Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2009 Moderators Posted February 24, 2009 This is a serious attempt to discover all of the evidence and reasons for either accepting 1 John 5: 7 as legitimate Scripture or for rejecting it. Virtually all Bible scholars and translators reject it. This rejection is not based on theology, or on what the verse teaches, but on textual evidence alone. Just based on the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, I must say that I lean in the direction of rejecting it. However, during my study, I have come across some evidence which causes me to think there might be stronger evidence for its inclusion than I had previously believed. That evidence is not textual so much as it is historical, based on quotes from various extra-Biblical sources as well as from other translations to which the translators of the KJV had access. 1 John 5: 7 says "For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (NKJV) The beginning of v. 8 reads, "And there are three that bear witness on earth." However, in the NIV and in most other modern translations, v. 7 reads, "There are three that testify," or "There are three witness." V. 8 lists the witnesss, "The Spirit and the water and the blood." Why does 1 John 5: 7, 8 read differently in some translations? The words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one," appear in only 8 Greek manuscripts, and none of those 8 are earlier than the 11th century. That means it appears in only 8 out of approximately 500 ancient Greek manuscripts which contain 1 John 5. Two of those 8 were written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the twelfth century manuscript, 1 John 5: 7 was written in the margin by a modern hand; in the eleventh century manuscript, the passage is written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. If you check the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, it says that the verse was probably not part of the original text as written by the Apostle John. What do you think? All viewpoints and opinions welcome. Please don't feel that you need to have studied the topic extensively in order voice your opinion and viewpoint. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 24, 2009 Ok, I know what you mean. I personally believe the KJV and NKJV got it right on Rev. 22: 14. There are SDA scholars who disagree with that, such as Ranko Stefanovic, author of a recently published commentary, Revelation of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts read "Blessed are they who do His commandments." The alternate reading, "Blessed are they who wash their robes," is supported by 7 Greek manuscripts, and some ancient translations into Latin and coptic. This is the reading that has been chosen by the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, which almost all modern translations are based on. The primary evidence are the agreement between the codices Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus, fourth and fifth century manuscripts. The two phrases "wash their robes," and "do his commandments," sound very much alike, and scholars believe that the mistake arose because the text was being read to a scribe who mistook the sound of 3 of those words. Wash their robes: plunontes tas stolas auton do his commandments: poiountes tas entolas autou I don't think it matters which reading is the right one because in the final analysis they both signify the same thing. Believers can't wash their robes in the blood of Christ without coming into harmony with the commandments of God. So either way, those who enter the kingdom of God will obey His commandments. At the same time, they will have purified their characters. Compare Rev. 7: 14; 19: 8 and 1 John 3: 3-10; 1: 6 to 2: 6. As far as the text in 1 John 5: 7 is concerned, the KJV translators didn't have access to many hundreds of Greek manuscripts that have been discovered since 1611. Apparently they were also influenced by Waldensian Bibles (Latin) and some other late manuscripts which today's translators don't pay much attention to. Their basic Greek text was Erasmus' third edition which was printed in 1522. It was a text which was based on only a handful of fairly late Greek manuscripts. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
LifeHiscost Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Believers can't wash their robes in the blood of Christ without coming into harmony with the commandments of God. Just wondering why we would be given the instruction to come to Jesus every day to be cleansed by His blood if we're already in harmony with His commandments. Of course the underlined could mean that we come into harmony at the moment of cleansing. However it also indicates that the harmony is soon broken. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 NASB "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."1 John 1:8 NKJV "Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed." James 5:16 NASB Regards! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 24, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 Believers can't wash their robes in the blood of Christ without coming into harmony with the commandments of God. Of course the underlined could mean that we come into harmony at the moment of cleansing. Yes, I think you've described it there. The washing of our robes has to do with character change as a result of our relationship with Christ. As we experience daily conversion and commitment to Christ, our characters undergo a change, and believers become more and more like Him. Washing our robes in the blood of Christ signifies a purification of our lives from sin, and a conforming to the will of God. It's a process that's described in 1 John 1: 7-9; 2: 1-6; 2 Cor. 3: 18. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woody Posted February 24, 2009 Posted February 24, 2009 Hey ... what happened to Glad's comments? Quote May we be one so that the world may be won. Christian from the cradle to the grave I believe in Hematology.
