minute to do this vs someone else who took days.

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.

48 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

SM mentioned something about a talking cross 0_o

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.

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.

An idea, yes, but all in all, such things that came forth later most of us do not consider authentic. Mainly in the realm of Deut. 4:2. One needs to be careful of thinking something is true when there is no evidence to it. 

That said, those that omitted the passage from Scripture are not in the wrong for doing so, but are often seen as an enemy when the step is taken. Likewise with Acts 7:59 when God was added to the text.

4 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

But this thread alone has more detail as to what I was asking for. Although debatable, majority of people see it as spurious. Even while preaching, there are people who do not consider this as part of the Scriptures, even more when it was used much much later on in some translations.

It is debated to this day because people see this as a worthy story to be added to the Scriptures, however until it was found out later on that the authorship was most likely not John, this brought those of Textual Criticism out of the woodworks.

4 minutes ago, Equivocation said:

There was the Vulgate I think, but that was later if I remember correctly, nothing early.

Pericope De Adultera was mostly conjured up around that time. Same cases with other things some try to add to the text.

1 hour ago, Witness said:

From the article:

"People who make up stories tend to have too many details or are completely vague with almost no specifics. Here this passage has the details expected from an eye-witness. For example, someone on the sidelines would record Jesus writing on the ground, but not specifically what He was writing. Certainly this account is in harmony with how Jesus is characterized and acted throughout the gospels. It is most probable that this was an authentic episode in the life of Jesus.

If this passage was a forged or invented account, a huge question would be "why?" Unlike the Gnostic and heretical forgeries that arose in the time of the apostles and continued into the first centuries of the church, this account does not contain any new and aberrant doctrine, nor does it contradict any other teaching of Scriptures. In fact, if it was created by a heretic, it has never surfaced in any heretical or alternative gospel. There's no evidence it's a fraud."

Ok then show us evidence of an early source. There was an eye witness for a talking cross, doesn't deem it true.

As for your link, everything pertaining to the passage is noted later on. 3rd-4th century is late.

50 minutes ago, Thinking said:

May I ask your view on the locusts in.  Revelation….Russell seems to have had the correct view In Joel..many years ago….some where along the line that was changed to represent Us….which never made any sense to me…so I’m relieved we have corrected that..yet we still claim the locusts in Rev are still talking about us.

yet Russell thought they were the same as Joel…..I am confused on this point..yet aware….that the bow and arrow…horses…crowns..etc all have and do have double meanings..and are interchangeable….with those who are against Jehovah ..and those who are with Jehovah…so it may be the case here….

The Locust term is used for not only used for God's people, but was also used for Babylonian army of old. One of the reasons why some of the verses interconnect (from both Joel and Revelations) with each other is due to how Locust are, they do not come as one, two or a few, but a swarm:

Christians early on assume the Locusts in Revelations to represent the enemy and or demons, which is in similarity as to how Bible students viewed it early on as did most, even connecting Joel and Revelations at times, however, some after learning, people came to a conclusion in their understanding of things to know who Revelations speaks of, granted the Locust and regards to Joel concerning Babylonians. In Revelations, those who represent the Locusts not only come out of the abyss, they are to finish the gospel work, and proclaim judgement. The way I see it, people's view back then was different due to how the Locust Army seen in Revelations looks like, not knowing that this is a symbolic representation.

The only group who speaks of the Locusts as enemies, even equating Joel to Revelations as identical are anything who shares the same mindset as most Trinitarians. There are other views, which are somewhat nonsensical, and very far from the truth, which some believe today sadly.

For us Biblical Unitarians, we at a time thought of the Locust as Satan's Army against God at a time, ignoring the symbolic representation and took what was said literally, hence the speculation that the horde of demonic locusts, only later to know the true representation.

That being said, people who come to learn and understand what a passage or verse is conveying, it shows that such ones are slowly learning as to what is true; and whatever old reasoning that they had that was not correct, for after learning, they see. If the JW pastor were to continue living, it is by no doubt he would come to that conclusion himself. It is also how they operate due to what Butler linked from the JW website, for the first paragraphs pretty much explains how Christians were back then compared to now, they had to collect findings.

