Equivocation

Yes some would say that, but it goes back to what was originally written and what came later. For there were reasons as to why some verses, passages and even some books were not added to Scripture.
SM mentioned something about a talking cross 0_o, which is new to me, and if that was in the bible, that would confuse me. It all comes down to the authorship of apostle John. The only people who defend this passage are often the kjv bible crowd, along with Triune believers.

Good evening witness, I just explained to you the reasoning behind that verse, even went as far as to paraphrase the reference. So, I am not sure how you took it as a wrong response.
That other bit is kind of irrelevant. I also do not think there is a lockdown of spiritual food.
Spiritual Israel?
Isn't it obvious?
Ok, I think you are goin waaaaaaaaay overboard there lol
Why would someone inspired like John ever be at fault when taking part in what Jehovah has given him to do? That does not make sense. It is a good passage, but if the story can't be 100% true in determination, why would anyone say that it is? There was most likely a good reason as to why it was not included, and that passage is not the only one.
The history of John 7:53-8:11 was always talked about for a very long time, this is nothing new to Jehovah's Witnesses. I mean, it would be pollution of God's Word if we were to add to it with something we cannot know for certain if it is true, as well as the fact that early on, there was a reason to omitted it. If one bible had the passage and later removed it, that should tell you something.
You haven't explained what this has to do with the omitted verses.

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

Hey evening - Not sure what does this all have to do with Greek Scriptures. Kind of focused on the Bible itself, no dramas, so I don't see why all of a sudden we have to go there. I wouldn't call it prove or not, it is more so speculation, but most people don't think it to be true.

@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.

They left it out just like the rest of those who understand textual Analytics. If The Book of John was completed, and centuries later, out of nowhere the passage was added just like that, then that is a problem, and that is what caused people to make a note as to why it was removed.
Therefore, The story of the adulterous woman was inserted into The Book of John too late to be a genuine record of Jesus’ dealings with this woman. It may be one of the most charitable stories in the entire Bible, which it looks to be just by reading it, worthy of reflection, however, and sadly, it is not a true story, and anything spurious, be it verse or passage is noted as an exaggerated story (or unauthentic). Likewise with other verses mentioned.
On the JW Library, it states the following -
The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John.
A3 - Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.
 

That does not answer the question - you are just giving somewhat of a miniature summary of the passage.
I said [Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?]
If Jesus really saved an adulterous woman as seen in John 7:53-8:11, why is it this passage came much, much later when the Book of John was essentially completed? If this passage was canon, it would not have been a later addition, and ALL Bibles would have this passage. I pointed out that nearly 267 early mss does not have those verses about the adulterous woman, so it is a spurious passage, false.
This was my comment, if you haven't read it - 
 
He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon. If it was canon, then an explanation could have been given the day the question about the passage was first mentioned.
If Apostle John, who was an inspired person, didn't write the passage, then who are we to assume, or confirm that he did when the mss is available to us?
The only people who consider it as true are those who constantly affirm that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. This passage is also in the same light as Acts 8:37, and the other verses mentioned.

What do you think of the following below, like the other passage that was discussed, these are said to be spurious or forged, be it added or removed, whatever.
Let's keep this BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY, for once this thread needs something neutral instead of the world war III stuff going on, reasons why I asked if ANYONE really changed
Simply just quote whatever verse or passage, and show your findings. If you have to interact with someone else, only use Scripture and your findings.
Consider this a Bible based activity.
Mark 16:9-20 Revelation 1:11 1 Timothy 3:16 1 John 5:7 Acts 10:48 Acts 16:7 Hebrews 1:3 Ephesians 3:9

What do you think of the following below, like the other passage that was discussed, these are said to be spurious or forged, be it added or removed, whatever.
Let's keep this BIBLE SCRIPTURE ONLY, for once this thread needs something neutral instead of the world war III stuff going on, reasons why I asked if ANYONE really changed
Simply just quote whatever verse or passage, and show your findings. If you have to interact with someone else, only use Scripture and your findings.
Consider this a Bible based activity.
Mark 16:9-20 Revelation 1:11 1 Timothy 3:16 1 John 5:7 Acts 10:48 Acts 16:7 Hebrews 1:3 Ephesians 3:9

@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.

@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)?
 

@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.

