Calm down keypurr :rapture:
The Johannine Comma
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Calm down keypurr :rapture:
The NT contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Sinaitic covenant.
keypurr
Well-known member
There is no perfect Greek to English translation. I doubt if there is any perfect translation of scripture in the world. Mankind has done a great jod of corrupting and misquoting the oldest of manuscripts. Satan has done his best to deceive the words entrusted to his servants.
Daniel1769
New member
You haven't heard of the King James Bible, I guess. The KJV is the words of God in English. Of course unbelievers doubt that God has preserved his word. In the Garden, Satan first tried to cast this doubt saying, "Hath God said...?"
The Lord Jesus Christ was hostile to those that did it.
glorydaz
Well-known member
The trinity does stand up very well without it, but the surrounding verses made no sense without it.
keypurr
Well-known member
You know what I meant. I was brought up using the JKV. The first six time I read the Bible it was the KJV. And I am a believer, but not as the church teaches. The KJV has errors and mistakes, translated from the Greek instead of the Hebrew. Every translation has human errors, God's word has been preserved, but not in a single translation. The true context can be found, but not by JKV only folks.
keypurr
Well-known member
I disagree friend. There is only one God, YHWH. He sent his son, not himself.
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
And what about 1 John 5:7? "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Well, this looks like a great text to proof a trinity, except for the fact that this is a falsification of your Bible. In the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament this verse doesn't exist.
This text is later added to you Bible, in a desperate attempt to proof a trinity which cannot be proven.
The NT has come to us in bits and pieces. A Gospel from here, the letters of Paul from there... The first ones who compiled of this a reliable text of the NT where Westcott and Hort who did so in 1881.
In that Greek text of the NT is written in 1 John 5:7; "For there are three that testify"
That's all.
Followed by verse 8: "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one."
The whole part about the Father, the word and the holy spirit, and that those are one, doesn't exist in the original Greek text.
Nowadays the Greek text of dr Eberhard Nestle is the most reliable text of the NT, and in 1 John 5:7+8 it is exactly the same as the text of Westcott and Hort.
You don't have to take my word for it, just ask your pastor or reverend, and he'll confirm these facts.
About 30,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been found.
Of those thousands manuscripts that trinity formula is to be found in only four (4) manuscripts, and not one of those four goes back any further than the sixteenth century.
Therefore all Bible scholars agree that it is a 16th century falsification. Some say it was a note in the margin which ended up in the text.
Therefore all modern Bible translations leave out that part that doesn't belong in your Bible. Some translations put it between brackets, and some old ones like the KJV still have it in the text.
Old translations like the KJV are based on the so called "Textus Receptus", and that is based on relatively young and unreliable manuscripts.
The textus receptus of the Greek NT is compiled by Erasmus, and published in 1516.
The interesting part is that the first edition of the Textus Receptus didn't have that trinity formula in 1 John 5:7. When the church asked him why he didn't put in the Comma Johanneum, he answered: "I have never in my life seen a Greek manuscript which contains it."
Then the church showed him one, (the ink probably still wet on it) and in the following editions the comma was included.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
"Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.[7]
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."[8]
"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction. The Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Y-H-W-H.”
Jer 16:19-21
And what about 1 John 5:7? "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
Well, this looks like a great text to proof a trinity, except for the fact that this is a falsification of your Bible. In the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament this verse doesn't exist.
This text is later added to you Bible, in a desperate attempt to proof a trinity which cannot be proven.
The NT has come to us in bits and pieces. A Gospel from here, the letters of Paul from there... The first ones who compiled of this a reliable text of the NT where Westcott and Hort who did so in 1881.
In that Greek text of the NT is written in 1 John 5:7; "For there are three that testify"
That's all.
Followed by verse 8: "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one."
The whole part about the Father, the word and the holy spirit, and that those are one, doesn't exist in the original Greek text.
Nowadays the Greek text of dr Eberhard Nestle is the most reliable text of the NT, and in 1 John 5:7+8 it is exactly the same as the text of Westcott and Hort.
You don't have to take my word for it, just ask your pastor or reverend, and he'll confirm these facts.
About 30,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament have been found.
Of those thousands manuscripts that trinity formula is to be found in only four (4) manuscripts, and not one of those four goes back any further than the sixteenth century.
Therefore all Bible scholars agree that it is a 16th century falsification. Some say it was a note in the margin which ended up in the text.
Therefore all modern Bible translations leave out that part that doesn't belong in your Bible. Some translations put it between brackets, and some old ones like the KJV still have it in the text.
Old translations like the KJV are based on the so called "Textus Receptus", and that is based on relatively young and unreliable manuscripts.
The textus receptus of the Greek NT is compiled by Erasmus, and published in 1516.
The interesting part is that the first edition of the Textus Receptus didn't have that trinity formula in 1 John 5:7. When the church asked him why he didn't put in the Comma Johanneum, he answered: "I have never in my life seen a Greek manuscript which contains it."
Then the church showed him one, (the ink probably still wet on it) and in the following editions the comma was included.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
"Erasmus had been studying Greek New Testament manuscripts for many years, in the Netherlands, France, England and Switzerland, noting their many variants, but had only six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel.[5] They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently, most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.[7]
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included, because "Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy", even though he remained "convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."[8]
There is no such thing as a trinity, not in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament.
"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction. The Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Y-H-W-H.”
Jer 16:19-21
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
Not a single old Greek manuscript has it.
"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction. The Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Y-H-W-H.”
Jer 16:19-21
Elia
Well-known member
Bs"d
God is ONE, not a triinity.
https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/god-is-one-tol
"O Y-H-W-H, my strength and my fortress, my refuge in the day of affliction. The Gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say: “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; and they shall know that My name is Y-H-W-H.”
Jer 16:19-21
Even Catholic scholars acknowledge that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
1 John 5:7
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
Yes, it is a scribal gloss and should be removed from all bibles.
And why don't you start a movement to do that.
Yes we are.
2 Timothy 3:16 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
I suppose this scripture is also a lie?
What scripture was available to Timothy when he was a child?
Psalm 12:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[a] refined seven times.
Answer: the Hebrew Bible.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
makes me wonder what that would have looked like back then - more or less than what we have as the OT?