Before the update of this forums, @The Librarian had a list of things concerning how Bible Students, well into JWs come to learn of their findings, you can check it out down here. It will be somewhat difficult because the responses are from the same usual suspects:

I guess we can go forth with another one, also used by some via preaching during the pandemic.

Mark 16:9-20

Why is this omitted from the Greek New Testament?

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

@Equivocation please consider one important detail, because you are JW member and as such you absorb (everything) what is taught from GB. 

Dramatizations of biblical events have long been an important part of the Congress program, and many await with great anticipation and enthusiasm “biblical dramas” that are costumed and that contain a script specially prepared. As it is today, this summer.

Is every word, every sentence uttered by JW actors in any of these plays written in the Bible? It's not! I'm sure you know the same thing.
What explanation do you have for staging biblical events based on fictional dialogues attributed to historical biblical figures? Do you have to believe that real biblical characters uttered just such sentences written by screenwriters in WTJWorg?

You tend to prove that something Jesus did not say and do, and on the other hand you “swallow” fictional dialogues written by some people in Bethel, which are attributed to being spoken by people of biblical times.
Do not you see that you (and SpaceM) are supporting the absurdity, in an expanded form with respect to this form of Bible teaching (through "biblical dramas" performed by JW actors)?

Early manuscript evidence is not absurdity, granted the Bible derives from the manuscripts.

I find it funny how when you were asked to answer for John 7:53-8:11 you could not despite the fact you called out Bible Errors. Yet if a JW answers Textual questions, now you try to defense a false passage, to where as, you cannot provide evidence of it being true or not. This isn't the first time for even Judith did the same a while back. To add more salt to injury, the information provided was from JWFacts, who in turn, have little to no knowledge of the history of Scripture, and it shows that you do not even agree with what you professed a long time ago.

Textual Criticism predates anything pertaining to Bible Students, for Church Fathers of old were the ones to fight against Scripture that is deemed false, it was due to the falsehood you have Trinity-based like verses in the KJV and the like. Again, anyone error of Bible errors are aware of omitted verses. If I recall, as pointed out, you tried to profess errors via Judges of Israel.

Therefore, I recommend learning what textual Criticism is.

12 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

 

Unfortunately I think SM is now being a Troll, deliberately trying to throw things off topic. 

The Angel of the Abyss is in relation to the Locusts mentioned in the Scriptures, mainly Joel and Revelations.

Asking WHO this angel is, isn't going off topic or trolling. A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages.

After all, you mentioned me, so here I am.

Again, you already addressed the NAME, but in order to know if there is misuse of Scripture, we need to know WHO this angel is.

If we are to as you said [Can we please set matters straight about the wrong use of scripture. ] then let's us get down to the Truth here concerning the Locust.

8 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Once again the Storm Trooper demads answers  He asked a question and I gave him an answer.

But note that I told him 'That's all ya gettin'.  One jump ahead, because I knew he would demand more  .

I asked for who. You just gave me a name deemed a title. 

Therefore if you are going to say someone is wrong, you have to explain.

To anyone else who reads, the name was professed by @Patiently waiting for Truth, his reason for not telling WHO Abaddon is, would either make or break his entire thread - Therefore, to make a claim as to someone being wrong about the Locust notation, but unable to back it up, shows a huge level of bluff on his end. - So if I am wrong, show your evidence.

2 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

being misguided by a man that 'thinks' he knows truth.

Can we please set matters straight about the wrong use of scripture. 

That being said, if that isn't addressed, I'd gladly answer by using the Bible alone, if you can't address WHO this angel is. Thanks for the name, despite it is already known, as is, deemed a title.

I thought I should let this known to you, Angel of the Abyss and the Locust has been debated for years now, even predating you and even me. So the make or break factor in this is huge here.

6 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

ABADDON

(A·badʹdon) [from Heb., meaning “Destruction”].

At Revelation 9:11 this Hebrew word is transliterated into the English text. There we read concerning the symbolic plague of locusts that they have “a king, the angel of the abyss. In Hebrew his name is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.” 

That's all ya gettin'.  

I asked you who is The Angel of the Abyss, I didn't ask for a name. Again, if you are going to say someone is false, prove to your claims, JB.

12 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

who is the Angel of the Abyss?

It isn't a hard question by the way.

EDIT:

You continue to prove my points - 

9 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Wrong. The Pharisees used scripture and facts to ask their questions.