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 24, 2009 Hey ... what happened to Glad's comments? Dunno. If he posted here, and his comment got lost somehow, I hope he posts again. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 24, 2009 On the meaning of 1 John 5: 7, 8 and whether it makes a difference if we add or subtract words from those verses. How do the three witnesses testify that Jesus is the Lamb of God? John says that Jesus Christ came by water and by blood, and John is careful to emphasis that Jesus did not come only by water but also by both water and blood. He says "Jesus Christ" because there were some who taught that Jesus and the Christ were not one and the same person, but that just before Jesus of Nazareth died, the Christ left Him, so that only a mere man died on the cross. John says no, the One who died on the cross was the same One who was baptized. He came by the water of baptism and He was the same One who shed His blood at the cross for us. Verse 7 says that the Holy Spirit bears witness to this truth, because the Holy Spirit IS the truth. Here are several ways the passage has been expressed: "6 When Jesus Christ came, there were two signs that he was the Son of God. The first sign came on the day when he was baptized with water, and God said, 'This is My dear Son.' The second was when He shed His blood on the Cross for us. So water is one witness; Christ's blood is a second witness. 7 But there is also a third witness. That is the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit tells the truth. 8 So there are three witnesses to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. They are the Holy Spirit, the water, and the blood. These all agree that Jesus is God's Son. 9 In court we accept the evidence of men. The evidence which God gives is far better than that of men. God Himself bore witness that Jesus was His Son. 10 Yes, and any one who believes in the Son of God has the proof right in his heart. That proof is the Holy Spirit." Inspired Letters of the New Testament, Frank C. Laubach "6 Jesus Christ himself is the one who came by water and by blood-- not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. 7 The Spirit bears witness to this, for the Spirit is the truth. 8 The witness therefore is a triple one-- the Spirit in our own hearts, the signs of the water of baptism and the blood of atonement-- and they all say the same thing. 9 If we are prepared to accept human testimony, God's own testimony concerning his own Son is surely infinitely more valuable. 10 The man who really believes in the Son of God will find that God's testimony is in his own heart." J.B. Phillipps, The New Testament In Modern English Now, consider the difference when we add the Comma, the words that are in dispute-- "6 Jesus, the divine Son of God, was both baptized for us and shed His blood for us. The Holy Spirit has borne witness that Christ did this for us, and the Holy Spirit does not lie. 7 In fact, there are three Witnesses who testify that this is true. In heaven it is the Father, on earth it was Jesus Christ [Gk. ho logos, "the word"], and since then, it has been the fulness of the Holy Spirit. All Three speak with one voice. 8 There are also three earthly events when the Holy Spirit testified that this is true: At Christ's baptism in the waters of Jordan, when Christ shed His blood on Calvary, and when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. These three events tell us what Christ has done for us." The Clear Word, A Paraphrase, by Jack J. Blanco. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted February 25, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 25, 2009 As we read 1 John 5: 7, 8, what is the effect on the meaning of the verses when the Comma is omitted? In other words, does it make perfectly good sense without those words? Or does something seem to be missing when they are not part of the sentence? The Apostle is talking about evidence that Jesus is the Son of God. With the Comma-- Jesus came by both the water [of baptism] and the blood [of atonement], and the Spirit bears witness to this, because the Spirit is the truth. Because there are three in heaven that bear witness [that Jesus is the Son of God]: The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are one. There are also three witnesses on the earth: The [Holy] Spirit, the water [of baptism], and the blood [which He shed], and these three agree as one [that Jesus is the Son of God]. Without the Comma-- Jesus Christ came by both the water [of baptism] and the blood [of atonement]. The Spirit testifies to the truth about this, for the Spirit is the truth. Because there are three that testify: the [Holy] Spirit, the water [of baptism], and the blood [which He shed], and these three agree as one [that Jesus is the Son of God]. =========== Some of the differences with the Comma is that there are 5 witnesses, not three: there is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the water, and the blood. 3 are in heaven, and 3 are on earth, but the Spirit is a witness both in heaven and on earth. It says that the Son is a witness in heaven, but verse 8 is clearly saying that the witness of what Jesus did was done while on earth, not in heaven. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
LifeHiscost Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 Washing our robes in the blood of Christ signifies a purification of our lives from sin, and a conforming to the will of God. It's a process that's described in 1 John 1: 7-9; 2: 1-6; 2 Cor. 3: 18. TU Thanks for pointing that out. I'm satisfied if both longstanding Christians as well as babes in Christ would recognize that the process is an eternal one, starting with the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord, there would be much less discouragement during the times we're wrong. "He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."1 John 5:12 NASB "Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward." Hebrews 10:35 NKJV Blessings! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
LifeHiscost Posted February 25, 2009 Posted February 25, 2009 HEY JOHN317 I am NOT sure about this verse but I DO KNOW that in some of the newer translations or versions in REVELATIONS chap 22 ver 14 leave out the word commandments that the King James and New King James version include..... maybe the translators did not have and understanding of this issue??? maybe is was just an over site.... I am NOT sure if this helps or not just thinking here dgrimm60 Maybe it might be that some of us forget these two realities. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, " I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."Jeremiah 31:33 NASB Underlined mine LHC "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."James 2:10 NASB Blessings! Quote Lift Jesus up!!
Moderators John317 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Moderators Posted February 27, 2009 Some have claimed that an early Church leader, Athanasius, quotes 1 John 5: 7, 8, but I have not found any proof of this. The sources I've read merely make the claim. They do not cite the quotes themselves but only make a general reference to them as evidence that the verses were a genuine part of the NT in the fourth century. For instance, one writer who supports the inclusion of the passage says merely that "according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works." I wish that R.E. Brown had provided the actual words of Athanasius. Some claim that Athanasius refers to it or quotes it in his book found at this link: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm I searched the above book by Athanasius (d. 373) for a direct reference or quote from 1 John 5: 7, 8 but failed to find any evidence of it. Quote: Athanasius: On the IncarnationDe Incarnatione Verbi Dei Athanasius stood contra mundum ("against the world") in defense of the biblical doctrine of Christ. He opposed Arius when it seemed all the world would follow Arius's heresy. Athanasius's work remains even today one of the definitive statements of orthodox Trinitarianism. If there was any book that would surely have used 1 John 6: 7, 8 against the Arians of that day, it seems that Athanasius' book in defense of the Trinity is that book. I did not find it anywhere in this work. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Michael144 Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 This is a serious attempt to discover all of the evidence and reasons for either accepting 1 John 5: 7 as legitimate Scripture or for rejecting it. Virtually all Bible scholars and translators reject it. This rejection is not based on theology, or on what the verse teaches, but on textual evidence alone. Just based on the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, I must say that I lean in the direction of rejecting it. However, during my study, I have come across some evidence which causes me to think there might be stronger evidence for its inclusion than I had previously believed. That evidence is not textual so much as it is historical, based on quotes from various extra-Biblical sources as well as from other translations to which the translators of the KJV had access. 1 John 5: 7 says "For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (NKJV) The beginning of v. 8 reads, "And there are three that bear witness on earth." However, in the NIV and in most other modern translations, v. 7 reads, "There are three that testify," or "There are three witness." V. 8 lists the witnesss, "The Spirit and the water and the blood." Why does 1 John 5: 7, 8 read differently in some translations? The words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one," appear in only 8 Greek manuscripts, and none of those 8 are earlier than the 11th century. That means it appears in only 8 out of approximately 500 ancient Greek manuscripts which contain 1 John 5. Two of those 8 were written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. In the twelfth century manuscript, 1 John 5: 7 was written in the margin by a modern hand; in the eleventh century manuscript, the passage is written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. If you check the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, it says that the verse was probably not part of the original text as written by the Apostle John. What do you think? All viewpoints and opinions welcome. Please don't feel that you need to have studied the topic extensively in order voice your opinion and viewpoint. I personally believe it is a vital scripture that unlocks puzzle pieces. Notice it is saying the Word is the Holy Spirit... Have you seen the excellent presentation by Gale Ripplinger? If not go to Youtube and search "Gale Ripplinger" and click on the series that has videos 1-15. She explains exactly why the Word has been tampered with and gives strong evidence as to why that scripture and others should be in the Bible. Quote 1 Corinthians4:5
