My faith has taken a mighty hit.

[michelle95]

1 John 5
7. For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth), the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I was told by someone that the part of scripture in parenthesis was added much later to the Bible.

After searching through some computer Bible commentaries I have....I found this to be true.

I don't know how to deal with this.....if stuff is added down the road...how do we know it's true?

[Nimrod]

It's not that somebody "willy-nilly" addded those words. Yes, it is troubling to me also. I believe the essence is that not all early translations have those words and they can only be reliably found (in unison) in later translations. When our "modern" Bible was compiled, the compilers appropriatly notified you of this discrepancy with a footnote. So, it's all up front and explained to the reader that the validity of those words is in question. Certainly seems an appropriate thing to have done.

What would you have done?
--kept the text?
--delete the text?
--notify the reader of the discrepancy?

What troubles me is that so many have told me this is their foundation for the Trinity, and yes, the validity of the text is questioned.

Peace

[michelle95]

Nimrod, I don't know what I would have done, personally. All I know is that I have been taught that the Bible is inspired....and all of that...and then, to find out that scripture was added WWWAAAYY after the fact. It makes me question Why? Was it added so that it follows a tradition or doctrine? And, if so...what else has been done that way?

It scares me...really. It makes me wonder about the Bible. I really do believe in God...but, I just don't know about the Book. :(

[Paul]

Hi Michelle95,

We know it's true because the Truths of the Bible are found throughout the Bible so we can compare Scripture with Scripture.

Take the verse you gave. John 15:26 essentially says the same thing and so does John 5 starting with verse 31.

By giving us the same Truths throughout the Bible we don't have to depend on one chapter or verse to build our beliefs.

[Paul]

One point I forgot to make was that passages in question like the one you gave are clearly identified so we can check them against Scripture to see if they belong.

[filosofer]

Originally posted by michelle95
All I know is that I have been taught that the Bible is inspired....and all of that...and then, to find out that scripture was added WWWAAAYY after the fact. It makes me question Why? Was it added so that it follows a tradition or doctrine? And, if so...what else has been done that way?

The doctrine of inspiration has traditionally been associated with the original writings, what Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. wrote. Over time as these wore out, many copies were made. Then more copies of those copies - all by hand; most in the NT Greek were written without spaces between words and no punctuation (to save space on expensive skins or parchment).

Over time, some who copied may have remembered something that they had been taught about what the apostles taught. Not wanting to lose that sometimes that was put in the margin. Much later, those who copied that manuscript may have thought that the such a marginal note was a correction and should have been included in the text.

What is amazing is that we have available 5,500+ Greek NT manuscripts (meaning they are all hand written) over a period of 14 centuries, from many different geographic regions - and with all that only 2% variation in the text of the NT. And some of those variations are only a spelling discrepancy. On top of that we have 30,000+ manuscripts in various other languages, but all still relatively early (Coptic, Latin, Armenian, etc.). And we have over 1,000,000 (yes, million) manuscripts in which the early church fathers quoted Scripture.

It scares me...really. It makes me wonder about the Bible. I really do believe in God...but, I just don't know about the Book.

On the contrary, with such overwhelming evidence, there is even more reason to rejoice that God has provided such a testimony. And as noted above, not one doctrine is changed by any of the differences in the manuscripts.

And not one translation deviates from the fundamental truths of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

So, rather than be scared by it, give thanks to God.

If you have more concerns, feel free to post again.

[trustnHim]

((hugs Michelle)

What a coincidence! Dh just raised a similar topic tonight.

I think it depends on the version of the Bible a person uses.
For instance, in the NIV it reads, "(7) For there are three that testify: (8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement." It adds as a foot note "...testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,and these three are one... And there are three that testify on the earth were not found in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century.

Here are some other translations of the verses:

American Standard-ASV1901:
1JN 5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1JN 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Basic Bible in English:
1JN 5:7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.
1JN 5:8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and all three are in agreement.

Darby English Bible:
1JN 5:7 For they that bear witness are three:
1JN 5:8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.

When I was a JW, this was one scripture that we were taught to tell people about - so we could say OUR version of the Bible(as jacked up as it was) was superior. People would say, "I never new that." Others would let us know that their faith in God was bigger than any unverified scripture.

After I left the JW cult, I had problems with these verses as well as with the doctrine of the Trinity in general. But God is patient and it took lots of study and prayer. I finally realized that even though this verse may not be found in older manuscripts, it shouldn't be enough to discount the entire Bible. When satan tampers with scripture it results in confusion and does NOT validate the truth. There are many other scriptures in the Bible that support the Trinity.( If you want my old study I typed up, I'll be glad to p.m. it to you.)

I have seen what happens when scripture is tampered with. The effects are traumatic and the tampered Word of God is usually the basis for most cults. The New World translation used by JW's, the Clear Word Bible used by SDA's, and the Book of Mormon are evidence of this. The scriptures in these bibles are altered to such an extent that they make it impossible to understand sound doctrine, and that is Satan's goal.

I'm also confident that God is big enough to make sure that His Word is correct for those who seek the truth.

I hope this helped
YSIC

[pilgrimian]

Hey there, Michelle!

This is one big reason that I believe people need to understand just how it is that God brought us the Bible as we have it. I never learned about it till I came face-to-face with some folks who questioned my salvation since I don't read the KJV.

The Scripture you bring up is called (in Textual Critic circles) as The Comma Johanneum.

James White (though I disagree with his Post-Mill/Post-Trib/Post-It/Covenantal/5-point Calvinist views) gives a good explanation of it in his book, The King James Only Controversy (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556615752/qid=1051939245/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-3254283-2321760?v=glance&s=books&n=507846):

p. 60

The single most famous incident that is related to [Desiderius]Erasmus' [translation] work on the New Testament revolves around the words of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Most KJV Only preachers and believers make the acceptance of this passage the test of orthodoxy. If your Bible does not have this passage, you are in deep trouble.

The story of how this passage ended up in the King James Version is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 tis phrase, dubbed today the "Johannine comma," or in the Latin, the "Comma Johanneum," was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, "In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood.'" His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin Vulgate caused quite a stir. Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked Erasmus for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism," the very same charge made by KJV Only advocates today. Erasmus protested that he was simply following the Greek texts. In responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to "produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition." Likewise Erasmus rebutted Zuniga by pointing out that while he (Zuniga) was constantly referring Erasmus to one particular Greek manuscript, in this case he had not brought this text forward, correctly assuming that even Zuniga's manuscript agreed with Erasmus' reading. He also said, "Finally, the whole passage is so obscure that it cannot be very valuable in refuting the [Arian] heresies."
* * *

Interestingly enough, a manuscript came forward after a short time from the house of Grey Friars, whose provincial was Henry Standish...an old enemy of Erasmus'. This particular Greek text, therefore, is very suspect.