I thought that what @Patiently waiting for Truth did here was excellent. He didn't give a miniature summary of the passage, but he used other scriptures to show that the idea was very feasible.
Also, "Patiently" (calling himself 4Jah2me at the time) had already brought up the point about this being a potentially spurious passage several months ago. SM has brought it up several times.
 

They left it out just like the rest of those who understand textual Analytics. If The Book of John was completed, and centuries later, out of nowhere the passage was added just like that, then that is a problem, and that is what caused people to make a note as to why it was removed.
Therefore, The story of the adulterous woman was inserted into The Book of John too late to be a genuine record of Jesus’ dealings with this woman. It may be one of the most charitable stories in the entire Bible, which it looks to be just by reading it, worthy of reflection, however, and sadly, it is not a true story, and anything spurious, be it verse or passage is noted as an exaggerated story (or unauthentic). Likewise with other verses mentioned.
On the JW Library, it states the following -
The earliest authoritative manuscripts do not have the passage from Joh 7:53 to 8:11. These 12 verses were obviously added to the original text of John’s Gospel. (See App. A3.) They are not found in the two earliest available papyri containing the Gospel of John, Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), both from the second century C.E., nor are they found in the Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century C.E. They first appear in a Greek manuscript from the fifth century (Codex Bezae) but are not found in any other Greek manuscripts until the ninth century C.E. They are omitted by most of the early translations into other languages. One group of Greek manuscripts places the added words at the end of John’s Gospel; another group puts them after Lu 21:38. That this portion appears at different places in different manuscripts supports the conclusion that it is a spurious text. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that these verses were not part of the original text of John.
A3 - Greek Text: In the late 19th century, scholars B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort compared existing Bible manuscripts and fragments as they prepared the Greek master text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. In the mid-20th century, the New World Bible Translation Committee used that master text as the basis for its translation. Other early papyri, thought to date back to the second and third centuries C.E., were also used. Since then, more papyri have become available. In addition, master texts such as those by Nestle and Aland and by the United Bible Societies reflect recent scholarly studies. Some of the findings of this research were incorporated into this present revision.
 

That does not answer the question - you are just giving somewhat of a miniature summary of the passage.
I said [Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?]
If Jesus really saved an adulterous woman as seen in John 7:53-8:11, why is it this passage came much, much later when the Book of John was essentially completed? If this passage was canon, it would not have been a later addition, and ALL Bibles would have this passage. I pointed out that nearly 267 early mss does not have those verses about the adulterous woman, so it is a spurious passage, false.
This was my comment, if you haven't read it - 
 
He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon. If it was canon, then an explanation could have been given the day the question about the passage was first mentioned.
If Apostle John, who was an inspired person, didn't write the passage, then who are we to assume, or confirm that he did when the mss is available to us?
The only people who consider it as true are those who constantly affirm that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. This passage is also in the same light as Acts 8:37, and the other verses mentioned.

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.
@Pudgy To a degree, it can be a waste of time depending on the person, but there are people who will listen. Believe it or not, some people out there can conquer this imperfections and be a follower of Jehovah God and Christ. I can't read French, but someone translated it already.
The article is a little bit pushing for acceptance of same sex marriage. The bible makes it clear marriage should be between a man and a woman.

That does not answer the question - you are just giving somewhat of a miniature summary of the passage.
I said [Anyways, my question to you see, do you believe Jesus really saved an adulterous woman, even though it was never recorded in the earliest available mss sources we have come to know?]
If Jesus really saved an adulterous woman as seen in John 7:53-8:11, why is it this passage came much, much later when the Book of John was essentially completed? If this passage was canon, it would not have been a later addition, and ALL Bibles would have this passage. I pointed out that nearly 267 early mss does not have those verses about the adulterous woman, so it is a spurious passage, false.
This was my comment, if you haven't read it - 
 
He didn't save an adulterous woman because the passage was never canon. If it was canon, then an explanation could have been given the day the question about the passage was first mentioned.
If Apostle John, who was an inspired person, didn't write the passage, then who are we to assume, or confirm that he did when the mss is available to us?
The only people who consider it as true are those who constantly affirm that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. This passage is also in the same light as Acts 8:37, and the other verses mentioned.