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 I personally believe it is a vital scripture that unlocks puzzle pieces. Notice it is saying the Word is the Holy Spirit... Have you seen the excellent presentation by Gale Ripplinger? If not go to Youtube and search "Gale Ripplinger" and click on the series that has videos 1-15. She explains exactly why the Word has been tampered with and gives strong evidence as to why that scripture and others should be in the Bible. I'm very interested in the history of the Biblical text, both the printed texts but especially in the original manuscripts. Let me know what you think of the following critique of Gale Ripplinger's views: Quote: By Todd Strandberg Yet Another Distraction Distraction is one of Satan's favorite tools for hindering the work of God. If he can't pervert or stop the message, he does his best to sidetrack the messenger with trivial debates. After studying the issue of King James Version Onlyism (KJVO), I’ve concluded that we have yet another prime example of the devil's handiwork. The advocates of KJVO believe that the King James Version is the only God-inspired translation of the Holy Bible. They insist that all modern translations have been modified to the point that they are unreliable or even dangerous for Christians to use as a resource. One writer claims that these "New Age" translations are somehow preparing the way for the rise of Antichrist. I have a long list of problems with KJVO folks. First is my inability to find the damage supposedly being caused by all these other translations. I haven’t found any major Bible version that contradicts well-established Christian theology. Some so-called translations do corrupt the Word of God but these versions are best described as revisions rather than translations. For example, the New World Translation Bible, produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is more of a rewritten version of the Bible than a translation. The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Notice that the word “God” has been changed to the phrase "a god." Another example of a version that’s been rewritten rather translated is the gender-neutral Bible, which tries to rob God the Father of His masculine nature. Burden Of Proof Most who promote the teachings of KJVO avoid personalizing the sinister actions of the translators. If all of these scholars were actively involved in perverting the Holy Bible, they would have to be classified as men of evil intent. The Bible very plainly says that those who tamper with the Word of God are destined for the lake of fire. Because middle-aged scholars translated most of the Bible versions several years ago, a good percentage of them have now gone on to their eternal reward. If the translators of the New International Version, Good News, Amplified, New English Bible, Living Bible, Revised Standard Version, and many others were actually doing mankind a godly service, anyone attacking them would have to answer to the Lord of heaven. Because the consequences of being wrong are so high, I think the critics of the new translations should build a stronger case against the non-KJVO crowd. I've yet to find one KJVO person who bothers to speculate about how this massive conspiracy might have been pulled off. Validation Is A Two-Way Street The errors cited by the advocates of KJVO deal mostly with missing or downgraded words. They point to an example of new versions eliminating the name Jesus by inserting the pronoun "he" in place of the Lord's name. The NIV is repeatedly cited for omitting the name of Jesus, but that version actually uses His name more than the New KJV. The main problem with these errors is that the KJVO watchdogs only look for examples that have the KJV using a proper name for God, while the same verse in another translation uses a pronoun to represent deity. Error finding needs to be a two-way street. If the KJVO researchers would do even a quick concordance check, they would find the following examples: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" ( Colossians 2:9 NIV). "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9 KJV). "Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things?" (Acts 4:25 NASB). "Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?" (Acts 4:25 KJV). "To the only God our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen" (Jude 25 NASB). "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" (Jude 25 KJV). Another good example of the King James Only people failing to cross-check their facts is their claim that the KJV uses the proper name "Jehovah" while the modern versions substitute the word "Lord." They claim the switch is meant to depersonalize God and that it is somehow an attack against the Jews. These statements are ridiculous in light of the fact that the KJV uses the same "Lord" dozens of times where the Hebrew word “Jehovah” [“Yahweh”] is found. Going Concordance Crazy Gale Riplinger, in her book New Age Bible Versions, takes the practice of one-sided validation to a new height. She makes plenty of comparisons that are intended to show non-KJV translations in a bad light, but she also draws a comparison between "New