Now we all agree that this verse is truthful...but if it wasn't in oldest available Greek manuscripts (therefore the closest ones to the original) why print it? Many Latin versions of the Bible evidently have this particular verse...but the oldest Greek manuscripts do not. The one that Zuniga evidently brought forward is contained in Codex Montfortianus.

Here is a good web site that explains some things concerning the Biblical text...canonicity...etc.,

Bible Research (http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html)

I'm not saying that the KJV is a bad translation, but it would be wise to know some of the pitfalls concerning how it was translated, and what texts were used. This is, of course, true for all translations. I just want to make sure that people realize I'm not putting down the Word of God. I love my NASB, ASV, and the NKJV.

Here's another interesting site (I especially enjoy Doug Kutilek's articles):

KJV Resource Center (http://www.kjvonly.org/)

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
Matthew

P.S. It would probably be good to know something about Erasmus, who is, in part, responsible for the translation work that that culminated in the King James Version:

Erasmus of Rotterdam:
His New Testament & Its Importance (http://www.aomin.org/erasmus.html)

Again, I don't agree with everything on this web site, but James White does have some good points. However, his Covenantal Theology is wrong on some points.

[Doulos]

Originally posted by michelle95
Nimrod, I don't know what I would have done, personally. All I know is that I have been taught that the Bible is inspired....and all of that...and then, to find out that scripture was added WWWAAAYY after the fact. It makes me question Why? Was it added so that it follows a tradition or doctrine? And, if so...what else has been done that way?

It scares me...really. It makes me wonder about the Bible. I really do believe in God...but, I just don't know about the Book. :(

Michelle,

The fact that something was added to the bible and we now have bibles that note that fact should be a comfort, not a problem. You see, it is evidence that we can in fact weed out things that were added so as to get to the heart of what was really written in the original.

There are many NT manuscripts that have variations in them. Some of the variations are common and have made it into some english translations with notation. But, when we take the thousands of manuscripts available, giving extra weight to earlier copies, we can reliably derive the original.

[Alhere]

It's a can of worms you have opened again Michelle.

You need to take some time and check out the Bible Versions controversy for yourself.

In a nutshell, the KJV and the modern versions use different Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV camp to which I belong hold that the modern versions have been translated from corrupted manuscripts. The idea that the modern versions are based on older manuscripts and therefore more accurate is not true because conservative scholars in the late 1800's examined them and declared them as corrupt (notably Dean Burgon). Liberal scholars of the late 1800's mainly Westcott and Hort (who by the way liked Charles Darwin's book) promoted them as better because of being older. Of course liberalism had more voices and won the day and we are inundated with all these Johnnie-Come-Lately new versions of the English Bible. I believe there are over 40 new versions since 1960?

So, the KJV camp believes that the manuscripts underlying the KJV were divinely preserved and selected and the KJV is the result.

Now even the KJV translators stated in their preface that they did not consider the translation into English as 100% perfect but did consider that the original language manuscripts that they had were the correct ones.

Contrary to what some may suggest there are significant differences between the versions.

I have an article on my website in the Articles Section which follows along these lines.

You could also check out Dr. D.A. Waite's site at

http:\\www.thebiblefortoday.org


Regards
Alhere

[sewserious]

Originally posted by Alhere
It's a can of worms you have opened again Michelle.

You need to take some time and check out the Bible Versions controversy for yourself.

In a nutshell, the KJV and the modern versions use different Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV camp to which I belong hold that the modern versions have been translated from corrupted manuscripts. The idea that the modern versions are based on older manuscripts and therefore more accurate is not true because conservative scholars in the late 1800's examined them and declared them as corrupt (notably Dean Burgon). Liberal scholars of the late 1800's mainly Westcott and Hort (who by the way liked Charles Darwin's book) promoted them as better because of being older. Of course liberalism had more voices and won the day and we are inundated with all these Johnnie-Come-Lately new versions of the English Bible. I believe there are over 40 new versions since 1960?

So, the KJV camp believes that the manuscripts underlying the KJV were divinely preserved and selected and the KJV is the result.

Now even the KJV translators stated in their preface that they did not consider the translation into English as 100% perfect but did consider that the original language manuscripts that they had were the correct ones.

Contrary to what some may suggest there are significant differences between the versions.

I have an article on my website in the Articles Section which follows along these lines.

You could also check out Dr. D.A. Waite's site at

http:\\www.thebiblefortoday.org


Regards
Alhere

Funny, my KJV has that passage in it. So, what makes it any different?

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by Alhere
It's a can of worms you have opened again Michelle.

You need to take some time and check out the Bible Versions controversy for yourself.

In a nutshell, the KJV and the modern versions use different Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV camp to which I belong hold that the modern versions have been translated from corrupted manuscripts. The idea that the modern versions are based on older manuscripts and therefore more accurate is not true because conservative scholars in the late 1800's examined them and declared them as corrupt (notably Dean Burgon). Liberal scholars of the late 1800's mainly Westcott and Hort (who by the way liked Charles Darwin's book) promoted them as better because of being older. Of course liberalism had more voices and won the day and we are inundated with all these Johnnie-Come-Lately new versions of the English Bible. I believe there are over 40 new versions since 1960?

Al wants you to believe in guilt by association. We could as easily say that the KJV is somehow a Catholic Bible (which many KJV-Only folks would not like, because they revile Catholics) because Erasmus was a Catholic, and believed in transubstantiation. Character assassination when it comes to translation is a last resort. The fact that Hort "liked Darwin's book" should make me not read a Bible which uses some manuscripts that these individuals promoted? What silliness. Charging those of us who use the NASB, or other "modern translations" as "liberal" is just one more attempt at character assassination, and is dumb.

What did John William Burgon
Really Believe about The Textus Receptus
& The King James Version? (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/burgon_textus.htm)


Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’? (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kjv_a_catholic_bible.htm)


Why Dean Burgon would not
Join The Dean Burgon Society (http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/why_dean.htm)


Westcott & Hort vs. Textus
Receptus: Which is Superior? (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/westcott.htm)


So, the KJV camp believes that the manuscripts underlying the KJV were divinely preserved and selected and the KJV is the result.

For which they have no evidence...they furthermore have no evidence to show how it is that the Greek manuscripts used with the NASB, and other translations were NOT divinely preserved and selected. It's a circular argument, and quite silly.


Now even the KJV translators stated in their preface that they did not consider the translation into English as 100% perfect but did consider that the original language manuscripts that they had were the correct ones.

Check for yourself, Michelle, and others:

The KJV Translators said that? (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html)

Michelle, and others...

