Featured Is it inconsistent...

I support the Critical text, but would also agree with you that this passage could have very well come in from another passage not aware of of the present time.

 

I believe the Gospel of John is inspired. I believe this passage is inspired. At the same time, textual evidence suggests that this was not in the earliest manuscripts of John's gospel, but it has John's literary style.

It could be a tradition that was preached by John or one of his disciples and then added to the gospel since it was a true account told by John of the ministry of Jesus.

Sure. I would point out the textual concern, but go for it.

I have preached from this passage about half a dozen times and taught it in Bible studies for more than 30 years.

 

This is a somewhat difficult read but here is some detail (not just about the Latin text)

The Text of the Gospels: Early Latin Evidence for John 7:53-8:11
Why the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery Belongs in the Bible

Also see The Causes Of The Corruption Of The Traditional Text, Burgon, p.250.

 

Well, my apology but your O/P did seem to invite that discussion.

Anyway I have never doubted the authenticity of either passage (Also IMO 1 John 5:7 is inspired) so perhaps I spoke out of line.
Although at times I do take note of "variants" in researching the text.

 

This one is actually even easier to answer. It can be shown that everything contained within the 'questionable' text of Mark 16:9-20 is actually taught somewhere else in scripture. In fact, it presents no unique teachings. That being the case, it is hardly a matter of vital importance whether it is 'original' or not. Everything it states is already "scripturally sound".

One might, therefore, teach from it even if one thought it was not original to Mark because it offers a concise collection of Biblical Truths that would require jumping around to cover from other passages.

I do not preach from it, but only because I do not preach at all. On the other hand, I have no problem including it as scripture, either.

 

Not a problem bro.

 

As an ardent CT proponent, I have preached from these passages. Why? 1. There is always the possibility my assessment is wrong. 2. The passages are consistent with the surrounding text and the style of the author. 3. None of these passages contradicts any other portion of scripture.

 

There is misinformation concerning 1 john 5:7.

While most of its support is from the Latin church there are several late Greek mss containing the Comma.

I believe it was omitted (probably by accident) early on in the Greek copies but was retained in the Latin translations from an earlier day.

Research book: A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 Michael Maynard, Comma Publications, 1995.

 

The 1689 Confession cites to such passages!

 

I had always heard that ancient Greek (like used in early manuscripts) doesn't use any punctuation ... so there shouldn't be ANY comma's or periods anywhere in the original.

Could someone who reads Koine Greek confirm this or correct the misinformation that I have heard?

 

That is the short name of 1 John 5:7 and has nothing to do with Koine punctuation:

The Comma Johanneum, also called the Johannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses, is a comma (a short clause) found in Latin manuscripts of the First Epistle of John at 5:7–8. The comma first appeared in the Vulgate manuscripts of the 9th century.
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia
Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia