Changes

no edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:  +
==Good to see Andy Schlafly thinks he's more cut-out for God's job than God==
 +
 +
Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project.  And saying this does not make me a "liberal" or a "vandal", it makes me a Christian and someone objective enough to see phonies like the people on here for what you are.  Usurpers and false Christians. 
 +
[[User:GregHarris|GregHarris]] 12:23, 7 October 2009(EDT)
 +
 +
 
==The Example==
 
==The Example==
 
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this.  I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any.  What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)
 
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this.  I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any.  What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)