Age" writers and the modern Bible versions. Riplinger uses quotes from a wide variety of sources with religious views that conflict with Christianity. She implies by example that the thoughts of evil men have been written into all these corrupted translations. Her quotes are so extremely brief, I don't understand how Riplinger can dare claim that they are from the sources she cites. For example, she implies that "the Blessed One" of Mark 14:61, NIV, actually refers to some exiled Hindu guru named Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Even if a demonic hand were at work in the NIV translation, plenty of other evil men have been called "the Blessed One" at some point. Riplinger goes totally overboard in her "new age," "new world," "new order," "old order," and "former order" examples. Of course, these words are all highly satanic (I'm being sarcastic) and any appearance of them in a Bible translation confirms its evil origin. She put together a nice little list of how these praises appear in non-KJV Bibles. To assemble this list, she needed to reference 18 translations, and in most cases the offending praises only appear once in the various translations. Her absurdity reaches its peak with her claim that the word "age" in Matthew 28:20 has a sinister meaning. The King James Version says that Jesus will be with us until "the end of the world." The NIV says the Lord will be with us "to the very end of the age." Because the Bible informs us in Isaiah 45:17 that the world will never end, the NIV translation is probably a better interpretation of Matthew 28:20. "But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end" (Isaiah 45:17). The King James Version is the only major translation that contains the word "gay." Does this give someone the right to claim that the KJV was written by homosexuals to plant the seeds of the "gay movement?" The answer would be "yes" if we employed the same type of logic as the KJVO crowd. The Snail Pace Conspiracy One of the most widely quoted verse used by the folks who argue for the King James version's supremacy is Colossians 1:14. A comparison is made to all the modern translations has them omitting the blood of Christ from this passage. If no one bothered to investigate why those three words were deleted, it would be very easy to conclude that skullduggery was at work. "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 KJV). "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14 NIV). There is a very simple explanation why the scholars who produced the NIV did not include the words "through his blood." When the passage was translated into English, the words did not come from the early Greek manuscripts. The phrase was most likely borrowed from Ephesians 1:7, which happens to be a parallel passage to Colossians 1:14. The King James translators got a little wordy in their translating. The NIV translators simply corrected what should not have been added to the passage. The KJVO crowd, however, says that we should trust their favorite translation over manuscripts that date back to the third century. There is a lot of talk about the removal of the phrase "through his blood" as being some sort of conspiracy to destroy the doctrine of the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. If the devil were working to corrupt the Bible, this would have to be his slowest-moving scheme of all times. It makes no sense to do this with only one verse while leaving dozens of other verses untouched. Here are a few examples: "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." (Ephesians 1:7 NIV) "But with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" (1 Peter 1:19 NIV). "To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood" (Revelation 1:5 NIV). "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ" (Ephesians 2:13 NIV). "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that led to death, so that we may serve the living God!" (Hebrews 9:14 NIV).(Cont. next on next post) I love the KJV and have no interest in putting it down. It's still my favorite Bible. I believe it's definitely the Word of God and has been used to God to bring millions to a knowledge of Him and to salvation. But my love of the KJV doesn't mean that I turn a blind eye to the manuscript evidence. For example, the fact is that the words "through his blood" at Col. 2: 14 are supported by almost no ancient manuscripts. (It is only in one 10th century Greek manuscript, a 13th century manuscript, one from the 14th century. It is also found in the Clementine Vulgate, which is a late version; the Harclean edition of the Syriac; quoted by Cassiodorus, AD 580; and a latin translation of Irenaenus.) And as the writer in the above article points out, it doesn't make sense to say that these words were removed in order to get rid of the doctrine of the atonement, because there are many more verses that teach the atonement. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 Quote: English Bias Supporters of the King James Only doctrine often claim that Elizabethan English translation is superior to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which it is based. They take this step to try to defend themselves against the contradictions the early translations create for their exclusive view. If the KJV has no source document, it has to be a new revelation from God. Because we have the original Hebrew and Greek, we don't need to rely on an English translation that was written 1500 years after the fact. If the original Greek was good enough for the scholars who produced the King James Bible, it should be good enough for us. Even Jesus said, "I am Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:8). He didn't say, “I am the A and Z.” If KJVO proponents are right, where does that leave the 2,000 non-English translations? German-speaking people have the same right to claim their version of the Bible as the one and only "infallible translation." The only way to resolve differences between the translations is by checking the ancient original Hebrew and Greek. Errors In The KJV Many people believe that the King James Bible is infallible. They boldly claim the translation is so blessed by God that it is 100-percent free of errors. This kind of talk is just bluster because there are several minor translation errors in the KJV. As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's Holy Word. In Hebrews 10:23, the word "faith" is erroneously substituted for the word "hope." All of the source documents use "hope." It is very obvious that Paul meant to use faith, hope and love in verses 22, 23, and 24. "10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." In Revelation 22:19, the scholars made the mistake of thinking Jesus was speaking of the "Book of Life." Researchers have found 99% of all Greek manuscripts reading "tree of life." The context of verse 14 verifies that the Lord was speaking of the "tree of life." "22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." "22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." One of the most obvious errors in the KJV is the word "at" in Matthew 23:24. It's not grammatically proper to say, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." The translators should have used the word "out." The most common English translations that pre-date the KJV bear this out: "Blinde leders; clensenge a gnat, but swolowynge a camel."--(Wyclif, 1380.) "Ye blinde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a cammyll."--(Tyndale, 1534.) "Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnat, and swalowe a camell."--(Cranmer, 1539.) "Ye blynde gydes, which strayne out a gnate, and swalow a cammel."--(Geneva, 1557.) "Blinde guides, that strain a gnat, and swallow a camel."--(Rheims, 1582.) There Is No 1611 King James Bible For many people, it is not enough to just have any King James Bible. They take the extra step of proclaiming the Authorized 1611 KJV translation to be the only true Word of God. Because the King James used today has been revised several times, they don't feel it can be trusted. I have some bad news for these 1611 KJVO folks: There is no existing copy of the original manuscript produced by King James' faithful translators. The pre-print text and the original autographs confirming the validity of the translation have all been lost to history. There is no way the KJVO advocates can be certain that the 1611 translation has not been tampered with. According to a pamphlet written in 1660, the king's printers possessed the finished product five years before it was published. Because the KJVO camp is fond of conspiracies, the time gap should cause great concern. After all, they have no way of knowing if the original KJV translation made it to the print press. The 1611 KJV Bible has indeed seen several revisions - 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the final one in 1850. The concern over the validity of the modern KJV Bible is silly because the vast majority of the changes were simply spelling changes or single word updates. The Need For Clarity Language is always in a constant state of change. A word may mean one thing one year and have an opposite meaning a year later. If the Bible is not periodically translated into the language of the common person, the meaning of the original text becomes lost to the reader. Just consider the following KJV words: Almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes. Dr. Jack Lewis put together a good example of how the KJV has changed. His original writing goes on for several pages. Here is small excerpt that gets his point across: "Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With some we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (2) I'm sure Satan would love to keep the Bible shrouded in mystery. When the King James translation came out, many church leaders complained that it was too easy to read. We've forgotten that church leaders once tried to keep the public in the dark by opposing all efforts to modernize the Bible. The best way to show how the new translations can help clarify the meaning of the Bible text is by example. Listed below are comparisons between the King James and the New King James Version produced by Thomas Nelson Publishing: Matthew 10:42 "And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward" (KJV). "And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward" (NKJV). Matthew 17:25 "He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon?" (KJV). "He said, 'Yes.' And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, 'What do you think, Simon?'"