Dmitar

I really don't know why you expect people to jump at your command.  I gave you a link to a comprehensive article.  I have given my opinion on the scriptures.  You have given yours.  If that is not good enough, nothing will be good enough for you - a man who demands obedience to his rules.  Sheesh, SM, this is a forum of opinions, thoughts and feelings, and facts.  Whatever you contribute, I'm fine with it, but don't expect me to follow your lead!
 

It appears you removed part of your comment... never mind.  I found it in another comment - 
"There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not."
  Well, it is true that the Wt. cannot tolerate these "spurious" scriptures because they would diminish the power of disfellowshipping.  
Jesus knew the heart of each person that he met.  He could read the heart of the woman "who led a sinful life" in Luke 7:36-50, and he forgave her.  (Matt 12:25; Luke 6:8; John 2:25)  It is impossible for your leaders to accept the passage of "mercy" in John 7-8 as @Pudgy called it, because there was no visible evidence of remorse over the woman's sins.  Elders, as you well know, cannot read a person's heart.  So they judge in error, many times destroying the lives of the person they have judged.  Jesus could never judge a person's heart in error.   Not only have JWs checked the hand of God in HIs ability to bring this passage to light,  but also is the hand of Jesus Christ.  JWs find it impossible for Jesus to forgive the woman so easily in the account. 
"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."   Rom 13:10
"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'”  Gal 5:14
"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."  James 2:8
This "law" was set up by God of the "Old Testament".  Yet, the Wt "law" that is set up through the hands of "Jehovah's organization", does not react with love.  It reacts through the power of men over others.  It reacts through selfish desires.  
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."  Col 1:15  This means that even the God of the "Old Testament" would have forgiven and saved the woman from death, at the hands of the lying Pharisees. 
 
 

That is a good statement for JWs to ruminate on...considering all the failed dates for Armageddon, "this generation" teaching, many other doctrinal failures; and the concept of an earthly organization as the way to salvation.   

@Jack Ryan I'm sorry we've all stolen your topic and drastically changed it's direction. 
I get disappointed when it happens to my topics. 
There are no JWs or 'carts' around my area of England, and I haven't had a letter through my door.  
None of my local neighbours have mentioned letters either, but some nearby towns are complaining about them. 

Faith is when you believe something that has some overall evidence but not enough to prove it with a reason and logic, or perhaps even textual dating.
I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be.
I believe the scripture is true, even though it may well not be. 
 
either way, I’m not up and out on much of a limb.
I would much rather err on the side of Mercy, than err  on the side of the Pharisees ….. and THAT is where the rubber meets the road !

So here we see why WItness defends the passage, despite flimsy evidence for it being genuine and strong evidence for it being spurious. She does it to undermine the provision of disfellowshipping.
There is plenty of reason to not believe it. Though Jesus forgives sin frequently in scripture, there is always some evidence of repentance on the sinning one’s part. There is some basis for forgiveness. Here there is not.
All that is lacking in the spurious passage is for Jesus to say at the end: “Boy, I can’t believe what a nasty bully my dad is!” 

@Srecko Sostar That is a really great explanation and yes, it proves the dangers of that type of 'teaching'.
We know that people like to have their ears 'tickled', and it seems the GB have found a way of tickling people's ears.
In fact it seems a very dangerous way forward. The idea of moving away from God's written word. Replacing God's word with play acting. We know that the GB speak falsely when they give talks. How much more will these plays be false. 

Hi again. An example that compares JW’s dramatization of biblical text with “original biblical text” from generally accepted manuscripts (or ... text available as biblical, to be more precise in words) is an indication of how certain past events can be used in a way that "enrich" existing biblical text with a broader account/description of what allegedly happened, and these are words and actions, for which there is no evidence that it really happened. But in the minds and feelings of observers at the JW Congress this will leave an impression given and foreseen by the writer of the modern conversation attributed to characters from the past.
Consequently, the so-called official biblical text of the book itself (with or without certain parts in dispute) gets a new sound. It gets an addition in the form of words spoken by a JW actor that do not exist in the Bible. But after listening to the “biblical drama” these fictional words slowly become an integral part of the beliefs and doctrinal guidance of believers as if they were indeed uttered thousands of years ago and as if they were truly the word of God.
A virtual, "new Greek Scriptures” is being created in the memory of believers, because it will become an interpretation, a description, a picture of events from the past that should become an example of how to live today, because that is how faithful people in the past allegedly spoke and acted. That's the connection.

