Which Bible version

[John317]

I believe that 1 John 5: 7 is the truth-- that is, I don't believe it contradicts the rest of Scripture. In fact, I would be delighted to find that it was a part of the original text.

Come back and continue the discussion about 1 John 5: 7. I am very interested in it, as I am in all things related to the Bible text and translation.

We might need to make a separate thread if we're going to continue discussing it much longer because it is kind of off topic, and as a moderator, I guess I should try to stick by the rules on keeping on topic.

[John317]

Have you found any of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church which you cannot support by the NIV or the NASB? What doctrines cannot be taught by the Critical Text?

[John317]

Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Bejamin G. Wilkinson, 1996

Yes, I have this book and have read it. It contains some good information. The main weakness of the book is that its primary focus are personal attacks on the characters of Wescott and Hort. I'm interested in textual studies, not in personalities. So I wish the focus had been on textual evidence rather than on showing what bad people Westcott and Hort were.

Quote:

Rev. 22:14

I believe that the KJV and NKJV got this verse right, but even many SDA scholars today believe it should be "blessed are those who wash their robes." Don't you think the verse means the same thing? How can one wash ones robes without obeying God's commandments?

See Revelation of Jesus Christ by Ranko Stefanovic (Andrews University Press, 2002), pp. 608, 609.

Quote:

Jehovah's Witnesses was the first to change, early in the 1900's when Westcott and Hort produced

their document.

Jehovah's Witnesses didn't produce their "translation" until 1961, after many other translations were made.

Quote:

More modern versions have emulated the JW's by casting doubt in

the margins of the authenticity of the verses that the JW's removed. There was a

huge cry after the revisions of the JW bible became known but today there are even

greater changes with less complaint.

The main problem with the New World Translation is that it mistranslates many verses having to do with Christ, such as John 1: 1, making it say, "And the word was a god." Etc.

The main problem is not that it is based on the Westcott and Hort text, but that it is a very poor translation. We know today that the "translators" were not trained in their fields, and that most of the translation was done by Franz, who had little knowledge of the original languages.

Most translations made today are based on a text similar to the one produced by Westcott and Hort.

Have you seen Richard Lattimore's translation of the New Testament? It is based on the Westcott and Hort text also. Lattimore is probably the best translator of the New Testment, having taught Greek translation for decades and translated most of the Greek classics.

Quote:

"By the sole authority of textual criticism these men have dared to vote away some

forty verses of the inspired Word. The Eunuch's Baptismal Profession of Faith is

gone; and the Angel of the Pool of Bethesda has vanished; but the Angel of the

Agony remains - till the next Revision.

I notice this is from Wilkinson's book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.

Do you believe that the story of the angel going to the pool of Bethesda (John 5: 4) is genuine?

I find it hard to believe that an angel of God did what is recorded there. It seems cruel. Think of what that story says about God. People would want to be healed but stayed sick because they couldn't get into the water fast enough; someone would get in the water before them.

There are many good reasons for rejecting this verse, including lack of textual evidence. The SDA Bible Commentary agrees. It does not appear in the earliest manuscripts. It also uses vocabulary that is used nowhere else in the writings of John.

I think we have to face the fact that the Textus Receptus contains some verses that were not in the original text as written by the prophets and apostles. This should not be surprising to us.

But I do believe that God has not allowed the Bible (i.e., the manuscripts) to contain things that would lead people to be be lost. Ellen White herself said that the Bible may contain some errors and mistakes but those are not of such a kind as to keep us from being able to trust it to teach us the truth about God and salvation.

For instance, it seems clear to me that 1 John 5: 7 was not part of the original, yet it does not teach false doctrine.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Origen' date=' whose manuscripts are alive today, was an Arian, and if you're reading these newer Bibles based on Westcott and Hort's works, you're reading an Arian Bible.

