A. Although most early manuscripts don’t contain John 7:53-8:11 (the Woman Caught In Adultery) the consensus, even among the most vocal critics of it’s placement in John,  has always been that it’s an historically authentic account from the life of Jesus that was included in a number of other reliable contemporary non-Biblical texts. The real question is not whether it belongs in the Bible, but whether it belongs in John’s gospel. Since later manuscripts show it in John, it’s been left there, with some translations carrying the notation you cited. The most popular alternative placement is after Luke 21:38.

As for why it was left out of most early manuscripts, there is no reliable explanation.

A. Only Matthew and Luke recorded the events of the Lord’s birth.  Three rulers whose terms of office are recorded in history help us pin down the approximate date.  King Herod (the Great) reigned in Judea from 37 BC until his death in 4 BC.  Then his son Archelaus took over and reigned from 4 BC- 6 AD.  Quirinius was the governor of Syria and held office for two terms, 6-4 BC and 6-9 AD.  (Caesar Augustus reigned in Rome from 31 BC to 14 AD, from well before the birth to well afterward.)

According to Luke 2:2 Quirinius ordered the census that took Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem.  Matt. 2:1-2 tells of the Magi arriving and asking Herod about the Lord’s birth.  An angel warned Joseph to take his family and flee to Egypt because Herod wanted to kill the baby.  (Matt. 2:13) Since Herod died in 4 BC and in his first term Quirinius was only governor between 6-4 BC that’s the maximum window of time in which the Lord could have been born.  Luke 2:22 says that when Joseph brought his family back from Egypt, he heard that Herod’s son Archelaus was reigning. That confirms the census had to have occurred during Quirinius’ first term, and that Herod the Great was King at the time of His birth.

No one knows how long after the Lord’s birth the Magi arrived or how long the family was in Egypt.  But both gospels agree that Jesus had to have been born in Bethlehem, visited by the Magi, and taken to Egypt, all in the period between 6 and 4 BC.

My friend points out that there is a minor problem with what Paul says in those verses.  1 Cor. 15:5 says, ” And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve”  My friend had this to say, ” There were only 11 disciples at the time.  Judas was dead and his replacement, Matthias, had not been chosen until after the ascension (Acts 1:9-26).  That there were only 11 disciples is clearly mentioned in the synoptics.  If Paul truly had the gospels available to him before writing 1 Corinthians, then why would he make such an obvious mistake?”

A. There is reasonable doubt as to whether any of the Gospels were in circulation before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.  Matthew might have been written as early as 1 Corinthians (55AD) but Mark (55-60), Luke (59-63) and John (85) came out later. Therefore the scriptures Paul was referring to in 1 Cor. 15:3 have to be Old Testament prophecies of the Lord’s death and Resurrection.  And remember, Paul didn’t have to depend on the written Gospels to get his story straight.  He was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The person who denies the existence of Jesus has chosen to do so in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary from both historical and religious sources.  He does this because he doesn’t want to be accountable for his behavior and thinks he can escape by denying the existence of his judge.  He can not be influenced by logical debate because his position is an emotional one.

Think about it.  Any one who would bet his eternal destiny on such a flimsy piece of “evidence” as Paul’s reference to “the 12″ is really grasping.  Most scholars conclude that the phrase “the 12″ is simply a euphemism for the original disciples, because by the end of the Lord’s ministry there were many more than 12 disciples.  Didn’t He send out 72 in Luke 10?  And yet the first ones were often called “the 12″ to distinguish them from the others.  Do a word search on “the 12″ and you’ll find a dozen or so references to the original disciples. Among them is John 20:24.   It also contains a reference to “the 12″ that took place after Judas died and before Matthias was chosen.

A. Excellent question.  Since all prophecy will have been fulfilled, I see the Bible in the Millennium as a book of history, documenting God’s unbroken record of proving He is who He claims to be.

Isaiah 46:9-10 says:

Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other;  I am God, and there is none like me.

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.  I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

A. There are a half dozen or so places in the New Testament where ancient manuscripts differ.  Normally scholars give greater credibility to older manuscripts on the assumption that they’re closer to the originals, and use foot notes to indicate the discrepancy.  But there isn’t any case where an “added” verse creates a material change in the meaning of the text.