Yes, we all do - and that is both well and good. But like I said, Splane did have a point there, if understood. It is not only on listening to or speaking about false rumors, but on how damaging it can be to someone directly or indirectly, which can commit to harm and or injury, even death; for a recent tragic situation, a simple glitch in a system resulted in a death last year. It can also lead to problematic association and division.
But Srecko, I've asked what you have done so far about child sex abuse?
I'm not saying this to be rude, I am saying it because like some of us here you talk about it most (in various media, not just here) when it comes to this taking place with the JWs, so it is only right to address that question to you, since you mentioned CSA to @Thinking. and to be honest, I was expecting some insight threads on the matter coming back, there was only one and that was some years ago, and the usual continuous talk of CSA, WT, GB show that happens to pop up spontaneously in random threads - like this one.
You really don't have to read the below, it is only there if you have time to spare, it doesn't really bother me.
I can give you an example of what I've been doing.
Don't know if you know this but we do have Watchtower articles about child sex abuse and what a parent and or guardian should do to protect their children [note - ircc something similar, even mentioned here  about ARC, of the sort was but rarely talked about on the internet]. Not only it is advise to read and take in whatever information that is helpful, but we discuss about it whenever we get the chance. Not all Jehovah's Witnesses are oblivious to child sex abuse, and or the topic of immortality, for, all of us know, you, me and everyone here, man is imperfect and because of that there is sin. Even outside of the meetings, I talk about this in college, and yes, people are aware of child sex abuse, but they think with enough logic on what to do before it happens and what to do after it does, mainly when it comes to raising the issue - the subject of child sex abuse itself in general. Believe it or not, everyone takes a different action, sometimes bad ones, especially if they are not well versed in child sex abuse and prevention. But when you know how to deal with the problem, there is benefit. Also Justice is also isn't always clean, but that is a discussion for another day.
Last month, we had some students the Rutgers campus, who joined up in my class and she made things, pulling from my notepad:
So all in all, doing something actually reaps it's rewards, and it is a benefit, be it to the congregation, or outside of it. What some ExJWs do not realize is some people out there know these problems and will take the right action, they are not like the majority of people who do not know what to do - and these people may learn a thing or two if they are aware and someone to teach them or direct them to applying something beneficial, even for younger kids.
You might not like the fact that I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for I remember when I was a high schooler, I had a few spats with you because of our first interaction. But now, I think and do things with logic, and understanding, positive decision making and had apply these things.
Had to make this known, mainly from experiences and what I've learned and what I continue to do. You don't fit to do these things, we really can't do much because of the pandemic, but we, even you have a foot on some platforms. Things can be done.

I think it is pretty obvious, that around the world, different towns, cities, etc. there will be some minor instances of persecution, mainly from people who holds aggression when it comes to the Bible. For example, if we are preaching in a small town in Florida, in that small town we may face persecution, but at the same time, in that town, there are those wanting to know, even learn about the good news.
So Jesus was very clear in his words, in fact, we even see similar examples that we can learn from from our early Christian counterparts.
Jesus already knows what the future holds. The very reason why he said what he said to the apostles, which we can learn from today. Jesus is indicating that his disciples will not complete the preaching about God’s Kingdom before the glorified King Jesus Christ arrives as God’s judge. So we have a long way to go.
So as followers of his, we are to carry out this work.