[/quote']

Please compare the KJV with NASB or NIV at Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1. The King James Version does not translate those verses correctly, whereas the NKJV and the others do. These verses as translated correctly by the NIV and NASB teach clearly that Jesus Christ is God.

What verses in the NASB or the NIV prevent the student who reads those translations from knowing that Jesus Christ is God?

I know that there are many poor translations published. There are some problems with all translations. Some are better than others, but there is no really perfect translation.

My primary interest and focus is on the underlying Greek printed texts and the manuscript evidence for those printed texts.

[John317]

Even if we assume that all of the following evidence in support of 1 John 5: 7 is accurate and true, do you believe that it adds up to a strong argument in favor of that verse being part of the original text?

Personally I am convinced that none of it overcomes the all-important fact that with the exception of 4 very poor and very late manuscripts, none of the Greek manuscripts of the NT contain it. (It is only in manuscripts 61 of the 16th century; manuscript 88 of the 12th century; a 12th century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand;ms. 629, a 14th or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a 17th century hand.)

How do you explain that it is not in any other manuscripts? Why would a text proving the Trinity be removed by those who believe the Trinity doctrine?

Quote:

Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the

1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [it was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse

1500 AD ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

Source: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

[Scar]

Have you found any of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church which you cannot support by the NIV or the NASB? What doctrines cannot be taught by the Critical Text?

Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV)

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

The Sanctuary message falls apart here. Jesus would have had to step in the Holy Place upon his death, not the Most Holy Place.

Funny thing, NASB got it right, but the NKJV gets it wrong as well.

So here's my choices- I can carry around 2 different Bibles based on manuscripts edited by the Arian Origen and hope one of them says the right thing, or I can just rely on the King James, which never lets me down.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Have you found any of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA church which you cannot support by the NIV or the NASB? What doctrines cannot be taught by the Critical Text?

Hebrews 9:11-12 (NIV)

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

The Sanctuary message falls apart here. Jesus would have had to step in the Holy Place upon his death, not the Most Holy Place.

Funny thing, NASB got it right, but the NKJV gets it wrong as well.

So here's my choices- I can carry around 2 different Bibles based on manuscripts edited by the Arian Origen and hope one of them says the right thing, or I can just rely on the King James, which never lets me down.

I completely agree with you about Hebrews 9: 11-12. That is one of the worst verses in the NIV, a major blunder, as in the NKJV too, like you pointed out.

By the way, the NRSV is one of the best translations for Heb. 9.

But that's not my question. I am not asking about translations. I am asking about the Critical Text upon which those translations are based. That's a big difference. The printed Greek texts can't be blamed for the bad translations made from them.

Is there any doctrine of our church-- or really, any Bible doctrine, period-- that is found in the Received Text but which is destroyed by the Critical Text?

In other words, what SDA Fundamental Belief can be taught by the KJV but cannot be taught by the NASB or other good translations of the Critical Text?

You can actually teach SDA doctrines from the NIV, too, as long as you explain Hebrews 9: 12 to the student, which is really not hard to do.

[John317]

LIE 4) The NIV is more accurate.

FACT: The KJB is a literal word for word translation. When the translators had to add words for sentence structure they are in italics. The NIV uses "dynamic equivalence". Rather than a word for word translation, they add, change and subtract to make the verse say what they "thought" it should! The Preface to the NIV even says, ". . .they have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. . ."

This is certainly true. The KJV is much more literal. Its single drawback for me is that it uses so many obsolete English words, or words that have changed meanings since 1611. There are a few verses that I believe were not part of the original but they are fairly easy to identify, and I don't use those in Bible studies with people. The topics can very well be taught without them-- for instance, 1 John 5: 7.

I would still use 1 Tim. 3: 16 but I would explain to them why it is usually not found in modern translations. The same with Rev. 22: 14.

[John317]

Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8:

#61 - Sixteenth century

#88 - Twelfth century

#221 - Tenth century

#429 - Fourteenth century

#629 - Fourteenth century

#535 - Eleventh century

#636 - Fifteenth century

#918 - Sixteenth century

#2318 - Eighteenth century

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8.