It’s important to note that New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings. There are 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament, thousands more than for any other ancient text. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the internal consistency of New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.

Recently you said that Adam was created about 4000 BC, which means man has been on earth about 6000 years. How, then, do you explain the scientists who claim skeletons of cave men are millions of years old? Just today I read an article that said archaeologists have discovered a water well in Cyprus that is 10,500 years old, by radiocarbon dating. At the bottom of the well was found the skeleton of a woman, that could be as old as the well.  Is the radiocarbon dating the scientists use flawed? How do you explain this?

A. First of all, remember that it’s not God’s responsibility to validate science, but good science will always confirm the Bible.

In using radio carbon dating, three assumptions have to be made. First, we have to assume that the rate of carbon-14 decay has has always been constant.  Then we have to assume that we know what the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 was in the environment in which the specimen being dated lived.  And finally, we have to assume that there hasn’t been any contamination in the specimen itself.

Legitimate scientific research has called the first two assumptions into question.  By definition science requires observation.  We can’t be certain that the rate of decay was the same in the unobservable past as it is today, and we can’t always know for sure that the ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 14 is accurate.  So the older a specimen is, the less accurate the measure.

God is the only one who observed the creation and he told us when it happened.  Claiming to know more than God does about an event only He observed is an indication of man’s arrogance.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe in God and his son Jesus and what he did on the cross, however, this gives me an uneasy feeling.  The Bible is supposed to be inspired by God and yet there are verses placed in that were not in the original transcripts to begin with. So, where did they come from?  How did they get there?  Why was this allowed?

A. Here’s the issue as I see it.  There’s some good circumstantial evidence that Mark 16:9-20 was not originally part of the Gospel of Mark.  The same can be said of John 7:53-8:11 (which some scholars say should really be at the end of Luke 21).  But that’s not the same as saying these passages don’t belong in the Bible.

The main arguments against Mark 16:9-20 are related to vocabulary and writing style.  While some of the theological content is different from the rest of Mark’s gospel, it isn’t incompatible with either orthodox beliefs or the other Gospels.  Mark 16:9-20 first appeared early in the 2nd Century and seems for the most part to be a compilation of verses from Matt. 28, Luke 24 and John 20.  The intent was to give Mark a proper ending since without these verses it appears unfinished.

A. I don’t believe He did.  I believe that man’s sin contaminated mind causes him to take things out of context and twist God’s Word to justify his own pre-conceived notions.  God is not the author of confusion.  Whenever there’s a contradiction between God’s word and man’s opinion, the problem always lies with man. That’s why Paul told the Bereans not to believe him but to study the Scriptures to see if they confirmed what he was telling them (Acts 17:11).  It’s also why James told us to pray for wisdom about Spiritual things. (James 1:5)  We shouldn’t take anything anyone tells us at face value, but study and pray for understanding.

By the way, that goes for everything I say, too.  I include so many Bible references in my studies to make it easier for people to check me out and come to their own conclusions.

Romans 8:1 in the KJV says “there is no condemnation…for those who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”.

The NIV leaves out, although there is a footnote, “that walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”.  There are other places where the NIV leaves out portions of scripture but has a similar footnote.  some claim this is a good reason to avoid the NIV.

I like the NIV and read it frequently, and will continue to do so.  But why did the translators publish the NIV this way?  is it unethical, or intellectually dishonest?

A. The NIV’s footnote on Romans 8:1 explains that the phrase “that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” is only found in some later Greek manuscripts. That means the earliest ones, that are generally considered to be more reliable, did not contain it. It’s really a moot point since the phrase can be found a couple of sentences later in Romans 8:4.

Where there is doubt about a passage, the NIV translators usually went with the earliest manuscript and put the alternate translation in a foot note so you could see both. There is nothing unethical or intellectually wrong with presenting it this way.

Question: is it a good study Bible or is it more for cocktail party conversation and “ooooh’s and aaaaahhhh’s” ?

A. The Geneva Bible first appeared in 1560.  It was one of the earliest English translations, and was the primary Bible of the Protestant movement in the 16th Century.  (The King James came along 51 years later and is very similar.)   If you had  one of the original copies, that would be something special, but a modern copy is just a good conversation starter and contains nothing that would commend it over any other legitimate translation.