Speks Posted October 14, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 192 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 145 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2020 Hello again. I'm not sure if this is exactly what you had in mind but this page may be of interest: https://biblereasons.com/trinity-in-the-bible/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 14, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Deborah_ said: When Erasmus compiled his first edition of the Greek New Testament, he left this text out because he found no Greek manuscript containing it. After complaints, he agreed to put it into the second edition because a single (very late) Greek manuscript was found that did have it. Since then, no other Greek manuscripts containing these words have turned up, so they remain highly disputed. Some factual corrections follow. The KJV translators had nine Greek manuscripts containing 1 John 5:7, five in the text and four in marginal notes. Quote The KJV was translated from the second edition of Erasmus' NT, so it contains the disputed text. But when Luther made the first German translation of the NT, he used the first edition. And so NO German Bible has ever contained these words! The KJV was not translated from one of Erasmus' Greek NT editions. It was based on one of Beza's later editions. The 1545 Luther Bible does have 1 John 5:7 (my German girlfriend has a facsimile of it). Quote Modern English Bibles don't contain it either (it's usually put in a footnote) because it's absent from all early Greek manuscripts. 1 John 5:7 (NKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (VW) For there are three that bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJ3) For three are the ones bearing witness: in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7,8 (Greek Orthodox NT) 7 There are three who bear witness <in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth a >: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one. 1 John 5:7 (MEV) There are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and the three are one. These are all modern Bibles, based on the Textus Receptus (the Greek Orthodox NT is based on the Patriarchal Text, which is very similar), and they do contain 1 John 5:7. It is modern Bibles that are not based on the Textus Receptus that omit it. Quote It seems to have crept into the Latin translations quite early (these would have been the ones used by African church leaders) and has persisted because it is so useful. And it doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible, so you could say that it's an 'addition' that does no harm. Notice the sneaky pejorative "crept into", referring to the presence of 1 John 5:7 in nearly all Latin manuscripts. Also notice the condescending "has persisted because it is so useful", as contrasted with a believing attitude that God preserved it in the Latin manuscripts, because it had been removed from many Greek manuscripts; however, as noted above, the modern Greek-speaking Church still uses a Greek text that contains 1 John 5:7. You could say that its removal from many modern Bibles does quite a lot of harm. Quote It's unwise to use I John 5:7 as a proof-text of the Trinity, though, because it has such dubious provenance. But we don't need it, as there is plenty of evidence elsewhere in Scripture. Yes, that's right, the Church through the centuries was "unwise" to use 1 John 5:7 and modern doubting "believers" are so much wiser! Edited October 14, 2020 by David1701 missing word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 14, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, David1701 said: Accidental duplicate  Edited October 14, 2020 by David1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 14, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Speks said: This text is typically revered by those who are KJV only and TR only. In essence we are told that the TR and KJV came about by divine preservation so it follows that this text is inspired. Following the logic of this position it can be argued that the Comma Johanneum is identical to the original words penned by the author of 1st John. Citing Daniel Wallace on this issue is sure to aggravate more than a few onlyists, some of whom may accuse the respected scholar of concealing “the actual evidence... to further mislead the unsuspecting saints”, etc. I’m not sure why Mr Wallace would do that such is his consistent dedication to the true preservation of God’s Word, but his argumentation can be read here: https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftn2 https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian In my view, for what it’s worth, there are no significant “ramifications of this in people's understanding of the Word”. Evidence for the Comma Johanneum is underwhelming. If the added text clashed badly with the balanced fullness of Scripture teaching we should be concerned, but it doesn’t. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Daniel Wallace not one of those who teaches that, regarding textual criticism, the Bible should be treated like any secular book. I know that's how many Critical Text supporters treat textual criticism of the Bible. Evidence for 1 John 5:7 is very strong, unless you regard only extant Greek manuscripts as evidence (in other words, if you disregard thousands of Latin manuscripts, various quotes and paraphrases from ECFs and some very early translations of the Bible). In general, you have two choices: 1) God provided a sound, reliable, accurate text (N.B. I did not say perfect), at a time of great return to God and the Bible (the Reformation), in many countries and languages. 2) God provided a shoddy, unreliable, inaccurate text at the Reformation; and we had to wait for two sceptics (Westcott and Hort), using their own suppositions and basing their replacement Greek NT on two Greek manuscripts, both heavily corrected and disagreeing hugely with each other, contrary to their mandate and secretly introduced, for a reliable Greek NT, in the late 1800s, at a time of great unbelief and departure from the Bible. I know which I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speks Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 17 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 192 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 145 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 Rather than responding through the vageries of spin, I'd certainly agree with Wallace's definition of critical biblical scholarship: "...I believe any good scholar will be a critical scholar — that is, he or she will wrestle with the historical, grammatical, sociological, textual, and lexical data from the perspective of a scientific investigator who is seeking the truth. A non-critical approach simply assumes a position then seeks evidence that will support it." He has also written: "I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I confess verbal-plenary inspiration and embrace both infallibility and inerrancy... I believe that the NT is the final revelation of God in terms of a revelation for all his people. That is, whether there is the prophetic gift today is not what I am speaking against (or for): the final revelation for the invisible church is found in the NT. Nothing after the completion of the NT can add to the foundation of our credo" (Bible.org). Regardless of the textual base or methodology we espouse, we can each use quality translations of Scripture to grow spiritually in the knowledge of Christ. In faith we can be throughly equipped for good works through the fullness of its teaching.  