I think you have to include the “writing on the ground” as true. Yes it doesn’t appear in some earlier manuscripts but unless they can find out from hence the “writing” mention came from, hoax or some older writ that was lost you have to accept it as truth. Like what was mentioned before, the 4th century church accepted the account as truth and biblical so why are modern people, who are 15 centuries farther away the Bible’s creation trying to discount it?
My own heart and gut accepts it as truth despite my own logical mind’s attempt to falsify the story due to the manuscript differences mentioned but I can’t. Somebody put that reference of Christ’s writing on the ground for a reason in a manuscript that was deemed acceptable for use as part of the Early 4th century canon of scriptures. Never mind modern intellectuals that try to discredit it.
Exactly. If it had been made up out of whole cloth and inserted in biblical manuscripts in the 4th century, we would have seen howls of outrage among the Church Fathers. We hear none of that, which shows that it had been accepted much earlier than this. That we haven't found earlier manuscripts containing it probably just means they have not been uncovered--yet.