It should be noted that the individuals who hold to the KJV-Only position believe that Scripture for which there are no Greek texts is to be considered Scripture.

D.A. Waite is hardly an objective voice on the KJV, and merely advances his own biases.

Seek a good translation, and read multiple translations if you're unable to read Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not limited to the KJV.

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
Matthew

P.S. These links might be interesting too:

A Simple Outline Regarding 1 John 5:7 (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/simple_outline.htm)


A Review of Michael Maynard's
"History of Debate Over I John 5:7-8." (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/debate_over_john.htm)


I JOHN 5:7
“GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT” REFUTED:
An Answer to Dabney, Hills, Strouse, & Cloud (http://www.kjvonly.org/gary/grammatical_argument.htm)

[Alhere]

You see how volatile this subject is Michelle. About the same as pre-trib vs post-trib.


Try comparing 1 Corinthians 1 v 18 where Paul describes himself and the Corinthian church as "are saved" in the KJV and the NASB/NIV "are being saved".

Paul would have never described himself as "being saved" but only as "are saved" past tense.

Of course renderings such as this in the NASB/NIV cater to those who teach that salvation is a lifelong process such as Roman Catholicism and others of course.

You could also compare Revelation 5 v 8-10 where the 24 elders (ie the raptured church) sing a new song in "first person" while the NASB/NIV has changed it to "third person" muddying the waters of pre-trib Bible prophecy.

Are the 24 elders describing themselves as redeemed out of every tribe nation and tongue and going to reign on the earth with Christ as the KJV renders or are they singing about some group other than themselves as the NASB/NIV renders?


Regards
Alhere

[pilgrimian]

Volatile?
I'm afraid it's less "volatile" and more along the lines of silliness (the above links are all wonderful resources for good students of Scripture). Al, why not start another thread if you really want to discuss this again? Obviously, our earlier correspondence did little to help you understand what the Greek text says in relation to how it is translated. The simple fact is you need to learn Greek if you're going to really make any sense trying to discuss the differences. I don't mean to sound arrogant, and please don't hear me like that. But Scripture was written in Greek and Hebrew.

The reference you listed above uses a present participle, and the truth of the matter is that a present participle describes a continuous action. If the authors of the holy scriptures did not want to describe a continuous action, they would have used an aorist participle, or more along your line of thought, Allan, a perfect participle. BUT THEY DIDN'T. We cannot change what the word means in the language in which God decided to write the scriptures, and to raise the KJV (not looking at the Greek, which the KJV Translators used in many instances--when not using the Latin Vulgate verbatim) over the inspiration of God is a serious blunder. Paul didn't speak English (especially not the Queen's English!).

That having been said, what one needs to recognize is that, in the context of this verse, Paul is not speaking of the salvation of an individual, but of the salvation of a *series* of individuals. Unless they are all saved at the exact same moment, then it can rightly be said that individuals are continually being saved; some yesterday, some today, and some tomorrow. Luke uses the same wording in this passage:

Al wrote some time ago:

Act 2v47

KJV reads, "such as should be saved" NASB reads, "those who were being saved" NIV reads, "those who were being saved"

- Salvation is not a process.

It is if you are speaking of a bunch of people, all of which do not become saved in the same day, (notice the phrase "day by day" {KJV}). Since all of these individuals were not saved in the same day, the Lord was in the process of saving them -- some on one day, and others on another, and others on another.

Al wrote:

1 Corinthians 1v18

KJV reads, "which are saved" NASB reads, 'us which are being saved" NIV reads, "us who are being saved"

-Salvation is not a process.

Once again, more than a single individual is in view here. Unless all of us are saved on the exact same occasion, then the act of God saving us (i.e. everyone who is saved whether yesterday, today, or tomorrow) is a process.

Al also said:

You could also compare Revelation 5 v 8-10 where the 24 elders (ie the raptured church) sing a new song in "first person" while the NASB/NIV has changed it to "third person" muddying the waters of pre-trib Bible prophecy.


It should first be pointed out that the fact of the church being in heaven before the 7-year tribulation period does not hinge on this verse. We don't need it to prove this. No muddying of the waters. Pre-trib is safe and sound and true.

But secondly, the first person "rendering" of the KJV is the result of a first person variant in the text. UBS 4th does not include the first person in either verse (in fact, the third person is found in verse 10; i.e. "them"), and they give their certainty an {A} rating, which means they are right. When it is Allan vs United Bible Societies, United Bible Societies wins.

The "corruption," if one is going to call it that, is in the KJV, 1769, not in the NASB or NIV.

Al tried to get this one under the radar:

Of course renderings such as this in the NASB/NIV cater to those who teach that salvation is a lifelong process such as Roman Catholicism and others of course.

Thanks, Al! You prove my point yet again. We do not teach that salvation is a lifelong process. Furthermore, if you did a little more studying you would see that most Catholics actually use the New American Bible or the New Jerusalem Bible. I know none who use the NASB or NIV (neither include the Apocrypha).

As I mentioned above, it is silly to try and use "guilt by association" when talking about Bible translations. If it wasn't then Al should probably not use the KJV, because a bulk of the work in putting it together was done by Erasmus...and Erasmus was Roman Catholic and believed in transubstantiation and all that.:eek It must mean that Erasmus totally corrupted the Scripture he translated then, to fit into his Roman Catholic mind! Wow, I'll write a novel about it and make a mint! I wish. But I do find it intriguing that a group of folks who dislike the Catholics so much, and use them in character assassination (as Al did above) turn around and call the KJV "divinely preserved," though much of it is the Latin Vulgate, and was translated by Erasmus, a diehard Roman Catholic. One would be hard-pressed to get much more Catholic than the Latin Vulgate.

And I encourage you all to read multiple translations...even the translators of the KJV encouraged this, and quoted Augustine saying as much in the preface to the 1611 edition.

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
(People are being saved as we speak -- many reading NIV!:eek)
Matthew

[filosofer]

That having been said, what one needs to recognize is that, in the context of this verse, Paul is not speaking of the salvation of an individual, but of the salvation of a *series* of individuals.
While you have many good things to write, this is at best reading into the text.

The reference you listed above uses a present participle, and the truth of the matter is that a present participle describes a continuous action. If the authors of the holy scriptures did not want to describe a continuous action, they would have used an aorist participle, or more along your line of thought, Allan, a perfect participle. BUT THEY DIDN'T. We cannot change what the word means in the language in which God decided to write the scriptures
Here you are wrong, because Paul does use perfect participle, in fact, a periphrastic perfect passive participle. It means that some event happened in the past which still has effect at the present time. Sometimes it is translated as a present tense because of the force of the context, but it is not required.

though much of it is the Latin Vulgate, and was translated by Erasmus, a diehard Roman Catholic

Partially correct. Erasmus did not translate the Greek. Rather he put together what is the first printed version of the Greek New Testament, which was printed in 1516.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by filosofer

While you have many good things to write, this is at best reading into the text.