What evidence do you have that it is in Ms. 221?

What evidence is there that it is in Ms. 429?

Please check on this: Your #535 should read #635. #635 is an 11th century ms. I don't see a manuscript #535 listed.

I believe manuscript #636 does not contain 1 John 5: 7 but only Acts and the Epistles of Paul. I could be wrong. Could you tell me your evidence for this? What source are you using for the information? However, it is so late that it scarcely matters. It was about the time when Erasmus was collating the NT.

What is the evidence that the 16th century manuscript contains 1 John 5: 7?

Is this really overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of 1 John 5: 7.

The reason I don't think so is that all of the manuscripts are of such late date-- particularly those after the 12th century-- that they are hardly worth anything in the way of evidence for the genuineness of the verse we're considering.

It is necessary to consider the fact that two of them have the passage written in the margin in late handwriting, different from the original handwriting. That only leaves Manuscripts 61 and 629, both very late manuscripts.

Think of this: Erasmus said he wouldn't include the verse unless someone produced a Greek manuscript with the verse in it. He had never seen it in a genuine manuscript before, so he thought no one would be able to produce one. But lo and behold they found two or three very late manuscripts that did include it, but the handwriting looked like it could have just been written it in the margin.

I have read the Erasmus had doubts about their authenticity but that he felt obligated to include them because of his promise.

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4) attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

But in any case, none of this rises to a level of "overwhelming" evidence for the genuineness of a text.

If this is overwhelming evidence, we can't reject the evidence of Westcott and Hort for their text, because they often can show much stronger evidence than is shown for 1 John 5: 7.

[John317]

There are many other later manuscripts which are ancillary to these three because they were copied from them. Like begets like and when you copy from a corrupted manuscripts the lineage of corruption will continue. .... However, 1 John 5:7-8 is found..... the Syriac Peshiito (150 A.D.) .....

Some of the other evidences where 1 John 5:7-8 can be found are as follows:

Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts,......

You mention that 1 John 5: 7 is found in the Syriac, but my sources tell me that it is not there.

Could you show references for this information that it is found as far back in time as 150 AD? Is it said at that time to be part of Scripture? If so, that would be extremely interesting.

How can it be explained that 1 John 5: 7 is not found in Lamsa's translation from the ancient Aramaic Peshitta texts?

His translation of v. 7 reads, "And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth."

[phkrause]

Good Sabbath John317 and Scar, how good of a Bible is the New English Bible? And in your opinion which Bible makes the best to study from? I have a Harpers Study Bible (RSV) that I like. Do you know anything about this Bible?

pk

[Scar]

Originally Posted By: Scar

Nine Manuscripts which contain 1 John 5:7-8:

#61 - Sixteenth century

#88 - Twelfth century

#221 - Tenth century

#429 - Fourteenth century

#629 - Fourteenth century

#535 - Eleventh century

#636 - Fifteenth century

#918 - Sixteenth century

#2318 - Eighteenth century

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8.

What evidence do you have that it is in Ms. 221?

What evidence is there that it is in Ms. 429?

Please check on this: Your #535 should read #635. #635 is an 11th century ms. I don't see a manuscript #535 listed.

I believe manuscript #636 does not contain 1 John 5: 7 but only Acts and the Epistles of Paul. I could be wrong. Could you tell me your evidence for this? What source are you using for the information? However, it is so late that it scarcely matters. It was about the time when Erasmus was collating the NT.

What is the evidence that the 16th century manuscript contains 1 John 5: 7?

Is this really overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of 1 John 5: 7.

The reason I don't think so is that all of the manuscripts are of such late date-- particularly those after the 12th century-- that they are hardly worth anything in the way of evidence for the genuineness of the verse we're considering.

[John317]

Good Sabbath John317 and Scar, how good of a Bible is the New English Bible? And in your opinion which Bible makes the best to study from? I have a Harpers Study Bible (RSV) that I like. Do you know anything about this Bible?

