I mean dude are you serious? I gave you two clear examples of where the Bible has been changed and believe me I can give a lot more. It's one thing to have faith but it's quite another to blindly accept as gospel what a translator has to say about a given topic. There are so many embellishments in modern English versions of the Bible that reading it that way is almost impossible to grasp. Read it in Greek, read it in Aramaic, read it in Hebrew...you will read a VERY different book than what is written in English.
Actually, you didn't give any examples of the Bible being changed because the Bible didn't exist until after those changes were made, and modern scholarship has pointed out the discrepancies to the earliest manuscripts.
That said, I find it interesting that you declare that John 8 was definitively not part of the Bible when there is actual evidence for the story in other writings, and that there are at least two versions of the story that survive in various manuscripts. Perhaps you just like to think you understand what you are talking about, and don't actually research all the evidence, you just find the stuff that supports your bias and ignore the contradictory evidence because it is easier than actually thinking.
uh huh.
"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it."
"At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places. Most copyists apparently thought that it would interrupt John's narrative least if it were inserted after 7.52 (D E F G H K M U G P 28 700 892 al). Others placed it after 7.36 (ms. 225) or after 7.44 (several Georgian mss.) or after 21.25 (1 565 1076 1570 1582 armmss) or after Luke 21.38 (f13). Significantly enough, in many of the witnesses which contain the passage it is marked with asterisks or obeli, indicating that, though the scribes included the account, they were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials."
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 219-221.
The Story of the Adulteress
"Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).
"The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."
And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage."
Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility? - Christianity Stack Exchange
In the story in the gospel of John, Jesus with the adulterous woman was
not found in the most reliable sources such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus...The problem is that it is the three which do not include John
8:1-11 are the earliest and most reliable."
The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8) is not in the Codex Sinaiticus. How does this relate to biblical infallability? | Evidence for Christianity
(yawn)
So we have Ron Wyatt and James Snapp. Anyone else you want to roll out? How about Howard the Duck?
Whatever.
