Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-08T23:20:41Z

Devotchka: /* A reason to "conserve" the story */

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adultress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adultress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
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.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adultress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adultress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I didn't advance any argument - I asked for clarification. I'll try again: you're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Ah, so now you're going to try logical sophistry. "Parts that clearly aren't" in the Bible are not part of the Bible. Can you follow that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Yes. Just like I can follow "Cities that clearly aren't" in America are not part of America. Are you going to answer my question or not? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're funny Jack. I really chuckled at this one. You win the "[[Parthian Shot]] of the Month"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Treaty of Paris (1783)

2008-04-08T23:13:25Z

Devotchka: fmt

The [[American Revolution]] (1775-83) was actually a world conflict, involving not only the [[United States]] and [[Great Britain]] but also [[France]], [[Spain]], and the [[Netherlands]]. The peace process brought a vaguely formed, newly born United States into the arena of international diplomacy, playing against the largest, most sophisticated, and most established powers on earth.

The three American negotiators, [[John Adams]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], and [[John Jay]], proved themselves to be masters of the game, outmaneuvering their counterparts and clinging fiercely to the points of national interest that guaranteed a future for the United States. Two crucial provisions of the treaty were British recognition of U.S. independence and the delineation of boundaries that would allow for American western expansion.

The treaty is named for the city in which it was negotiated and signed. The last page bears the signatures of [[David Hartley]], who represented Great Britain, and the three American negotiators, who signed their names in alphabetical order.

Many treaty documents, however, can be considered as originals. In this case, for example, the United States and British representatives signed at least three originals, two of which are in the holdings of the National Archives. On one of the signed originals the signatures and wax seals are arranged horizontally; on the other they are arranged vertically. In addition, handwritten certified copies were made for the use of Congress. Some online transcriptions of the treaty omit Delaware from the list of former colonies, but the original text does list Delaware.

==Text of the Treaty==
===Introduction===

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at [[Paris]] on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.

===Article 1===
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

===Article 2===
And that all disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their boundaries, viz.; from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz., that nagle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River; thence down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes the river Iroquois or Cataraquy; thence along the middle of said river into Lake Ontario; through the middle of said lake until it strikes the communication by water between that lake and Lake Erie; thence along the middle of said communication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said lake until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron; thence along the middle of said water communication into Lake Huron, thence through the middle of said lake to the water communication between that lake and Lake Superior; thence through Lake Superior northward of the Isles Royal and Phelipeaux to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said Long Lake and the water communication between it and the Lake of the Woods, to the said Lake of the Woods; thence through the said lake to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi; thence by a line to be drawn along the middle of the said river Mississippi until it shall intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, South, by a line to be drawn due east from the determination of the line last mentioned in the latitude of thirty-one degrees of the equator, to the middle of the river Apalachicola or Catahouche; thence along the middle thereof to its junction with the Flint River, thence straight to the head of Saint Mary's River; and thence down along the middle of Saint Mary's River to the Atlantic Ocean; east, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river Saint Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence; comprehending all islands within twenty leagues of any part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines to be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other shall, respectively, touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such islands as now are or heretofore have been within the limits of the said province of Nova Scotia.

===Article 3===
It is agreed that the people of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the right to take fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and at all other places in the sea, where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the inhabitants of the United States shall have liberty to take fish of every kind on such part of the coast of Newfoundland as British fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that island) and also on the coasts, bays and creeks of all other of his Brittanic Majesty's dominions in America; and that the American fishermen shall have liberty to dry and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbors, and creeks of Nova Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the said fishermen to dry or cure fish at such settlement without a previous agreement for that purpose with the inhabitants, proprietors, or possessors of the ground.

===Article 4===
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.

===Article 5===
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty's arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

===Article 6===
That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued.

===Article 7===
There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artillery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

===Article 8===
The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

===Article 9===
In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

===Article 10===
The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.

D. HARTLEY (SEAL)
JOHN ADAMS (SEAL)
B. FRANKLIN (SEAL)
JOHN JAY (SEAL)

----

{{License|license = This work is in the [[public domain]] in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.| source = [http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=6]}}

[[Category:United States History]][[Category:American State Papers]][[Category:American Revolution]]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-08T23:00:55Z

Devotchka: /* A reason to "conserve" the story */

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adultress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adultress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
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.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adultress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adultress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mathewson and Devotchka are illustrating point 1 in [[liberal tricks]]. Perhaps they're hoping their fallacious arguments will fool a dimwitted viewer. Just a little thought is required to realize that non-authentic material is not biblical, such as the Gospel of Thomas.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I didn't advance any argument - I asked for clarification. I'll try again: you're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 19:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're funny Jack. I really chuckled at this one. You win the "[[Parthian Shot]] of the Month"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Homeschooled celebrities

2008-04-08T22:55:13Z

Devotchka: copyedit

Lists abound of famous achievers who were taught at home, some more accurate than others.<ref>http://www.eadshome.com/Famoushomeschooled.htm</ref><ref>http://www.education-reform.net/dropouts.htm</ref> Conservapedia believes that the people in the following list were arguably homeschooled, though their educational background has not yet been thoroughly researched by our editors.