I don't know if I'm reading into it. Paul realized this epistle would be read among many people (not all of which were necessarily saved).

Godspeed,
Matthew

[filosofer]

Originally posted by pilgrimian

I don't know if I'm reading into it. Paul realized this epistle would be read among many people (not all of which were necessarily saved).


But he is writing to the "saints" (1:1-2) and also 1:15-20, etc.) Whether someone who is not a Christian "overhears" that is moot. The key is that he is writing to those who are Christians, namely have faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.

[pilgrimian]

Okay, Filo...touche

But this is an argument that should not cause one to read the KJV exclusively. And it isn't translated that way to cater to Roman Catholicism. God loves me, even though I read the NASB, and NKJV. Al can call my Bible as corrupt as his finite mind thinks the day is long, and it won't cause me to quit reading it. God's truth is greater than the KJV. Heck, I was saved whilst being reared on the RSV, believe it or not! One has to wonder who the translators of that "modern translation" were catering to....?:rolleyes

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
Matthew

[filosofer]

But this is an argument that should not cause one to read the KJV exclusively. And it isn't translated that way to cater to Roman Catholicism. God loves me, even though I read the NASB, and NKJV. Al can call my Bible as corrupt as his finite mind thinks the day is long, and it won't cause me to quit reading it.

Just so we understand one another, I am with you on the overall argument of this thread. You have made some good points. My reason for pointing up these side issues is to make sure that we focus on the right critique of the KJV Only position, based on accurate analysis.

God's truth is greater than the KJV. Heck, I was saved whilst being reared on the RSV, believe it or not! One has to wonder who the translators of that "modern translation" were catering to...?

Amen! Our church used the KJV, but had begun using the RSV in the late 1950's, so I grew up with both. But I have ministered to people who were saved using The Living Bible, ala 1971! And for that we rejoice - even if it is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Blessings in Christ :)

[just_jim]

Originally posted by michelle95
1 John 5
7. For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth), the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I was told by someone that the part of scripture in parenthesis was added much later to the Bible.

After searching through some computer Bible commentaries I have....I found this to be true.

I don't know how to deal with this.....if stuff is added down the road...how do we know it's true?
[just_jumping in 'cold', sorry if I repeat]


The words were not found in any Gr. Massorah's prior to the 16th century.*

I can't recall right now, but will try to trace this back when I get a chance, if it hasn't already been done.


How does that affect your faith? I don't believe it should, but just the opposite!

I believe the more we understand about God the better, we may not like some of the truth's we learn along our walk with Him, but we are to please God first! ...and try to get closer to Him and His true teachings at every opportunity!



1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by 1)water and 2)blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the 3)Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1John 5:7,8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This is a hard question that many of us have had to deal with at some point in our studies, much as you are now. Ultimately we all must [or should] make our own decisions, based on the facts as best as we can be aware of them. Should faith be based in mans traditions (churchology), or in God's word?

I believe that your going to be just fine! :)

Praying.



[*E.W.Bullinger, Companion Bible, pg. 1876]

[pilgrimian]

Amen, Filo & Jim!

Wow...good points by both of you. And I totally appreciate both of your comments. I hope Michelle is enjoying this as much as I am!

It is a tough verse, Jim...since it is truthful, and seems "heretical" to make such a notation about a truthful statement (as Edward Hills, Peter Ruckman, or D.A. Waite would quickly charge). However, it isn't our only prooftext for the Trinity, and if John didn't write it....perhaps it ought not be there.

It is intriguing to see how many times Christ's name was written in full in the Textus Receptus. This is something of a good example that may shed light on how 1 John 5:7 came into being. If memory serves "Jesus" in the earliest manuscripts is written "Jesus Christ" in the TR and "Lord" is written "Lord Jesus Christ"....some 86 different times in the KJV...some 64 times in the NASB...and 61 times in the NIV. This is also used by some to say that the more recent translations are somehow heretical, and attempting to strip deity from Christ. If this was the case...why not edit it down to zero? Christ is Messiah no matter how many times He is referred to as such. The "expansion of piety" which evidently encouraged the scribes to write "Lord Jesus Christ" instead of a mere "Lord Jesus" may answer the 1 John 5:7 question. Just a thought.

Godspeed in Christ alone,
Matthew

[michelle95]

Just to let you all know, I am still reading what you are writing...I just need a little more time to hit those links and digest it all.

Thanks to you all.
Michelle

[igglet]

Originally posted by filosofer


Amen! Our church used the KJV, but had begun using the RSV in the late 1950's, so I grew up with both. But I have ministered to people who were saved using The Living Bible, ala 1971! And for that we rejoice - even if it is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Blessings in Christ :)

Double AMEN!! I recall sitting in church one Sunday behind several people with Down Syndrome, a couple of them were clutching well-worn Picture (i.e., "comic book") Bibles. I found that sight enormously heartening...and somehow, while I won't claim God's knowledge of their true state of salvation, I have the idea God's truth managed to find its way to them through that "translation", too...:D

[Alhere]

Thank you for pointing out to Mathew that the context of 1Corinthians 1 v 18 is the Apostle Paul and the Corinthian believers.

I think Matthew that you are too cavalier in your brushing aside differences mentioned above.

Since you are posting your previous posts from past threads, I will take the same liberty for this next part.


Hello Pilgrim,

Re: 1 Corinthians 1 v 18

I’ve seen your argument before where you claim that a “present participle” means “continuing action” however BlueLetter Bible did not impose this upon the verse in question, the KJV translators did not impose this upon the verse in question and most importantly the context does not support your definition.

In context the word “us” (subject) is the Apostle Paul and the Corinthian believers. Both Paul and the Corinthian believers are saved past tense at a particular point in time (ie when they were born again) therefore the rendering of the phrase “which are saved” is correct while to render the phrase “which are being saved” would be incorrect because of the subject .

Paul would never refer to himself as “being saved” because he “was saved” past tense. No believer or group of believers would ever use the phrase describing himself or theirselves as “being saved”, it would always be “I am saved” or “we are saved” past tense with no ongoing action. In fact in this case the term "being saved" is an oxymoron when the subject is a believer.

Therefore the rendering in the modern versions is definitely suspect. It is suspect, because to have a believer or a group of believers describe himself or theirselves as “being saved” would be supportive of the false doctrine common in Catholicism and Apostate Protestantism, that says that salvation is an ongoing process, whereas true doctrine teaches salvation as a specific point in time, at the moment of being born again, past tense.


