Page 1 of 2 [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

kxmode
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,613
Location: In your neighborhood, knocking on your door. :)

19 Jan 2012, 12:13 pm

Someone asked an interesting question.

Quote:
Why do Jehovah's Witnesses omit the verse: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." from 1 John 5:7? It's changed in the New World Translation to only read: "For there are three witness bearers". Why is this? The Greek text clearly says more.


This was a good research question because I did not know the answer. After an hour of study here is what I found.

Regarding 1 John 5:7 Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, a Bible translator, states: “This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions. . . . It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament.”

And in 1848, after summing up the evidence on 1 John 5:7, 8, Professor J. Scott Porter writes in his book Principles of Textual Criticism on page 510, “It is to be hoped, the time will soon come when those who have the charge of preparing editions of the Bible for general circulation, will be ashamed of sending forth a known interpolation as a portion of the sacred text.”

Here's where the truth comes out. In 1844 around Sinai a Bible manuscript called the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered. This nearly complete bible from 330 - 360 C.E. has confirmed that the verses in particular are no part of God’s inspired Word.

Here's what it looks like
Image

You can see this for yourself online. As you can see in the screenshot you can clearly see the Greek translation reads:

7 θεια οτι οι τρειϲ ει ϲιν οι μαρτυρου
8 τεϲ το πνα και το ϋ δωρ και το αιμα

English translation:

7 For they that testify are three,
8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

The following is not only false, but these words were purposely added to the bible to support the unscriptual trinity doctrine.

[img][800:516]http://www.kxmode.com/jw/1john578-badtrans.jpg[/img]

If your bible has this translation then it is not truthful.

Jesus said, "YOU will know the truth, and the truth will set YOU free." (John 8:32) Now you know the truth about 1 John 5:7,8 :)


_________________
A Proud Witness of Jehovah God (JW.org)
Revelation 21:4 "And [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes,
and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.
The former things have passed away."


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Jan 2012, 12:17 pm

It is all nonsense.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jan 2012, 9:45 pm

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1jn/5.html

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


Quote:
(5:7) This is the clearest, and pretty much the only, expression of the Trinitarian concept in the Bible. It is not, however, found in the earliest Greek manuscripts and is omitted from most modern translations. Here, for example, are verses 7-8 in the New Revised Standard Version:
"There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree."
Not all Christians agree about how these verses (often called the Johannine comma) should be treated. See here for a KJV-only defense.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

19 Jan 2012, 10:09 pm

If you would like to learn about the bible I'd advise you to read it back to front ignoring nothing.

You know, instead of picking and choosing what you want to read and follow.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm

Start with the last chapter of Revelations? I think that's a silly approach.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

20 Jan 2012, 10:38 pm

pandabear wrote:
Start with the last chapter of Revelations? I think that's a silly approach.


I'm a little to used to reading manga I think :lol:

Front to back.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

20 Jan 2012, 10:41 pm

@kxmode

Sorry, but that post was utter bunk. Even if the full criticism you made is true and part of the verse is an addition, it does not mean the verse becomes non-trinitarian. The verse still says 'three are one'. Further one can get to the trinity through other passages, like the statement first there was the word and the word was God (JW's like to change that too), it then says 'everything was created through him and nothing was made apart from him', which destroys the idea that the word was made. You would have to ignore that too.

Further, there are good reasons to think that the verse belongs there
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/ ... s/a102.pdf

Also when you say it is not in the Greek manuscripts before the fifteenth century, you are lying, see the link. Also, it is in just about all of the Latin manuscripts. It is also mentioned by Church fathers. But even if it is an addition, it does not change all that much.

Sorry kxmode, but I take serious issue with your post.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

20 Jan 2012, 10:46 pm

91 wrote:
... Sorry, but that post was utter bunk. Even if the full criticism you made is true and part of the verse is an addition...

... it would mean that the entire Bible is suspect, and the result of human manipulation.

And if that is true, then everything it says is likely the work of a series of imaginative and manipulative people, who wrote the Bible without godly inspiration, and likely for their own ends.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

20 Jan 2012, 11:01 pm

Fnord wrote:
91 wrote:
... Sorry, but that post was utter bunk. Even if the full criticism you made is true and part of the verse is an addition...

... it would mean that the entire Bible is suspect, and the result of human manipulation.

And if that is true, then everything it says is likely the work of a series of imaginative and manipulative people, who wrote the Bible without godly inspiration, and likely for their own ends.