And they do so in attempt to justify lies and their line of thinking in the face of the Christ. 

9 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

That shows you don't know as much as you pretend to know. 

Well it is hard to pretend when passages like John 9:18-30 exist concerning context, now wouldn't it?

I guess you yourself do not know much, so much for being patient for the truth.

I invite you to show how I am pretending, so I will wait. That passage isn't the only one that displays context.

That said, no one should adhere to ill conduct.

7 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

The information i have given was only available in April 2020 Study Watchtower.  I have given a link to the source. 

 

 

It does not change of what was said sometime ago for that information is identical to what was discussed, what was presented now isn't anything different hence the view. From your link, if you noticed.

Out of curiosity, granted this is in connection to one of the representation of Locusts, to you who is the Angel of the Abyss? This alone can attest to your claim of misguidance.

an FYI

The figurative usage of Locust can represent God's People, and the parallels being Babylonians. Commentary also shows this on Bible Hub and other sources.

2 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Which was why I likened you to the Pharisees. They tried exactly the same with Jesus. 

Pharisees used lies in the face of the Christ, but, the trick question was to root out a reasoning. So you linking that to the Pharisees was false, and it shows willful error

If you want to go down that route, I can easily quote you for Romans 12:9 which you used said verse to defense problematic issues that is not of God's favor. Man of God you say, but you do not abide by context, therefore you said what you said because you fled from the question.

Utter Pharisees again, and I will gladly link your quote.

That being said, while you were in hiding, the general public do interact with homosexuals in the workplace or in public, and to the homosexuals they are not psychic, they do not who you are or your views of homosexuality, therefore, if one asks you, you are in a position to explain to the person as to why you can't do this or that, in this trick question - why a Christian should not involve himself with such things, and how to convey to the homosexual the reason.

Quite the hypocritical mindset, on your part, Butler.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Are you inspired to know this?

Because it came much later AFTER the Scriptures was established. Not even 2nd century church Fathers deemed in inspired, mainly Irenaeus of Lyons. That said, I know what is spurious due to the fact of knowing Textual Criticism, this stuff isn't new.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

You’re checking the hand of God.  (Isa 55:8)  If God inspired the addition of lost information in the book of John, and did this through an individual, what is it to you?

Unfortunately this isn't lost information. The source of John 7:53-8:11 was founded among the Catholics.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

^{25 "}Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."  John 21:25

And Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken - John 10:33,34

If there is no evidence within the inspired text itself, you defending spurious text shows a big problem. You were also called out for this for justifying verses in Mark 16:9-20, also omitted from majority of Bibles.

Witness... That remark alone I recommend you look into Textual Criticism. - https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0124.xml#:~:text=Textual criticism is concerned with,other copies of the text.

Anything that came centuries after Apostle John, mainly out of the hands of Catholicism raises concern, and it violates Deut. 4:2 to which God took issue with people adding/removing from his Word. Hence why the command was professed.

Any man or woman, even a child who preaches the gospel of that is of God's Word, they can run into questions such as this. This is why it is vital to learn and understand The History of the Scriptures itself because spurious text, even forgeries, if you allude to be true is a problem.

This is what I told Cos a while back, that even Muslims know the passage is spurious, and they debated it, why deem or assume something to be true when it is not? This is the same with those who believe a piece of wood can burst and sing into song.

Hence the problem Christians and Muslims have with most former Jehovah's Witnesses, they themselves do not know the path of which they take their every step.

Indefensible.

This was also mentioned a long time ago to a Trinitarian who defended that passage:

On 2/2/2018 at 2:51 PM, Space Merchant said:

As for you, I know that you are in no position to defend forged and or added bible verses, but clearly, you do not know this, thus you, as majority of Trinitarians will go out of their way to defend 1 John 5:7 as it is written in the KJV or NKJV when the oldest manuscripts do not contain them, you will go out of your way to defend John 7:53-8:11 regarding Jesus saving an adulterous woman, to defend Acts 8:37, 15:34, 28:29, Mark 15:28, etc. 

23 hours ago, Equivocation said:

In the workplace, you are bound to meet people like this. Co-workers, whom you work with. The answer to that would be, I would tell him I won't attend, or take some form of responsibility for this event. If I am told WHY, my answer would not only I am a JW, but also tell the person as to, in a respectful manner, as to why I can't attend via Bible examples.