The New English Bible should not be used as a primary study Bible but as something like a commentary on the Bible. It can offer some insights into the text and help the reader see verses in their context. It's what is called a dynamic translation rather than a literal one, so it's not a good translation for doing close and careful study. It's very beautiful in certain parts, such as the Psalms and the Old Testament prophets. Acts 20: 7 is translated as "Saturday night" instead of "first day of the week" or "Sunday."

I also like and enjoy the Harper's Study Bible, edited by Herald Lindsell. In my personal study I often use it. I had a book bindery put both the KJV and the Harper Study Bible together in one binding, so I am constantly going back and forth between the RSV and the KJV. The Harper Study Bible generally has good, reliable notes, and I like it's outline of the books. The RSV corrects some of the mistakes in translation that the KJV made, but the RSV also was translated from a different textual tradition. The KJV was translated from the Received Text whereas the translators of RSV used the Critical Text, which bases its reading on the Alexandrian type of manuscript. Personally I'm usually OK with either reading. (At SDA universities and at the SDA seminary, Adventist ministerial students train and study in the use of the Critical Text. We need to be familiar with both KJV and RSV or NRSV.)

Two things in the Harper Study Bible that I find particularly interesting is Lindsell's notes on the beginning of the 70 week prophecy in Daniel 9: 24-27, which Lindsell places at 457 BC; and his notes in Romans regarding the sin and the law of God.

Probably the best study combination is the KJV and the NASB, but the RSV and NASB are very similar.

Hope this helps.

[phkrause]

Yes John it helps, thanks. I was wondering about the NASB, which I've heard you talk about. How good of a translation is that?

pk

[John317]

As a general rule, the NASB is one of the best study Bibles because it's literal and it translates words consistently. One of its draw-backs is that it is not as beautiful to read aloud as the KJV or the RSV.

My own personal opinion is that one should study the NASB along with the NKJV. I usually study out of four: the KJV, NASB, RSV, and Amplified. I love the Amplified.

[phkrause]

Thanks john. I personally do not like reading the KJV. I have the same problem with EGWs writings, even though I do read them. Do they have a combo bible with those 4 versions.

pk

[John317]

.... you think older necessarily means better.

No, not necessarily. Just because a manuscript is older doesn't mean it's correct. Older manuscripts also can have error in them. On the other hand, just because it is older doesn't mean it's to be rejected out of hand.

But if we have four manuscripts--none of which is earlier than the 11th or 12th century AD-- which have 1 John 5: 7, and none of the other thousands of manuscripts contain it, what reason do we have to believe that 1 John 5: 7 is genuine?

For it to be removed from all manuscripts, it would have to be removed by people who believe in the Trinity, and why would they do that?

Quote:

Do you really believe the Lord our God would entrust his real, accurate manuscripts to the Roman Catholic Church and a wastepaper basket in a convent on Mount Sinai?

The way I understand the Lord to work is that he would allow the real, accurate manuscripts to be among any and all Christians. I think that God has watched over the Bible to make sure it survived and was not changed to the point where it would lead honest students of His word to be misled.

I am open to the idea that the Bible of the Waldeneses was the only true and accurate Bible. I am reading Wilkinson's Truth Triumphant. But to believe that, I need to see evidence of it in the manuscripts themselves.

What do you find to be the most persuasive evidence in the manuscripts themselves that the Received Text is the most accurate and is the one preserved by people such as the Waldeneses?

Can you show any doctrine in the Bible that was removed from the Critical Text manuscripts so that a doctrine found in the RT cannot be found in the Critical Text?

Some mention that the Critical Text is Arian and that those texts dealing with Christ's deity were removed. What is the evidence of this?

If that is the case, why can the deity of Christ be taught better and more clearly from the NASB (based on the Critical Text) than it can from the King James Version (based on the Received Text)?