From http:\\www.BlueLetterBible.org

1 Corinthians 1 v 18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Greek word for the phrase “which are saved”

Present passive particple

5746 Tense - Present See 5774
Voice - Passive See 5786
Mood - Participle See 5796

5774 Tense - Present

The present tense represents a simple statement of fact
or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases
this corresponds directly with the English present tense.

Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English
will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are
termed "historical presents," and such occurrences dramatize
the event described as if the reader were there watching the
event occur. Some English translations render such historical
presents in the English past tense, while others permit the
tense to remain in the present.

5786 Voice - Passive

The passive voice represents the subject as being the
recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was
hit by the ball," the boy receives the action.


5796 Mood - Participle

The Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the
English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed
to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either
like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed
a "verbal noun."


Regards
Alhere

[pilgrimian]

"Cavalier," Al? :lol Well, at least Filo's frame of mind holds water. I love you as a brother in Christ, but the whole KJV-Only issue is just plain silly. You can talk all day long about the differences, but this will never change the truth behind the translation. Either way, I understand what the verse means.

Sorry, if some may think I have a vendetta here. I am trying to speak in love (Ephesians 4:15). But my faith was questioned by some in an Independependent Fundamental Baptist Church last Christmas. Could I genuinely be saved if I didn't read the KJV? Goodness, I got so many necks twisting at that church to see what translation I was reading. And it was in...Canada! I know there are people who hold the KJV-Only view here in the states, too, but what a way to welcome someone into your country.

I am afraid I'll not be able to take you seriously, Al, until you understand that the KJV is just a translation. So I don't particularly care what the Blue Bible imposes on this passage, or what the KJV Translators impose on it. It's not going to tell me something I don't know.

Your frame of mind is incorrect on this one, Al...and it've obvious you're ducking the earlier remarks you made concerning how the NASB "caters" to Catholicism. Usually, when someone starts throwing around such accusations, it means they can't make a defense otherwise. Any word on Erasmus believing in transubstantiation?

Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560]... English Bibles absolutely infallible?

Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?

What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].

Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine — "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]

Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
Matthew

[just_jim]

Originally posted by igglet


Double AMEN!! I recall sitting in church one Sunday behind several people with Down Syndrome, a couple of them were clutching well-worn Picture (i.e., "comic book") Bibles. I found that sight enormously heartening...and somehow, while I won't claim God's knowledge of their true state of salvation, I have the idea God's truth managed to find its way to them through that "translation", too...:D

Thats beautiful man! :) ...& i know your right! [Amen]


If I remember correctly, I don't believe any of Christ's disciples ever addressed Him [in scripture] by his name.
They called Him Lord & Rabbi.

Hummm.... perhaps we should be a bit more 'formal' as well?

(I don't know what made me think of that?)

[pilgrimian]

Excellent point, Jim! "Rabbi"....I dig it! I also noticed recently that the word "disciple" is not used apart from the 12. Perhaps I'm wrong on this...I was buzzing around looking throughout the NT. I am a Believer of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[just_jim]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Excellent point, Jim! "Rabbi"....I dig it! I also noticed recently that the word "disciple" is not used apart from the 12. Perhaps I'm wrong on this...I was buzzing around looking throughout the NT. I am a Believer of the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Godspeed,
Matthew

Cool! ...and a fellow Dylan fan!
Pleased to meet you.


Jhn 19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

Act 9:36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did.


Oh! ...and a fellow artist! http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s12/smilies-7665.png

[pilgrimian]

Cool...your an artist, as well?

By the way, I enjoyed your Pre-Trib posting RE: The Key of David. Very intriguing!

God's blessings in our glorious Messiah,
YBIC,
Matthew

[Beth]

Sorry to interrupt the so learned debate going back and forth, but I just wanted to draw attention to something in the original post.

Here is a believer, who is feeling she is stumbling and her faith is in danger, because it appears that somewhere, somewhen, somebody either took something out of, or added something in to, the precious Word of God. And she wants to know, how can she trust what it says? How is she to know which passages or text or translation she can stand on, and which are dodgy?

I wonder how much this learned debate is helping her.

Here's my advice michelle.
Find and read what you can about what sort of men the KJV translators were, and do the same for Westcott and Hort (whose revised text is pretty much the basis for all new translations of the Bible). Find out what the attitudes of these two groups of men were to the Word of God. Find out what they believed. That will tell you something about whom you can put your trust on in terms of preserving, handling and transmitting the Word of God.

[pilgrimian]

Very nice, Beth. Yes, perhaps I should have PM'd Jim. But to say that we're somehow unlearned is quite unnecessary.

And I'm afraid you've not read the whole group of posts in this thread if you think it is an "unlearned" debate. Perhaps you would be wise to do this before charging me and others with being "unlearned."

Is the following a learned response...?

Find out what they believed. That will tell you something about whom you can put your trust on in terms of preserving, handling and transmitting the Word of God.

I certainly encourage finding out info on the individuals...but when it comes to translation it won't matter that much. Erasmus believed in transubstantiation (and he had a lot to do with gathering the texts for what would be the KJV). I can see you're likely among those who dislike Hort and Westcott. Your following jab points this out:

(whose revised text is pretty much the basis for all new translations of the Bible)

Revision? Actually, a learned individual would see that many points in the KJV are actually revisions placed there by scribes throughout the years (some 20 more "Christ Jesus" titles in the KJV than in the NASB). I read the NASB, and am blessed by it....I am not reading a "revision" of the Textus Receptus. And, though you're such a wonderful sister in Christ to encourage me rightly, I will continue to search out the Scriptures in what I believe to be a learned fashion.

And read all the posts before you make such a charge, please. It's just not nice of you.

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[Beth]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Very nice, Beth. Yes, perhaps I should have PM'd Jim. But to say that we're somehow unlearned is quite unnecessary.

Actually, I didn't say you were unlearned, nor implied it. You seem to have inferred it. I've taken some time to read quite a few of your posts since you registered here. I notice you make these kind of assumptions about other posters thoughts and attitudes fairly often. It seems to lead to rather prickly exchanges between you and others.


And I'm afraid you've not read the whole group of posts in this thread if you think it is an "unlearned" debate. Perhaps you would be wise to do this before charging me and others with being "unlearned."

I think I understand. You are relatively new to RR, and possibly you think the textual debate has never occurred before you arrived. There's actually been a number of threads exploring it in depth in the past couple of years, that I've read anyways.


Is the following a learned response...?

You're really quite stung by that, aren't you? You keep mentionig it. And yet, you're the one who jumped to the assumption that your intellect and knowledge was being attacked. Are you perhaps rather proud of your learning?