Yes, you are right. Also, many or most people don't think WTJWorg and JW people are the only true religion.   

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!

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.

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.
 

I agree with the above logic and reasoning, and because it answers the question “why?”.
Yeah. 

For anyone interested, here is a very fair, well written article about its possible position in the scriptures, including lists of early manuscripts that included it.
https://www.notjustanotherbook.com/disputedjohn.htm
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."

You have a lovely culture..never lose that respect it has taught you..not sure where you are from..I’ve been to South America ..and a few other places around…and when returning to Australia ..it saddened me…to have to admit ..our culture had lost what you speak of……I wonder if we ever had it in the first place…it taught me a great lesson.

@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)?
 

Are you inspired to know this?
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?
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
 
 

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. 
 

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. 
"On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them."  John 7:37,38
At dawn of the very next day, he was teaching in the temple courts. The Pharisees brought in the woman, attempting to trap him with their questions. Notice, Jesus bent over and wrote in the dust. (John 8:6) We have a reference of another writing in the dust, and the connection to "living water".  
"Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
    all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
    because they have forsaken the Lord,
    the spring of living water."  Jer 17:13
The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the source of living water.  They preferred the "yeast of the Pharisees".  (Matt 16:11,12)  Today, the same is happening in your organization.  "Living water" in Jesus Christ is polluted by doctrines of men.  (2 Thess 9:9-12; Heb 12:15; Rev 8:10,11)  Judgment is made against individuals by your laws in a book compiled by men.  Do they dare cast the first stone, these men who have trampled down the Temple of God, assuming God has assigned them to shepherd the people above and beyond His priesthood?  (Mark 13:14) (Mal 2:7; 1 Cor 6:1,2)
Do you prefer the "yeast' of the GB over the living water in Jesus Christ?
 

I don't think you are clearly seeing what Jesus is saying in Matt 10:23.   
I’m sure you agree that “good news of the Kingdom” has been spread throughout the earth since the early apostles’ day.  But Jesus is telling his future anointed disciples about a direct preaching work to the “towns of Israel” – to the Israel of God.   This message cannot reach all before the return of Christ, because of resistance against it.  There is a lockdown of the flow of spiritual food.  There is a warning given by your leaders that any message that comes from outside the organization, is false. Listening to such a message can result in one's condemnation contrived by men.  Dan 11:36; Rev 13:5-7; 11:1,2   Rev 13:15-17
Who is “Israel” today?  Rom 9:6-8; Gal 4:26,28;1 Pet 2:5,9,10; Gal 6:15,16; Heb 8:10; Rev 7:4
Why do they receive the message?  Matt 24:9-12, 15,16,23-24; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Tim 4:1,2; 2 Thess 2:1-4;9-12; Rev 13:5-7,18; 16:13-16; 20:7-9  (Rev 17:1,2,5,6,18;18:3-8)
Why are those of Christ’s disciples who are preaching this “good news”, persecuted for their message they bring to the “towns of Israel”?  Matt 10:16-23,39; John 15:20; Matt 24:48-51; John 16:2; Heb 13:12-14; Rev 13:1,2,11,12,15; 11:1-3,7
God’s Temple in the anointed ones - those “living stones” and dwelling of God’s spirit – has been trampled by your elder body/Beast/organization at the direction of false teachers/prophets.  The anointed have allowed “foreigners” to “enter” God’s sanctuary.  This is why “Israel” receives the “good news” of the restoration of “Jacob”/Israel  in the last days.  Ezek 44:6-9,10,12,15; 20:30,31; Num.18:7; Mal 3:1-5; 4:5,6; Matt 17:11; Rev 11:1-3 (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Rom 15:16; Eph 2:20-22) (Isa 43:1,10-12; 48:20; Rev 18:4)
 
Has God ever condoned the replacement of His royal priesthood as your GB has?  Is there anywhere in the scriptures that tells us a “Gentile” can “represent the royal priesthood”?  2 Chron 13:9  This is a choice every JW must make, to either listen carefully to the word of God, or choose to listen to the words of men.   Isa 2:17,22; Joel 3:14
 
Daniel Chapter 11:31-45

 
 
 

My point was that Jesus could have done so. I never said Jesus did so in that scripture. 
But i see you are treating this all as a game. Trying to score points for SM.  So be it. 
Yes this forum is probably a game, but serving God through Christ is not a game.