We do these to be very respectful, and I know it was address already, to not mingle with conduct or customs that are not in God's favor.

It was a trick question, for anyone, even Christians would have a decent response if met with such a scenario. It does not have to be about homosexual events, it can be something general to that of other various events. You Cling to what is good by making a defense.

An in Bible example would be like that of the Hebrews when confronted by King Nebuchadnezzar and his people, and we all know how that played out.

In God's eyes, ones conduct should be clean, so people need to attest to that, some do not and that creates problems, but those that do, are the ones who earn his favor, reasons why I gave the example of a homosexual person in regards to self control, leaving sin, to be part of God and his Christ.

9 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

My point was that Jesus could have done so. I never said Jesus did so in that scripture.

And Jesus could have grown into a Giant with a Wooden Cross singing praise to his name, praise be the Lord.

Some people claim Jesus did other things too, but these are unproven narratives, assumption can easily land someone in the position of Galatians 1:1-11.

That being said, as pointed out there are those who understand Textual Criticism, and those who do not. Which is evident on numerous occasion. More so, if I recall you deemed it strange.

Majority of folks, if you are a preacher of the gospel, will run into people with basic Bible knowledge who 100% know with absolute certainty that this passage, although a good deed, if it were true, but sadly, no early source of it, and I rather we do not go into the realm of Church Fathers who were against heresies or misinformation concerning the Christ - namely Irenaeus of Lyons.

The fact is - Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel.

Granted the existence of the movement, it can make a distinction of who is in mainstream Christianity and who is not, something coined a lot in CSE.

John 7:53-8:11 is can also be in comparison to that of The Quo Vadis story (Legend of the Saints).

47 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Since I am not smart enough or educated enough to intelligently evaluate all of the supposed scholars of years past the above explanation seems very reasonable to me. Especially due to the fact that’s the scripture in question it’s completely compatible with everything else in the Scriptures and I see no conflict whatsoever.

Let’s assume as a worst-case scenario that it’s not actually the words of Jesus…… Is it is to my mind a very wise example worthy of emulation, as if it were. 

This is why Textual Analysts take issue. The goal is to teach and profess inspired text, not anything added/altered, etc regardless of the narrative. So this is where one needs to be careful, for any small err can misguide and confuse people quickly.

If the Adulterous Woman passage was found in the early manuscript sources which was used to complete Scripture, then there would not have been any problem, but that is a what if scenario. The irony in all this, some who believed in the passage, later came out to address the passage isn't true.

It is also the reason as to why Restorationist themselves for a time later came to know more understanding in their Restoration trek, when it came to Scripture, they made sure to omit such things.

That being said, in the realm of Textual Criticism, this spawned an adversary, this false passage has generated a movement, of which is referred to as the the movement of John 7:53-8:11 (the pericope adulterae), branched from the KJV-Onlyist crowd.

Also not relevant, but notice any film or movie about Jesus Christ regardless of source, some include the passage in the film, and some do not, that should also tell you something.

2 hours ago, Witness said:

Did it ever occur to you that the early scribes may be have been at fault for leaving out this passage, and that God made sure it was replaced, especially for our sake in the last days?  Read it, and notice what Jesus was speaking about in the temple before the event with the adulterous woman took place. 

Apostle John never wrote the passage, nor was there any fault. This is why with the earliest of manuscript evidence we have, we can see for ourselves what is true and what isn't. This is why most who dwell on Textual Analytics, scholars, even JWs, will point out that passage alone is nowhere to be found, as is early ancient witnesses regarding such, nowhere to be found.

And no, inspired ones of God wouldn't leave anything out of God's Word, this is why anything that came afterwards was deemed spurious, unauthentic and or false, granted the Scriptures was practically completed. More reasons as to why we do not have apocryphal in the text to begin with also, such as, The Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Peter, etc.

That being said, it would not make sense at all for inspired ones to purposely leave out such, granted, that Scripture, the originals, were of inspiration vs, those that are not.

Some text talks about Jesus growing into a size of a giant, it does not mean it is true. Other speak of demons giving knowledge to mankind in a way for them to be against God to some degree, also deemed untrue. Likewise, with partial edits, if a word or phrase has nothing to do with the Strong's and or any root, it is a violation of text, one of the reasons why I brought up Acts 7:59, Luke 17:36, etc.