I certainly encourage finding out info on the individuals...but when it comes to translation it won't matter that much. Erasmus believed in transubstantiation (and he had a lot to do with gathering the texts for what would be the KJV). I can see you're likely among those who dislike Hort and Westcott. Your following jab points this out:

[/B]

Revision? Actually, a learned individual would see that many points in the KJV are actually revisions placed there by scribes throughout the years (some 20 more "Christ Jesus" titles in the KJV than in the NASB). I read the NASB, and am blessed by it....I am not reading a "revision" of the Textus Receptus. And, though you're such a wonderful sister in Christ to encourage me rightly, I will continue to search out the Scriptures in what I believe to be a learned fashion.

More power to you. The scriptures aren't discerned by the power of human intellect though. The scriptures themselves declare that they are truths of God which are spiritually discerned.

Out of curiosity, how does your learning in NT texts stack up against Dean Burgon's, or Scrivener's?


And read all the posts before you make such a charge, please. It's just not nice of you.

You're making an assumption, again.


Now, what's your suggestion for michelle? What text, what translation can she rely on? Which one will nurture and strengthen, and not undercut her faith in the absolute reliability of the Word of God?

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by Beth

Actually, I didn't say you were unlearned, nor implied it. You seem to have inferred it. I've taken some time to read quite a few of your posts since you registered here. I notice you make these kind of assumptions about other posters thoughts and attitudes fairly often. It seems to lead to rather prickly exchanges between you and others.

Well, please excuse me for my assumption. I apologize. But you could have certainly brought it up in a different fashion if it concerned you. "Prickly" exchanges? If you could point on specifics that would be helpful. I don't try to be prickly, merely try to stay focused on the Word.


I think I understand. You are relatively new to RR, and possibly you think the textual debate has never occurred before you arrived. There's actually been a number of threads exploring it in depth in the past couple of years, that I've read anyways.

I am relatively new...but why would you ever believe that I would think the textual debate hasn't gone on? You're the one assuming here.

You're really quite stung by that, aren't you? You keep mentionig it. And yet, you're the one who jumped to the assumption that your intellect and knowledge was being attacked. Are you perhaps rather proud of your learning?

I need to be careful...I know. Yes, I am stung by people who hold up the KJV as somehow superior to other translations. I've been questioned whether I'm a real Christian for reading the NASB. Quite honestly, I think that's pathetic. So I guess when people hold the KJV above others it irks me down deep because it reminds me of those who have questioned my relationship with Christ on account of the Bible I use (they are peole at a church of a friend of mine in Canada--an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church...and with the exception of their KJV-Only preaching, it's a fine church).

Proud of my learning? Not sure at all what you're trying to say here. I know what the Lord has taught me, what I've learned over the past few years. I know what Scripture says on a number of matters...do I intentionally flaunt any head knowledge? No. But I know that I've been growing in the Lord just fine without the KJV translation.


More power to you. The scriptures aren't discerned by the power of human intellect though. The scriptures themselves declare that they are truths of God which are spiritually discerned.

Who is being prickly now? Understanding Scripture does take some human intellect...and knowledge about how we got our Bible goes a long way in explaining many things KJV-Only folks hold dear. I didn't say there isn't spiritual discerning when reading Scripture, as well. But it means what it means...and people often use the "spiritual discernment" excuse to misapply and misuse the Word.

Out of curiosity, how does your learning in NT texts stack up against Dean Burgon's, or Scrivener's?

I've read a number of books on how our Bible came into being...a few on the KJV-Only Controversy...and a number of articles concerning the Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian text. Regardless, your question is condescending. I do my best to follow the following:


2 Timothy 2:

15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.


Now, what's your suggestion for michelle? What text, what translation can she rely on? Which one will nurture and strengthen, and not undercut her faith in the absolute reliability of the Word of God?

There are many good translations. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that the ASV, 1901 / NASB / NKJV were all fine translations. Literal translation is superior to dynamic equivalence. NIV can be read to get the general idea, I suppose. But I prefer NASB or NKJV or ASV, 1901. I would sooner read the New Living Translation before NIV probably.

Didn't this thread began with a question regarding the Johannine Comma? Michelle's faith doesn't need to be shaken by this at all. There are numerous other passages which are prooftexts for the Trinity. Hers, and others, would not have their faith shaken at all if they learned the truth behind how Scripture has truly been preserved for us. There are shortcomings to all translations...to believe otherwise is simply ignorant, if not dishonest. If one doesn't read Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew they are forced to read a translation. And even the translators of the KJV (the 1611 edition, that is...not the present one people read which hails from circa 1768) quoted Saint Augustine to say that reading a number of translations is a wise thing to do.

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

The KJV Translators Wrote This... (http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html)

The Preface to the 1611 Edition is also available on the site linked above

I'm not writing against using the KJV, let me be clear on that, please. But using it exclusively, and believing it is superior to other translations takes one down a meandering road to venerating a singular translation.

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

edited to make sure I wasn't being too prickly.

[cindyw]

<<<<<"Prickly" exchanges? If you could point on specifics that would be helpful. I don't try to be prickly, merely try to stay focused on the Word.>>>>>



;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) :b

[pilgrimian]

Bless you, Cindy! I appreciate the winks.

[cindyw]

Originally posted by pilgrimian
Bless you, Cindy! I appreciate the winks.


Most single guys do! :lol :lol ;) ;)

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by Beth

Out of curiosity, how does your learning in NT texts stack up against Dean Burgon's, or Scrivener's?


Selectively Reading Burgon? (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/burgon_textus.htm)

See the excerpts...

Burgon, John. THE REVISION REVISED (London: John Murray, 1883).

". . .[I]t might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek Text." (p. xxix, preface). It is common knowledge that Burgon proposed over 150 changes in the Textus Receptus in the Gospel of Matthew alone.

Again, on the use of the commonly received text in collating manuscripts: "Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking,--'Whether we consider the textus receptus infallible?' The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any Text would equally suit our present purpose." (p. 17)

Clearly disclaiming belief in an infallible Textus Receptus, he wrote: "Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g. at page 107) that the textus receptus needs correction." (p. 21, footnote 2).

On the need for the Textus Receptus to be corrected: ". . .[I]n not a few particulars, the 'Textus receptus' does call for Revision, certainly;" (p. 107).




Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus:
Which Is Superior? (http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/westcott.htm)

In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text. However, since modern printed Greek texts are in the same respective families of text, namely the Alexandrian (Nestle, et al.) and the Byzantine (majority text), it is suitable to ask, "which one is superior, i.e., which comes closer to presenting the Greek text in its original form?"