(NKJV). Matthew 18:32 "I forgave thee all that debt because thou desiredst me" (KJV). "I forgave you all that debt because you begged me" (NKJV). Mark 8:33 "For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men" (KJV). "For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men" (NKJV). John 8:46 "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (KJV). "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" (NKJV). Source: http://www.raptureready.com/rr-kjvo.html Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 .... If not go to Youtube and search "Gale Ripplinger" and click on the series that has videos 1-15. She explains exactly why the Word has been tampered with and gives strong evidence as to why that scripture and others should be in the Bible. Thanks for this information. I wasn't familiar with Gale in particular but I've been reading books by people who take different sides in the issue of the KJV Only debate. I'll check out the link you've provided. I studied Greek at Loma Linda University as a theology major during the early 1970s and have kept up with it since then. Over the past 10 or so years, I've been keeping records of a word-for-word comparison of about 15 different editions of the Greek printed texts of the NT and of the support for each reading as found in the ancient manuscripts. The bottom line for me is that I haven't found that there is any doctrine of the Bible which is not found in both the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. This makes me wonder what evidence anyone can find for the idea that people changed the ancient manuscripts for theological reasons. I know all about the differences between the various texts, but there is no evidence of a conspiracy. For instance, there is no consistent pattern of a difference between the TR and the Catholic Vulgate editions, and there is definitely no evidence that the Alexandrine texts attempt to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. I can teach the Trinity from the Alexandrine texts just as well as I can from the TR. The question of translations is a different one from the question of the ancient manuscripts themselves, because anyone can make a bad translation from a good text. Therefore, just because someone has complaints about the NIV, for instance, doesn't necessarily mean the underlying Greek text is at fault. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
guibox Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 At the BRI, Angel Manuel Rodriguez seems to say that the evidence supports 'wash their robes' as opposed to 'keep the commandments'. It is convincing reading and this argument makes sense... Quote: The Use of the Verb "Keep": Since the textual evidence is not as strong as scholars would like it to be, they examine both readings of the text in terms of the use of the phrase in John's writings. They observe that in Revelation 22:14 the verb translated "keep" is poieo (to do, to keep). But in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12, the other two places where keeping the commandments is mentioned, the verb used is tereo (to keep, observe, obey). This, it is argued, shows that John did not write "keep the commandments" in Revelation 22:14, because he had consistently used the verb tereo in the other passages. A scribe, perhaps unintentionally, changed the original text from "robes" to "commandments." Both readings sound very similar in Greek. The stylistic argument is strong but not as strong as it sounds. John does tend to use the verb tereo when refer-ring to the commandments (e.g. 1 John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24), but he also uses the verb poieo (1 John 5:2). Hence, the stylistic argument is not decisive either, though it leans slightly toward "wash their robes." And then the theological argument in support of it: Quote: The Theological Argument: It is also argued that the theology expressed in the reading "wash their robes" is compatible with the theology of John. The same phrase, "wash their robes," is found in Revelation 7:14 to describe the redeemed ones standing before the throne of God. Their sins were washed away by the blood of the Lamb and not their obedience to the commandments. In Revelation 22:14 they have access to the tree of life because Christ washed their robes. Theologically this reading perfectly fits the theology of John. But we must not overlook the fact that "keep the commandments" could be referring to constant growth in grace or sanctification (the present tense of the verb suggests continuous action). The phrase "that they may have the right to the tree of life" expresses the reason for keeping the commandments: "Because they will have . . . " rather than "in order to have access . . . Here is the link to the whole article. http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/cleanrobes.htm Quote www.corbel.theacaistory.com
