Woman Taken in Adultery

Most Bible translations indicate that there are textual issues with John 7:53-8:11, which is the story of the woman caught in adultery who was brought to Jesus for judgment.  Some are suggesting that this passage should not just be noted to have difficulty but removed from the text entirely.

What are the difficulties with this text and when should textual questions lead to the actual removal of a phrase or passage from the Bible?

Father, Forgive Them

The Conservative Bible Project claims that Jesus' famous line from the cross "Father forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" (in Luke 23:34) is a later addition and should not be included in a true translation of the Bible.  Is that true?

Where is the real Antioch?

It is commonly assumed that the Antioch referred to in Acts and Galatians is Syrian Antioch.  However, Ignatius in the undisputed epistles from the early 2nd century always makes a point of emphasizing that he was from Syria.  The epistles where he mentions Antioch always include the modifer of "in Syria".  Eusebius does not offer a listing of Syrian Antioch bishops going back as far as he does for some other communities.  Now there is ample evidence suggesting that events that are recorded as occurring in Antioch closely parallel events occurring in portions of western Parthian Empire.  No

How should we pray?

How many times are we required to pray daily, besides our morning prayers ("after waking up") and before going to bed?

What should everyone know?

People have greatly varying levels of familiarity with the Bible. Some know nothing, some know a lot, some think they know things that are not biblical at all and others attribute biblical quotes, stories, and ideas to other erroneous sources.

If there was one piece of biblical understanding that you could share with the world, what would it be?

Translation question for Matt. 9:2--the paralyzed man brought to Jesus

My question concerns the NRSV and Matthew 9:2.  In the Greek and in the other English editions that I consulted, the words "to him" are included.  This makes clear that the companions of the paralyzed man are bringing him to Jesus in the hopes of a miracle.  This then makes sense of what follows when Jesus credits their action as based on faith.  However, the NRSV omits the "to him" and seems to go out of its way to make it sound as if the encounter between Jesus and the paralyzed man was mere happenstance.  This makes the claim of faith that follows inappropriate.  I was wondering why the

Translation issues in Job 13:15

Job 13:15 in the KJV reads:  "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."  The same verse in the NRSV reads: "See, he will kill me; I have no hope."  The sentiment of the first is the polar opposite of the second.  Which is the better translation?




Massachusetts Bible Society Logo

Exploring the Bible Logo