@Srecko Sostar I see why he asked you both those questions, it was based on not why us Jehovah's Witnesses use a translation that omits the verses in question, but rather, to make a distinction between people who knows about what is in the inspired text and what is not in the inspired text. So, since both you and @Patiently waiting for Truth are former Jehovah's Witnesses, even Witness - those were got ‘cha questions, this is why I said to @Patiently waiting for Truth he technically entrapped you both into Textual questions.
Space Merchant said -
NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses were spoken of as committing various errors because of their New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, and they teach that their action on this was because the errors were considered not inspired, hence 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God). Not only they were spoken of as removing part of verses, but in their translation, removing a verse/passage entirely.
The answer to that note is: Those who consider later additions in the Scriptures, the majority, to be true, but in reality, to a degree they’re in error/incorrect. This accusation is prominently from Triune Believers, Preachers, and of course, Property Preachers since they were mentioned here. Those images, which he said, he pulled from the apostate website known as JWfacts concerning the NWT. The only reason the NWT is talked down by them is because it was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, reasons why the JWFacts images compare other translations to give the reader an idea, in their eyes, why Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. In reality, most people we come into contact who knows the history about the Bible, are aware about omitted verses and understand as to why we didn’t include the verse in the NWT.
His first question - 
The answer to that is that we are not in the wrong, same with the majority. He said "Textual Analytics” and “Hermeneutics” so that plays a part in the questions asked and gives one an idea as to what he is attempting to do by asking you.
John 7:53-8:11 isn’t inspired text - The Adulterous Woman (Pericope de Adultera) - John7:53–8:11 isn't Bible Canon/ is unauthentic, making it, viewed by most, as spurious and false; an exaggerated story. From what I’ve gathered, there are 267 Greek manuscripts, which are the earliest versions, and are considered the most important by Textual Analysts and or those who follow and are well-versed in Textual Criticism, would point out that none of those 267 contain this passage about the Adulterous Woman. Newer Bible translations that were compiled, and wrote after the more ancient manuscripts were discovered, either omit/remove the passage or add a note or reference along with the passage, stating it was not found in the more ancient manuscripts.
Like this passage, this is the same case for Mark 15:28 and Luke 17:36. Verses, such as Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Luke 17:36 are missing in the NWT used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. These verses are, as pointed out, not in the Common Bible. The reason is because these verses do not belong in the Bible even though many older translations included them. The original manuscripts of the “New Testament” books (the Christian Greek Scriptures) are not available today for use by translators. No one has discovered a Bible book autographed, as it were, by the apostles Paul, John, or others. Yet it is evident that soon after the originals were written, copies began to be made for use by the early Christians. The later copies, those farthest from the originals, tended to have more mistakes, not to mention the weak evidence regarding these types of verses - which brings us to the verses in question.
@Patiently waiting for Truth It is only strange at face value, but if you paid attention as to why he even brought up Textual Analytics, the answer would have been obvious, even if the parts were taken from another book to be “added” elsewhere, it is uninspired.
Same thing with Revelation 1:11, which it was “changed” to make it seem as though Jesus Christ is God, in the NWT and some Bibles, you see the original compared to the changed verse, the image displays that perfectly.
Space Merchant’s 2nd question is
Also, they were spoken of as in error for verses like Acts 7:59, 60 and the verses in Matthew, it was even addressed here - [2] Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses make this change to the 2 verses?
The answer to that is there wasn’t much of a change, like the first question. The argument was pushed by those who believe Jesus is God and since those images are from former Jehovah’s Witnesses, it looks as though they share that same view because of the word “God” which was added to the verse. The fact it is nowhere to be found in the NWT, resulted in the heavy criticism from Triune believers and ExJWs.
Those 2 questions were relatively easy. Seeing that no one was going to answer that, I just decided to say something. I guess you can say I did a solid for both of you.