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 At the BRI, Angel Manuel Rodriguez seems to say that the evidence supports 'wash their robes' as opposed to 'keep the commandments'. Yes, thank you for that. I'm familiar with those arguments. The SDA scholar and commentator on Revelation, Ranko Stefanovic, says much the same, and adds some additional reasons as well. Even the SDA BC says it probably read "wash their robes." These all may be right, but the point I would make is that there is good evidence on both sides of the question, and it really doesn't matter to me which side is correct, because I can accept both readings as valid. They both actually mean the same thing if we understand what "washing their robes" signifies. A person whose robe has been washed in the blood of the Lamb is going to be obedient to God's will. God didn't allow anything to get into the NT that teaches false doctrine. Out of all the variants, I haven't seen any that alter the NT teachings in a significant way. All four major textual traditions contain the same story about God and His love. I could teach the same doctrines from the Majority Text, Textus Receptus, or the Critical Text. It doesn't matter as far as that goes. It's one of the points I would make concerning 1 John 5: 7. It may not be (and probably is not) what John the Beloved wrote, but it doesn't teach false doctrine, either. I wouldn't use it in a Bible study. There is no real need for it, because the Bible contains many other verses that show the truth of the Trinity. That last point leads to the next question: why would anyone who is trying to remove the Trinity from the Bible take out 1 John 5: 7 but then leave in so much else that supports the doctrine of the Trinity? Of course, there is also 1 Tim. 3: 16 which appears to me to have been altered, but I am not sure that it was done intentionally. The vast majority of manuscripts read "God" rather than "he" or "who." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
guibox Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 it really doesn't matter to me which side is correct, because I can accept both readings as valid. They both actually mean the same thing if we understand what "washing their robes" signifies. A person whose robe has been washed in the blood of the Lamb is going to be obedient to God's will. I disagree with this somewhat for it is taking it completely out of context. Just because it indirectly supports what you feel is important, doesn't mean that it should not be understood in it's immedate context. 'washing the robes' is NOT the same meaning as 'keeping the commandments' even though they may be able to be linked together. Saying 'keeping God's commandments' in the immediate context creates a much different idea than 'washing their robes'. Being washed in the robes means having the imputed righteousness of Christ covering our sins. It is this act of 'washing robes' that allows us to have eternal life and enter into heaven. The danger of taking the view 'keep God's commands' means that this could be construed as 'salvation by works'. By this definition, we than assume that this means ALL God's commandments. Therefore, ANYBODY who has not kept ALL of them to the letter of Exodus, will NOT have access to the tree of life. Are you willing to say that Martin Luther and the thousands of other spiritual greats will not be in heaven because they don't fit this criteria? I believe the interpretation of this passage IS important to guard against wayward and overstretched interpretations. Quote www.corbel.theacaistory.com
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 Originally Posted By: John317 it really doesn't matter to me which side is correct, because I can accept both readings as valid. They both actually mean the same thing if we understand what "washing their robes" signifies. A person whose robe has been washed in the blood of the Lamb is going to be obedient to God's will. I disagree with this somewhat for it is taking it completely out of context. Just because it indirectly supports what you feel is important, doesn't mean that it should not be understood in it's immedate context. 'washing the robes' is NOT the same meaning as 'keeping the commandments' even though they may be able to be linked together. Saying 'keeping God's commandments' in the immediate context creates a much different idea than 'washing their robes'. Being washed in the robes means having the imputed righteousness of Christ covering our sins. It is this act of 'washing robes' that allows us to have eternal life and enter into heaven. The robe of Christ's righteousness includes both the imputed and the imparted righteousness of Christ. It has to do with character that results from a personal, faith-based relationship with Christ. Belief in Christ is transforming and dynamic, not static. That's what Gal. 5: 16-25 and Romans 6 and 8 are all about. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted March 2, 2009 Author Moderators Posted March 2, 2009 [ The danger of taking the view 'keep God's commands' means that this could be construed as 'salvation by works'. By this definition, we than assume that this means ALL God's commandments. Therefore, ANYBODY who has not kept ALL of them to the letter of Exodus, will NOT have access to the tree of life. Are you willing to say that Martin Luther and the thousands of other spiritual greats will not be in heaven because they don't fit this criteria? No, I wouldn't be willing to say that. Most people in heaven will almost certainly be people who either never knew about the Sabbath or were never under conviction of the truth of it. God holds us responsible for the light we have or the light we might have had if we had wanted it. No one will be lost merely because of a lack of knowing something, that is, unless they chose to be ignorant. For instance, if I know the Bible is truth but I refuse to study it because I am afraid it will convict me to leave sins that I love-- (and this happens)-- then my ignorance is no excuse. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.