Umm, the baby need not go with the bath water.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

20 Jan 2012, 11:09 pm

91 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
91 wrote:
... Sorry, but that post was utter bunk. Even if the full criticism you made is true and part of the verse is an addition...
... it would mean that the entire Bible is suspect, and the result of human manipulation. And if that is true, then everything it says is likely the work of a series of imaginative and manipulative people, who wrote the Bible without godly inspiration, and likely for their own ends.
Umm, the baby need not go with the bath water.

Why not? Either the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God, or it isn't. Either Christianity is based on the Bible or it isn't.

Check out 1st Kings 7:23 and 7:26.

There is a similar description in 2nd Chronicles 4:2-5.

The value given is both incomplete and erroneous.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Jan 2012, 12:03 am

Who gets to decide which parts of the bible are good to follow as Jehova Witness dogma and which are "additions" that should be ignored ?


_________________
.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2012, 12:49 am

Fnord wrote:
... it would mean that the entire Bible is suspect, and the result of human manipulation.

And if that is true, then everything it says is likely the work of a series of imaginative and manipulative people, who wrote the Bible without godly inspiration, and likely for their own ends.

I don't see how that follows. The insertion of some erroneous detail does not mean that all is erroneous. Sure, it increases our reasons to believe the Bible has some errors, but the issue is that the Comma Johanneum is a late addition and was detected as one. It doesn't tell as much about earlier ages as desirable.

Quote:
Why not? Either the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God, or it isn't. Either Christianity is based on the Bible or it isn't.

You know as well as I do that the Fundamentalist Protestants you rely on for that really mean the original manuscripts.

Even further, we both likely know that churches vary in their views of scripture and other sources. Fundamentalist Protestantism has a unique theology, with unique tendencies, so trying to pretend it is ALL Christianity is silly.

Vexcalibur wrote:
Who gets to decide which parts of the bible are good to follow as Jehova Witness dogma and which are "additions" that should be ignored ?

Well, the issue that kxmode pointed out is pretty much agreed upon. Most modern Bibles, which are usually published by trinitarian believers, reject those verses because they are considered additions. I mean, just look at an ESV Bible and see the absence of these verses. This is orthodoxy.

Additions doesn't have to be in quotes. Scholars generally know these are not in the original manuscripts.

Basically, kxmode is just trying to push this issue because JWs are non-trinitarians, so this is just a way to knock down a piece of criticism against their theology.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 21 Jan 2012, 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

21 Jan 2012, 1:01 am

91 wrote:
@kxmode

Sorry, but that post was utter bunk. Even if the full criticism you made is true and part of the verse is an addition, it does not mean the verse becomes non-trinitarian. The verse still says 'three are one'. Further one can get to the trinity through other passages, like the statement first there was the word and the word was God (JW's like to change that too), it then says 'everything was created through him and nothing was made apart from him', which destroys the idea that the word was made. You would have to ignore that too.

Further, there are good reasons to think that the verse belongs there
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/ ... s/a102.pdf

Also when you say it is not in the Greek manuscripts before the fifteenth century, you are lying, see the link. Also, it is in just about all of the Latin manuscripts. It is also mentioned by Church fathers. But even if it is an addition, it does not change all that much.

Sorry kxmode, but I take serious issue with your post.


Hi kxmode,

Here in the U.S.A. we have religious freedom, but by the majority rule of what's religious truth, it is the majority's way or the highway.

It has to be "trinity", or at least intellectual oppression. The book "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin use to be the official divine parchment for the State of California, but since it still includes the chapter "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons)", the official version of the parchment has been burned.

As it was with the book, everyone must agree as if with 91, or they will be regarded as engaging in lying in his opinion, but he also regards that American Law requires official government permissions to wear lapel pins in public places.

Amazon-dot-com lists the book as having 100 results for "trinity" and 7 results for "Goodspeed". Some of the customer reviews of the book are insightful, and the book is pathetic & dishonest, but it gives a good footing in knowing what types of bigotry to expect from individuals who think they are infallible when using their own religion's doctrines against all others.

Tadzio



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Jan 2012, 2:52 am

Even if said verse was a later addition, not only am I remaining Trinitarian in my theology, I also have no interest in becoming a Jehovah's Witness.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

21 Jan 2012, 9:56 am

91 wrote:
@kxmode

Sorry, but that post was utter bunk..


That's a rather strong reaction to an explanation of why the Jehovah's Witness translation is worded a particular way. They seem to have reasons that are at least defensible.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

21 Jan 2012, 10:05 am

pandabear wrote:
91 wrote:
@kxmode

Sorry, but that post was utter bunk..


That's a rather strong reaction to an explanation of why the Jehovah's Witness translation is worded a particular way. They seem to have reasons that are at least defensible.


well we cant have the atheists condemning any heretic group anymore than the church itself can we?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.