@Srecko Sostar I see why he asked you both those questions, it was based on not why us Jehovah's Witnesses use a translation that omits the verses in question, but rather, to make a distinction between people who knows about what is in the inspired text and what is not in the inspired text. So, since both you and @Patiently waiting for Truth are former Jehovah's Witnesses, even Witness - those were got ‘cha questions, this is why I said to @Patiently waiting for Truth he technically entrapped you both into Textual questions.
Space Merchant said -
NOTE: Jehovah's Witnesses were spoken of as committing various errors because of their New World Translation (NWT) of the Bible, and they teach that their action on this was because the errors were considered not inspired, hence 2 Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God). Not only they were spoken of as removing part of verses, but in their translation, removing a verse/passage entirely.
The answer to that note is: Those who consider later additions in the Scriptures, the majority, to be true, but in reality, to a degree they’re in error/incorrect. This accusation is prominently from Triune Believers, Preachers, and of course, Property Preachers since they were mentioned here. Those images, which he said, he pulled from the apostate website known as JWfacts concerning the NWT. The only reason the NWT is talked down by them is because it was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, reasons why the JWFacts images compare other translations to give the reader an idea, in their eyes, why Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong. In reality, most people we come into contact who knows the history about the Bible, are aware about omitted verses and understand as to why we didn’t include the verse in the NWT.
His first question - 
The answer to that is that we are not in the wrong, same with the majority. He said "Textual Analytics” and “Hermeneutics” so that plays a part in the questions asked and gives one an idea as to what he is attempting to do by asking you.
John 7:53-8:11 isn’t inspired text - The Adulterous Woman (Pericope de Adultera) - John7:53–8:11 isn't Bible Canon/ is unauthentic, making it, viewed by most, as spurious and false; an exaggerated story. From what I’ve gathered, there are 267 Greek manuscripts, which are the earliest versions, and are considered the most important by Textual Analysts and or those who follow and are well-versed in Textual Criticism, would point out that none of those 267 contain this passage about the Adulterous Woman. Newer Bible translations that were compiled, and wrote after the more ancient manuscripts were discovered, either omit/remove the passage or add a note or reference along with the passage, stating it was not found in the more ancient manuscripts.
Like this passage, this is the same case for Mark 15:28 and Luke 17:36. Verses, such as Matthew 18:11; 23:14; Luke 17:36 are missing in the NWT used by Jehovah’s Witnesses. These verses are, as pointed out, not in the Common Bible. The reason is because these verses do not belong in the Bible even though many older translations included them. The original manuscripts of the “New Testament” books (the Christian Greek Scriptures) are not available today for use by translators. No one has discovered a Bible book autographed, as it were, by the apostles Paul, John, or others. Yet it is evident that soon after the originals were written, copies began to be made for use by the early Christians. The later copies, those farthest from the originals, tended to have more mistakes, not to mention the weak evidence regarding these types of verses - which brings us to the verses in question.
@Patiently waiting for Truth It is only strange at face value, but if you paid attention as to why he even brought up Textual Analytics, the answer would have been obvious, even if the parts were taken from another book to be “added” elsewhere, it is uninspired.
Same thing with Revelation 1:11, which it was “changed” to make it seem as though Jesus Christ is God, in the NWT and some Bibles, you see the original compared to the changed verse, the image displays that perfectly.
Space Merchant’s 2nd question is
Also, they were spoken of as in error for verses like Acts 7:59, 60 and the verses in Matthew, it was even addressed here - [2] Why did the Jehovah's Witnesses make this change to the 2 verses?
The answer to that is there wasn’t much of a change, like the first question. The argument was pushed by those who believe Jesus is God and since those images are from former Jehovah’s Witnesses, it looks as though they share that same view because of the word “God” which was added to the verse. The fact it is nowhere to be found in the NWT, resulted in the heavy criticism from Triune believers and ExJWs.
Those 2 questions were relatively easy. Seeing that no one was going to answer that, I just decided to say something. I guess you can say I did a solid for both of you.

Well you did respond to it with Luke 17:36. I read the one about homosexuality, he challenged you on Romans 12:9 "cling to what is good/abhor what is bad" since you took his comment out of context to Tom he trapped you with the obvious homosexuality question. I notice if someone takes something out of context, he enables the other person to push the point, so I can see how he got you. His point to Tom was people who often are in apostasy will do bad things.
There are some points to his comments if you really read them, it isn't choice, often times he is right, mainly when lines people up into their own understanding uses it to his advantage.
So to what he said to Tom, Christians need to cling to what is good, and not what is bad.
But you were confused on superior authority, you said to look at what you quoted and I did. I still don't see what was taken out of context from the images. And I don't see the misuse of Scripture for Romans 13.
Telling people although worldly authority are superior and that God is superior isn't taking control or confusing people in the congregation. As to what I made comment to, we understand there are people of authority in the world, and there is Jehovah and Jesus who has authority as well.
 
Nah, you're good, nothing to be sorry about, you can add on anything at anytime.

@Srecko Sostar @Patiently waiting for Truth I figured this might help you out a little. It isn't much, but you can start from there - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_verses_not_included_in_modern_English_translations
@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.

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.

I think it is pretty obvious, that around the world, different towns, cities, etc. there will be some minor instances of persecution, mainly from people who holds aggression when it comes to the Bible. For example, if we are preaching in a small town in Florida, in that small town we may face persecution, but at the same time, in that town, there are those wanting to know, even learn about the good news.
So Jesus was very clear in his words, in fact, we even see similar examples that we can learn from from our early Christian counterparts.
Jesus already knows what the future holds. The very reason why he said what he said to the apostles, which we can learn from today. Jesus is indicating that his disciples will not complete the preaching about God’s Kingdom before the glorified King Jesus Christ arrives as God’s judge. So we have a long way to go.
So as followers of his, we are to carry out this work.