What is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the Westcott-Hort text vis-a-vis the textus receptus, is the fact that it has firm support from the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, plus the earliest of the versions or translations, as well as the early Christian writers of the 2nd through 4th centuries. Age of manuscripts is probably the most objective factor in the process of textual criticism. When Westcott and Hort compiled their text, they employed the two oldest then-known manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, as their text base. Since their day, a good number of manuscripts as old and in some cases a century older and more than these two manuscripts have been discovered. With a general uniformity, these early manuscripts have supported the Alexandrian text-type which the Westcott-Hort text presents. It is true that these papyrus manuscripts occasionally contain Byzantine-type readings, but none of them could in any way be legitimately described as being regularly Byzantine in text. The agreement of some of the papyri with Vaticanus, especially p75 of the early third century, has been quite remarkable.

Of the early versions, the Westcott-Hort text has strong support in the various Coptic versions of the third and later centuries, plus frequent support in the Old Latin versions and the oldest forms of the Syriac, in particular the Sinaitic and Curetonian manuscripts whose text form dates to the second or third century (though there are also strong Western elements in the Old Latin and the early Syriac). Jerome's revision of the Old Latin, the Vulgate made ca. 400 A.D., also gives frequent support to the Alexandrian text. Of early Christian writers before the fourth century, the Alexandrian text has substantial support, especially in the writings of Origen, whose Scripture quotations are exceedingly numerous.

What shall we say then? Which text shall we choose as superior? We shall choose neither the Westcott-Hort text (nor its modern kinsmen) nor the textus receptus (or the majority text) as our standard text, our text of last appeal. All these printed texts are compiled or edited texts, formed on the basis of the informed (or not-so-well-informed) opinions of fallible editors. Neither Erasmus nor Westcott and Hort (nor, need we say, any other text editor or group of editors) is omniscient or perfect in reasoning and judgment. Therefore, we refuse to be enslaved to the textual criticism opinions of either Erasmus or Westcott and Hort or for that matter any other scholars, whether Nestle, Aland, Metzger, Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, or anyone else. Rather, it is better to evaluate all variants in the text of the Greek New Testament on a reading by reading basis, that is, in those places where there are divergences in the manuscripts and between printed texts, the evidence for and against each reading should be thoroughly and carefully examined and weighed, and the arguments of the various schools of thought considered, and only then a judgment made.

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[Beth]

pilgrimian, most of us have the capability for reading the work of others and cutting and pasting. I will consider your cut'n'paste answer to my query to indicate that, like most of the rest of us, you personally don't have any actual credentials in the field of ancient languages of the Middle East, or in NT textual criticism. I think that you read and consider the works of those who do have credentials, and form an opinion on that, as do the rest of us.

I would venture to say that most of us probably don't even have sufficient education to make valid assessments of the credentials of others (although I believe there are one or two people on RR who probably have more expertise and knowledge in this vein), and decide which ones outweigh others.

That leaves another option: finding out, and factoring into our decision, the attitudes and expressed beliefs of those credentialed persons, in order to decide whose opinion and integrity one thinks is more trustworthy. That is why I recommended to michelle to find out what she could about the backgrounds and attitude to the Word of God held by the various translators and revisers.

quote:

Originally posted by Beth

Out of curiosity, how does your learning in NT texts stack up against Dean Burgon's, or Scrivener's?

[pilgrimian]

I'm just showing you what I've read on the individuals you mentioned. If either of these men were alive today I think they would see KJV-Onlyism as a sad use of their textual studies.

I know what I read, Beth...that is my learning. How do you learn? And I must say that the KJV-Only articles I've read have been pretty weak and rather full of circular reasoning. I'm afraid the KJV-Only crowd got to me a little late, as far as my Scriptural footing is concerned. Ruckman may consider me apostate, and a part of the "Alexandrian Cult"...oy vay, but his opinion doesn't matter much to me. I am living to show myself approved to Christ. And His Gospel is not held captive by any translation.

Have you read anything on KJV-Onlyism and its connection to Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson?

By the way, I am learning Koine Greek, just FYI. How about yourself?

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[tuco22]

I believe the words you want to look for are "record" and "witness"; there are three that bear "record", and there are three that bear "witness" - two different things. Blood bears witness in the way that Abel's blood cried out to God, water bears witness in the water that gushed from Jesus' side and the waters of the flood, etc. Hope this helps. Record - the Word.

[mephib]

Michelle,

Getting back to your original post for a minute, I'll pass on something from my own personal experience. It may be a tad obtuse or not particularly applicable to what you are going through, but bear with me for a moment.

God brought me to the place in my life where He could no longer mature me in Christ, because I was still dependent on my faith...Let me repeat: "my faith"... What do I mean by that?

Those who still rely on their own faith must at some point have that faith shattered before God can move them on. And it will happen if they are seeking the Lord. He will crush your faith into talcum powder. It may happen throught the sickness of a loved one who is not healed despite prayer and fasting, or in some similar fashion perhaps less dramatic but similarly meaningful, usually when the stakes are high. Human faith is always ultimately dependent on God doing what we want Him to do. It is fickle, disloyal. It must first agree with God's actions and plans before following. The faith of the flesh, of the "old man" is no faith at all. It is merely a source of pride for the carnal.

That is not the faith of Christ, of a son. A son trusts Daddy, that Daddy will provide, that Daddy knows exactly what He is doing, at all times and at all places and forever, regardless of all appearances to the contrary.

What God desires is for the death of the old Michelle (Rom. 6), and HER faith, to be real and experiential, so that Michelle can be fully matured in Christ. And the process of maturing in Christ, IMHO, consists of His faith in the Father becoming our faith. After all, we are one spirit with Him, are we not? (1 Cor. 6:17). He is now our life, and our life must therefore include His faith. And He knows His Father very well, and because of that, trusts the Father completely, regardless of the chaos that surrounds us. Consider:

Gal. 2:20 - "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

How does Paul live? By Paul's faith, or the faith of the Son of God? (Some translations use "in" the Son of God, but, IMHO, they miss the boat on this one.) Clearly, Paul learned to live by the faith of another, the faith of Christ Himself in the Father.

Think about it. If it doesn't make much sense in this context, perhaps it will in another at some point. But understand that God wants to bring us to the place that translation issues, and anything and everything else that may cause us to stumble or doubt, will instead be used by Him to jettison our own faith and consent to the substitution of the faith of the Son of God.

Mephib

[just_jim]

Originally posted by Beth
Sorry to interrupt the so learned debate going back and forth, but I just wanted to draw attention to something in the original post.