1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAllThere Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 462 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 335 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 17 hours ago, David1701 said: Notice the sneaky pejorative "crept into", referring to the presence of 1 John 5:7 in nearly all Latin manuscripts. Also notice the condescending "has persisted because it is so useful", as contrasted with a believing attitude that God preserved it in the Latin manuscripts, because it had been removed from many Greek manuscripts; however, as noted above, the modern Greek-speaking Church still uses a Greek text that contains 1 John 5:7. You could say that its removal from many modern Bibles does quite a lot of harm. Yes, that's right, the Church through the centuries was "unwise" to use 1 John 5:7 and modern doubting "believers" are so much wiser! You complain about the "sneaky pejorative", but use loaded language yourself. Such as referring to the opposite argument as "pejorative" and "condescending" and the sarcasm inherent in your last statement.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Speks said: Rather than responding through the vageries of spin, I'd certainly agree with Wallace's definition of critical biblical scholarship: "...I believe any good scholar will be a critical scholar — that is, he or she will wrestle with the historical, grammatical, sociological, textual, and lexical data from the perspective of a scientific investigator who is seeking the truth. A non-critical approach simply assumes a position then seeks evidence that will support it."  This IS spin! Wallace, along with many others, claims to wrestle with the available evidence, then proceeds to ignore the vast majority of it. He (and others) have been challenged about this more than once. Quote He has also written: "I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I confess verbal-plenary inspiration and embrace both infallibility and inerrancy... I believe that the NT is the final revelation of God in terms of a revelation for all his people. That is, whether there is the prophetic gift today is not what I am speaking against (or for): the final revelation for the invisible church is found in the NT. Nothing after the completion of the NT can add to the foundation of our credo" (Bible.org). We are talking about textual criticism, not inspiration. Having said that, inspiration does have some relation to textual criticism. If you compare the minority text used by most modern translations, with the Textus Receptus, then either many verses and parts of verses, in the Textus Receptus, are uninspired, or many verses and parts of verses that are inspired are missing and/or altered, in the minority text. Quote Regardless of the textual base or methodology we espouse, we can each use quality translations of Scripture to grow spiritually in the knowledge of Christ. In faith we can be throughly equipped for good works through the fullness of its teaching. Something that either adds to, alters or subtracts from what God inspired, in thousands of places, is not high quality; so, either the Textus Receptus is shoddy and unreliable, or the minority text is shoddy and unreliable. Take your pick, but they cannot both be high quality. Hort prepared his replacement Greek NT, for many years, precisely because he hated the Textus Receptus, calling it "vile" and "villainous". If you side with the minority text, then that should be your attitude as well. If you believe that God provided a very sound, reliable text to the Reformers, restoring the word of God to many nations, then you should regard the minority text the same way. As I said, take your pick, but they are at odds with each other. Edited October 15, 2020 by David1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 6 hours ago, NotAllThere said: You complain about the "sneaky pejorative", but use loaded language yourself. Such as referring to the opposite argument as "pejorative" and "condescending" and the sarcasm inherent in your last statement.  Being objective, and showing the flaws in the opponent's post, requires describing what she did correctly. That is what I did. Paul and the Lord both used sarcasm to good effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddyv Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 4,265 Content Per Day: 2.89 Reputation: 2,302 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/03/2020 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, David1701 said:  Something that either adds, alters or subtracts from what God inspired, in thousands of places, is not high quality; so, either the Textus Receptus is shoddy and unreliable, or the minority text is shoddy and unreliable. Take your pick, but they cannot both be high quality.  Having read many discussion of this matter over the years, I think you need to be a little less hyperbolic about "thousands of places" since most discrepancies are pretty minor and have no effect whatsoever on the text. I'm pretty sure there are not thousands of verses dropped/added in their entirety between the TR and CT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David1701 Posted October 15, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 15 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,731 Content Per Day: 3.51 Reputation: 3,524 Days Won: 12 Joined: 11/27/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted October 15, 2020 1 minute ago, teddyv said: Having read many discussion of this matter over the years, I think you need to be a little less hyperbolic about "thousands of places" since most discrepancies are pretty minor and have no effect whatsoever on the text. I'm pretty sure there are not thousands of verses dropped/added in their entirety between the TR and CT. Thousands of places is literally true, not hyperbolic. Yes, I know that many of the discrepancies are minor; but there are also many that are important. I didn't say that thousands of verses had been dropped/added in their entirety! I said verses OR PARTS OF VERSES, which is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts