Ok regarding "Mormon translations" being based on the later Greek texts? No, check again. Mormons use the King James bible...so that's textus receptus again.
Filipinos have 7 different languages so English wins often in church contexts.
So we can agree KJV is right out. Especially since the Tagalog bible is a Catholic translation and heavily biased in that direction and full of errors in translation.
So let's select NASB which you like.
The forward in NASB says "These publications shall betrue to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek."
so the translators themselves endeavour to be true to the original languages, i.e. the bible in perfect, untranslated form.
In Addition, the NASB which you trust, is based on the CRITICAL TEXT of Nestle Aland!!!
In other words, the adulteress story is marked with you guessed it, BRACKETS [] in Good 'ol NASB with a footnote warning the reader (assuming they like to read those pesky footnotes):
"Later manuscripts add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53–8:11"
So we get to keep it because of tradition (insert Tevya the Milkman singing)
Maybe start checking your footnotes, then I don't have to get labelled a liberal and you'll see it's just modern scholarship based on Archeology. Let's get more curious about things.
Textus Receptus is pretty much King Jimmy; there's another translation Sam mentioned which I never heard of.
This is because Greek scholars (men of G-d who love the word so much they dedicated their lives to learn the original Greek of the New Testament), don't trust the textus receptus (with the exception of Robinson).
As is natural, older is often perceived as better when it comes to original language bible stuff.
That's one reason the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a big deal. Everyone was so excited because they are the oldest extent manuscripts we have for the Hebrew bible (as well as other cool stuff like Aramaic for I Enoch , War Scroll [spookily similar to book of Revelation] etc.)
This is why we are excited about discoveries with OLD Greek New Testaments; the older it gets the closer to the time of the Apostles which means fewer copies made to get to that final copy, so it's very exciting and good for Christian apologetics to have these old Greek copies!
So if you'll allow me to adjust things a bit. A translator is NOT on the level of a prophet and by extension a translation is NOT on level of original language (as written by a prophet) text, and that my friend, is about as conservative as you can get when considering reverence for the text and not the works of men (i.e. translations by committee).
You can hold on to your adulterous woman story if you really like it; it's a nice story. But that doesn't mean you get to label the rest of us liberal, or having some evil motive to tear down G-d's word. The tradition of the story is a nice tradition and sometimes it's hard to part from traditions...
Lol, again you're trying to elevate the works of man to the Words of God. The footnotes aren't scripture. The don't trump the Words of God. Think about it, those scholars said they don't think that story should be there, yet there it is. Do you not see the hand of God at work there?
You keep trying to convince me that the learning of regular old men prove categorically that the Bible must be corrupted by the learning of men and that it's only through the learning of men that it can be fixed.
I reject categorically the learning of men if it rises itself above scripture. I have faith, a deep, deliberate, determined and unshakeable faith that God presented His Word to us as He intended us to have it and He will continue to preserve and protect it.
You can not convince me that anything man says will ever trump what God says. God said His Word is perfect and true. Ish says some parts are the works of over zealous monks and strongly implies that the Revelation isn't even canonical. Who should I believe?
Now I know you're going to say that God's Words are perfect and true but that not all of the Bible is God's Words. But that means I have to trust scholars to tell me what God's Words are and scholars are men and as you point out not inspired and working with dead languages and partial manuscripts and limited human understanding.
If we have to rely on these guys to tell us what God said then we're in a lot of trouble. I've decided not to play their silly game especially because the more they do learn the more they realize what we have is accurate.
So don't bring me wildly speculative human conjectures when I'm looking for ultimate spiritual truth. Human conjectures don't contain ultimate spiritual truth.