Here is a believer, who is feeling she is stumbling and her faith is in danger, because it appears that somewhere, somewhen, somebody either took something out of, or added something in to, the precious Word of God. And she wants to know, how can she trust what it says? How is she to know which passages or text or translation she can stand on, and which are dodgy?

I wonder how much this learned debate is helping her.

Here's my advice michelle.
Find and read what you can about what sort of men the KJV translators were, and do the same for Westcott and Hort (whose revised text is pretty much the basis for all new translations of the Bible). Find out what the attitudes of these two groups of men were to the Word of God. Find out what they believed. That will tell you something about whom you can put your trust on in terms of preserving, handling and transmitting the Word of God.

Hi Beth,

The learned know that there is a 'Letter from the [1611] Translators' [themselves] in the prologue of the 1611 KJV Bible.

That may be a starting point in "find[ing] and read[ing] what you can about what sort of men the KJV translators were".

Btw, it wasn't a "learned debate", it was just two Christian guys who have just met saying hello to each other. Debates are usually different.

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by just_jim


Hi Beth,

The learned know that there is a 'Letter from the [1611] Translators' [themselves] in the prologue of the 1611 KJV Bible.

That may be a starting point in "find[ing] and read[ing] what you can about what sort of men the KJV translators were".

Btw, it wasn't a "learned debate", it was just two Christian guys who have just met saying hello to each other. Debates are usually different.

Amen, brother!

Here to help "strengthen what remains" (Revelation 3:2 & When You Gonna Wake Up, B. Dylan) as we live in this world full of sin. Thankful that I am justified by Him (Romans 5:1-2), and that only because of Him am I clothed in white (Revelation 3:4).

Yes, the Preface to the 1611 translation is a must read. Some friends of mine who lean toward KJV-Only never knew about the preface. They only trusted what their pastor said, and he never mentioned it (James 3:1).

By the way, thanks for the Dylan thread link! Meant to send you a PM about that!

Godspeed,
Your brother in Messiah,
Matthew

[Elizabeth_S]

Originally posted by Alhere
It's a can of worms you have opened again Michelle.

You need to take some time and check out the Bible Versions controversy for yourself.

In a nutshell, the KJV and the modern versions use different Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV camp to which I belong hold that the modern versions have been translated from corrupted manuscripts. The idea that the modern versions are based on older manuscripts and therefore more accurate is not true because conservative scholars in the late 1800's examined them and declared them as corrupt (notably Dean Burgon). Liberal scholars of the late 1800's mainly Westcott and Hort (who by the way liked Charles Darwin's book) promoted them as better because of being older. Of course liberalism had more voices and won the day and we are inundated with all these Johnnie-Come-Lately new versions of the English Bible. I believe there are over 40 new versions since 1960?

So, the KJV camp believes that the manuscripts underlying the KJV were divinely preserved and selected and the KJV is the result.

Now even the KJV translators stated in their preface that they did not consider the translation into English as 100% perfect but did consider that the original language manuscripts that they had were the correct ones.

Contrary to what some may suggest there are significant differences between the versions.

I have an article on my website in the Articles Section which follows along these lines.

You could also check out Dr. D.A. Waite's site at

http:\\www.thebiblefortoday.org


Regards
Alhere

so, are you saying that bible's not in english are all wrong? Or they are all right, and just the KJV in english is OK?

I see poeple talk about the english KJV, but what about all the other different languages? does everyone have to read english to get the best translation?

[Elizabeth_S]

I meant to add.

I have seen most sites that say the NKJV and other versions are corrupted, yet when I have done a side by side comparison, they read the same.

what's up with that?

[linuxpenguin]

I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread or not, but if you do research on the resurrection of our Lord and prove it to yourself you will never suffer another mighty hit to your faith. If you can totally convince yourself that the resurrection actually happened (and the evidence is there) your faith will be unshakable.

[DJHere]

Michelle does scripture teach the trinity exists in other scripture? Yes. Does it show that God has testified to the fact Jesus was his Son in other scripture? Yes! Does it teach the Holy Spirit is God? Yes! Is there a note telling you this part of the text was added later? Yes! So why is this shaking you faith? Whether or not this was part of the original text should not shake your faith as what it states is true. God the Father has borne witness to the fact Jesus was his son at Jesus baptism. This fact is recorded in the gospels. The fact the Spirit is God is also recorded in other scriptures as is the fact he is sent from God. I agree with the others who stated that the fact this was not part of the original text adds to the authenticity of the scriptures.

[Lonewolf7]

Originally posted by michelle95
1 John 5
7. For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth), the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I was told by someone that the part of scripture in parenthesis was added much later to the Bible.

After searching through some computer Bible commentaries I have....I found this to be true.

I don't know how to deal with this.....if stuff is added down the road...how do we know it's true?

The simple answer is this......

Does it agree with the text of the Bible as a whole?

Your answer to that is all that matters.

[Workfromhomemom]

Originally posted by DJHere
Michelle does scripture teach the trinity exists in other scripture? Yes. Does it show that God has testified to the fact Jesus was his Son in other scripture? Yes! Does it teach the Holy Spirit is God? Yes! Is there a note telling you this part of the text was added later? Yes! So why is this shaking you faith? Whether or not this was part of the original text should not shake your faith as what it states is true. God the Father has borne witness to the fact Jesus was his son at Jesus baptism. This fact is recorded in the gospels. The fact the Spirit is God is also recorded in other scriptures as is the fact he is sent from God. I agree with the others who stated that the fact this was not part of the original text adds to the authenticity of the scriptures.

Well, I cannot speak for her, but I would take issue with this. Her faith is shaken because the text is being called into question. Most of us common folks know enough of the Bible to know that God wants us to know his Word and, if that is so, we need to be able to get that Word into our hands. So then comes the issue of which version, as there are contradictory families of manuscripts.

Michelle, here is the bottom line. The verses that are called into question by the Alexandrian family of manuscripts (Aleph and B)were quoted by ECF well before the origin of these supposed "oldest and best". So it can be shown that these verses were not "made up" by some scholar many hundreds of years later, but actually can be traced back to about second century. My old Scofield has the exact ECF named in the footnotes.

The other bottom line is that the deity of Christ and the HS is shown all throughout the Bible, so it doesn't rest on this single verse. But I didn't sense that that was what your real issue was...

I have studied this issue so feel free to PM me.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/vers4fbns.htm
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/a1joh5_7.htm


For the new folks, I occasionally drop in on these threads but I no longer debate, as I find it unfruitful.

:):

[pilgrimian]

So which Early Church Fathers quoted this Scripture? I would take the time to look at the sites you link to in your message...but I am quite tired of the KJV-Only thing, and needing to read through that to get to the meat of what matters.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[JimWilson]

GREAT post Mephib......advice to live by.

Just my two cents.