(Two examples of this are seen by comparing Titus 2: 13 and 2 Peter 1: 1 in the KJV and NASB. Both the Critical Text and Received Text are identical in those verses, but the translation of the NASB give it correctly: Jesus is both our God and Savior. We have better understanding of the rules of Greek grammar than the translators of the KJV had.)

[John317]

Thanks john. I personally do not like reading the KJV.

I probably enjoy the KJV because I learned how to read from the second grade on by reading the KJV. My mother and an aunt were both elementary teachers and my aunt had us read from the KJV a lot. She bought all of the students a KJV with large print and we would read it aloud in small groups. She also had the students put on a program where we recited large portions of the KJV from memory.

Quote:

I have the same problem with EGWs writings, even though I do read them.

Why do you think you don't like reading her? Is it because of the style?

Her style of course is Victorian. It is not as direct as people write today, and her sentences can be longer than average by today's standards. Also she uses some words differently than people are accustomed to in our day.

Quote:

Do they have a combo bible with those 4 versions.

There's the Comparative Study Bible which has the KJV, Amplified, NASB, and NIV.

The KJV is the only one of those translations that gives Mark 7: 19 the way the Greek gives it. The others add words that do not occur in the Greek.

[phkrause]

So I would guess that this would be a good Bible to purchase. I know that the web has sites where you can compare different versions, but its a pain to read it that way. I prefer the actual book in front of me.

I think we have all grown up with the KJV, at least the ones that are at least 40 or older, but I still don't really like it. Not because its good or bad, but just the way it reads.

pk

[John317]

I prefer the actual book in front of me.

I'm the same way. I like being able to turn the page back and forth and compare, and write notes on the pages.

[phkrause]

Do you have any recommendations on commentary's? I do have the SDA commentary set. I also have something called the Westminster Dictionary of the Bible and Harper's Bible Dictionary. Not sure how good they are. I enjoy looking up things in the SDA commentary's.

pk

[John317]

A good single volume commentary is Jamieson, Fausset& Brown's Commentary On the Whole Bible, published by Zondervan. There's also Adam Clarke's, which can be purchased in multi volumes or in edited form as a single volume. Matthew Henry is good but his writing style is dull or boring.

There's also a very good commentary by Albert Barnes on the NT.

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/

All of the above were written in the 19th century but they are still excellent for general information and reliable in their interpretation as a whole.

[Scar]

I would never buy anything published by Zondervan. I know I can't stop the New Age/Satanic movement, but at least I can vote against it with my wallet.

Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins, which is a subsidiary of News Corportation, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Harper Collins publishes books such as The Joy of Gay Sex, The Satanic Bible, and How To Make Love Like a Porn Star.

Rupert Murdoch is a member of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church and claims to be a born again Christian, yet he is one of the world's leading pornographers and actively expanding his illicit empire.

Yet another reason to avoid the NIV and the other New Age Bibles...

[Scar]

"If the Catholic Church really honors the Bible as the holy Word of God--if she really wants her members to become familiar with its truth--why in times past did she confiscate and burn so many Bibles?

The Bibles which were collected and burned by the Catholic Church in times past--notably the Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles--were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the holy Word of God. In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those ``Bibles'' precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were replaced by accurate editions. There can be no doubt that the Wycliffe and Tyndale translations were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics. "

Source (Bold emphasis mine) - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q10

Here's what Ellen White has to say about Wycliffe.

Tyndale was a student of Erasmus and he wrote an English Bible based on the Greek manuscripts in circulation at that time. He was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church in 1536.

King James Bible was published in 1611. The text basis of the King James Version was the Textus Receptus which itself was based on that textual work of Desidarius Erasmus (1516/1535), Stephanus (1550/51), and Theodore de Beza of Geneva (1598).

Make no mistake about it. The Textus Receptus is still banned today by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Reason enough for me to be Textus Receptus only.

[phkrause]

Can you purchase this comparative Bible at the abc?

pk