*'''Military'''
**[[Stonewall Jackson]]
**[[Douglas MacArthur]]

* '''Inventors and Scientists'''
**[[Alexander Graham Bell]] (1847-1922), inventor of the telephone.
**[[Pierre Curie]]
**[[Cyrus McCormick]]
**[[Charles Louis Montesquieu]]
**[[Booker T. Washington]]

*'''Leaders'''
**[[George Washington]]
**[[John Adams|John Quincy Adams]]
**[[James Madison]]
**[[William Henry Harrison]]
**[[John Tyler]]
**[[George Clymer]]
**[[William Livingston]]
**[[George Mason]]
**[[Charles Pickney III]]
**[[George Wyeth]]
**[[Patrick Henry]]
**[[William Penn]]
**[[Henry Clay]]
**[[John Jay]]
**[[John Marshall]]
**[[John Rutledge]]

*'''Religious Figures'''
**[[William Cary]]
**[[Jonathan Edwards]]
**[[Dwight L. Moody]]
**[[John Newton]]
**[[Charles Wesley]]
**[[John Wesley]]
**[[Brigham Young]]

*'''Writers'''
**[[Hans Christian Andersen]]
**[[Robert Browning]] (1812-1889), a brilliant English poet.
**[[Pearl S. Buck]]
**[[Charles Dickens]]
**[[Bret Harte]]
**[[C. S. Lewis]]
**[[Sean O’Casey]]

*'''Artists and Social Figures'''
**[[Claude Monet]]
**[[John Burroughs]]
**[[George Rogers Clark]]
**[[Florence Nightingale]]
**[[Leo Tolstoy]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Homeschooling]]

287(g)

2008-04-08T22:26:56Z

Devotchka: copyedit

'''Section 287(g)''' of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the Department of Homeland Security to enter into assistance compacts with state and local governments in order to find, arrest and deport illegal immigrants. Both sides must agree on the terms of the program before it is implemented. The DHS provides 287(g) training for state and local law officers to ensure the sharing of best practice. Joint operations under this section allow the various agencies to enforce immigration law more effectively.

287(g) began with the 1996 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress. It is currently a volunteer program, though some would like it to be made mandatory.

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-08T22:03:54Z

Devotchka: /* A reason to "conserve" the story */ question for Andy

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adultress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adultress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
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.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm not aware that Bruce Metzger was a [[conservative]], though he may have rejected [[professor values]] of his academic colleagues. His reasoning above does not persuade, as there were many "oral traditions" (like the "Gospel of Thomas") that were properly rejected as not authentic. In the case of the adultress story, the hoaxsters (vandals?) were more clever about it, appending or inserting it into an authentic work. It is analogous to clever vandalism on wikis today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adultress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If that's your view, then you won't be relying on anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Well, I think you are exactly right. Perhaps if we critically examine the Bible, we will find some things that are correct, but much that we cannot verify, and should consider false.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 17:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Let's try this, Andy. You're saying that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, apart from those parts that clearly aren't. Correct? --[[User:Devotchka|Devotchka]] 18:03, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: You're funny Jack. I really chuckled at this one. You win the "[[Parthian Shot]] of the Month"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Carthage

2008-04-07T21:54:26Z

Devotchka: copyedit

'''Carthage''' was an ancient city on the northern coast of [[Africa]], near modern day [[Tunis]] in [[Tunisia]]. Originally a [[Phoenicians|Phoenician]] colony, it grew to be a great naval power that exerted influence across the [[Mediterranean Sea]].

==Roman domination==
The emerging power of [[Rome]] led to inevitable conflict, and they first clashed in [[Sicily]] in the middle of the 3rd century B.C. Carthage and Rome went on to fight the three monumental [[Punic Wars]], until Carthage was destroyed, and its lands seized, following the [[Third Punic War]]. During its time as a Roman principality, Carthage developed a thriving Christian community. [[St. Augustine]] of [[Hippo]] hailed from what was once Carthaginian land, as did the [[Donatist|Donatists]], a Christian sect which Augustine succeeded in branding as heretical.

==After Rome==
Carthage stayed in Roman hands until the fall of the western Empire. By 500 A.D., the [[Visigoths]] controlled the former Carthaginian lands. The [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine Emperor]]<ref>The Byzantine Empire is also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire.</ref> [[Justinian]] invaded Africa fifty years later, in an attempt to reconquer all of the lands lost when the Western Roman Empire fell. His general [[Belisarius]] liberated the lands that been Carthage in the ancient equivalent of a [[blitzkrieg]]<ref>Belisarius is said to have exclaimed that the Visigoths' meals were still on the table by the time Roman arms controlled the city again, so quickly had the barbarians fled.</ref>, and integrated the territory into Byzantium.

This tenure proved brief. While Belisarius' armies went on to fight - and eventually win - a [[Pyrrhic victory]] in Italy, the resulting loss of life, decimation of the Italian peninsula, and loss of Byzantine treasury, left the empire an easy target for the [[Islam|Islamic]] armies which would emerge a century later. After the initial onslaught of Mohammed's armies, Carthaginian lands fell from Roman hands for the rest of history.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Ancient History]]
[[Category:African Cities and Towns]]

University of London

2008-04-06T03:05:58Z

Devotchka: fmt

The University of London is a university comprising a large number of highly esteemed institutions of higher education in and around London, several of which hold their own degree-awarding powers and are often considered universities in their own right.

===Constituent institutions===

*Birkbeck, University of London
*Central School of Speech and Drama
*Courtauld Institute of Art
*Goldsmiths, University of London
*Heythrop College
*Institute of Cancer Research
*Institute of Education
*King's College London
*London Business School
*London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
*London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
*Queen Mary, University of London
*Royal Academy of Music
*Royal Holloway, University of London
*Royal Veterinary College
*School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
*The School of Pharmacy, University of London
*St George's, University of London
*University College London (UCL)

[[Category:Universities]]