All in all, this is basic Textual Analytics so much so if the church fathers fought against falsehood entering the text, it is no surprise people has done the same over the centuries, to present day.

If you were in Apostle John's place, and someone added to your word long after you had pass, don't you see that has a potential problem when some would claim you said this and that? This is issue concerning John stems from John 1:1 in regards to how John conveys things.

The Locust thing was talked about years ago.

@BroRando Are you aware of the Granville Sharp rule? It is one of those things Trinitarians can weaponized to a degree to fool people.

9 hours ago, Equivocation said:

@Space Merchant I got to say, that was a wild setup to entrap  people about Bible Errors questions. This is why when I found out about missing verses, I was not all-knowing about the omitted verses when I was challenged at one time. It took my a while to learn these things and understand why those verses were not found in the NWT and some other bibles.

I did this on purpose concerning the notation of Translation Errors, and for reason.

That being said

This:

9 hours ago, Equivocation said:

Bans issued, be it temporary or permanent always have a reason behind that, and only Admins and Co-Admins know the reason. And I doubt it may have been an IP ban. If I recall, Admin is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Admin runs an forum, and anything that violates guidelines, the Admin deals with and or if someone reports it. In a situation like that you can't real defend yourself unless it is a temp ban and you can be given the opportunity to write an appeal. If Admin was a JW Elder, people like Witness and Srecko would not be here, even Space Merchant, and the other clubs would not exist.

If he is here, there won't be any problem against him if he says his name. But from what I have been reading a lot of people think you are him, I mean, @JW Insider comment was very compelling and those screenshots, even Tom and Anna were compelling in their comments, but you being John doesn't really matter. I was only reminded of the Admin deleting John's Ebonics thread, and Admin explained why the thread was closed; parts of what was said in that thread can be searched.

But like I said, it doesn't matter anymore.

From there information I posted before, @JOHN BUTLER was banned, and the culprit of the ban was @BillyTheKid46, for there was some sort of interaction between the two that got heated, which was no different from your interaction with Butler with the Ebonics rant, which can be seen a bit racist to some. It also seems John tried allegedly to come back as @John Butler-2, to what transpired resulted in Jah4me2 or something to that degree. The mannerism and the constant talk of himself in 3rd person resulted in some of us making the connection, even made a reference, so much so at times his reactions are spontaneous. keywords used can show that the two are one in the same, so when @Srecko Sostar called him out, the case just closed right then and there.

He is here again, but out of fear cannot invoke his name although it would not do anything for it is only the main account of his that took the hit. As for an appeal, he may have not known that to be a possibility within the 24 hour window of said ban.

You can always denounce someone by their mannerism, even in text form, mainly to know intent, or if they are okay or not, etc. Not related, but it is a skill learnt from Former FBI agent and body language expert Joe Navarro.

That being said, as the topic stands, as you pointed out, the pandemic has not stopped you although the Atheist thinks so. Jehovah's Witnesses are not immune to the fatigue that comes from the pandemic, what of you or anyone else? And of course, I ask for a reason, since @Witness coined Matthew 10:23.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

But of course it was ok for the Watchtower / JW org / GB to misuse the scripture at Romans 13

Quite interesting, but I believe someone has addressed how Christians are to operate in the face of superior authorities, more so, I hope you realize their is a distinction between the usage of the term. Granted the distinction and the already professed explanation of Romans 13, you'd have to do more than that to rely on such.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Then we have the Locusts. (Copied from a quote by @Witness back 2019 )

“The locusts of Joel Chapter 2 no longer refer to Jehovah's Witnesses and events surrounding 1919. The locusts in Revelation chapter 22 however still do refer to the anointed, but are now no longer connected with the prophecy on Joel. Joel 2 now refers to the "Babylonians", the coalition of nations that will try to destroy God's people. The context of Joel chapter 2 points the time period of fulfilment to Jehovah's Day in the Great Tribulation and how God will save his people.”

This was address a while back, so what is the point to bring this up now? Witness was debated on this in 2018, and in the reputation, she was confused on who the angel of the abyss was and did not connect who the locust were properly, likewise with The Destroyer, and the misuse of Greek Strong's, as shown here:

Also, references were ignored, therefore, it was amissed that  Revelation 9:7 is symbolic, thus pointing to to Joel 2:4, 5.

That being said, it is also noted Locust is used as a representation several times, figuratively.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

That is just two examples of MISUSE of scripture (or lies) from the Watchtower / JW Org / GB / Leaders.

Where is the evidence of misuse? Because you seem to even miss the context and references of the latter itself. In regards to Locust, I can easily make quotations to a few pieces of commentary. Likewise with Romans 13, and how Christians operate in this sense, which is no different from the early era of Christians.

17 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

So, if you condemn other religions for misuse of scripture, why do you not also condemn JWs ?

Emerging Faiths, not Religions. There is a difference. As was addressed omitted verses and the like have not been used by the latter.

That being said, I find it humorous that the 2 questions addressed was in relation to JWfacts, however, you allowed a JW to answer them.

This essentially proves the point of what Christians and Muslims speak of concerning Former JWs, most of them are lost, as is, misguided.

John 7:53-8:11 and Acts 7:59 were very easy, this is why I used those verses on purpose due to the fact JWfacts deem these are legitimate verses, but the evidence say otherwise.

That being said, the attempt you made with Luke 17:36, shows the lack of knowing history of Scripture. You are free to make some spontaneous reaction if you wish, but the facts still stand as tall as a skyscraper.

9 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

I'm sure you have made a Storm Trooper very happy today  but you don't seem to understand that from my viewpoint I didn't need to answer his questions.  SM was also pushing me to answer questons about homosexuality and immorality.  He was getting very domineering about it all..... Now if I had suffered from anxiety or depression i would have been very upset by SM's continuous pushing of questions. I don't think he knows how much harm he could do. But I was laughing at SM because i could not tkae him seriously. You seem to take SM very seriously. That is your choice. 

You don't need to answer them, but you attempt with, again, Luke 17:36, which tells already, and it proves my point 100%. Not all men who leave their former faiths are that knowing despite the fact they claim to be. The do not dwell on research, in so much of a way, to an extent, build their faith.

That being said, it is funny how your own weapon of choice, JWfacts, ultimately resulted on you falling on your sword. If you actually lived up to your new name, you should know that if one actual sought truth, they'd understand as to why verses are removed/changed, for what reason, as is knowing what is inspired and what is not.

@Srecko Sostar A shame. And before you spoke a lot about Bible errors committed by JWs, yet the deviation of 2 elementary questions that were Textual Analytics focused spun you around. If you want another one, there's 1 John 5:7,8. More so you brought this up in the discussion regarding women leading churches.

@Pudgy From what I am aware of the coin in question is pronounced - dowzh·koyn

@Equivocation Canada or Canadians were accused of various things, in relation to these church burnings I speak of, the debate to this concluded - Indigenous Mass Graves & Church Burnings. Although there was talk about of the burnings were intention and or by accident, or that of pedophilia, child shootings, rape, beatings taking place after being taken from their parents and systematically stripped of their culture and ideologies, in connection to the Catholic Church. The core of the debate was if there were victims and members of the church that were buried prior to the burnings, and the notation if there were actually mass graves or not - which was often brought up time and time again. That was a point focused debate whereas a lot of information needed to be checked, for in the debate themselves, opponents shift some of the information in order to not just blame the Catholic Church, but Canada as a whole.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible errors have nothing with pandemic. In sense, errors in Bible text are problem in general, not only in pandemic time.  

It does actually, if it wasn't pointed out, I would not have such known, even saying it for that matter. It even being brought  was in relation to prosperity preachers and their televangelism. When it comes to people using errors, using it as a truth from Scripture, i.e. Jehovah Warriors, The Baptists, and Black Israelites using Scripture, even false verses (as well as real ones) to preach that God sent the Coronavirus to punish sinners, and or those of sin - The whole hell to pay and ill Judgement type mantra with some of these viewpoints. This also stems to the rise of CRT - and that is a problem.

As per discussion, this is why the 2 questions were addressed when you mention errors, and even Bible errors before, which we are starting with.

That being said, Commission in regards to gospel preaching has not ceased because of the pandemic, but it does give rise to Bible errors used to justify things.