Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Hank | 98543 | ||
justanotherchristian - While your concern is understandable, perhaps its to the credit of the NASB translators to acknowledge their marginal notation on 1 John 5:8: "A few late mss. add...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit..." ..... The NKJV, although it includes the disputed passage in the text, carries this note in the margin: "NU, M omit the words from 'in heaven' (v.7) through 'on earth' (v.8.) Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek." ..... The annotation on this verse in the Believer's Study Bible (Nelson), which uses the NKJV text, reads as follows: "The words from 'in heaven' (v.7) through 'on earth' (v.8) are only found in a few Greek manuscripts, none dating earlier than the fourteenth century. Furthermore, the passage is not quoted by any of the Greek church fathers. The textual data suggest that these words were absent from the original letter." ..... My comment: This verse is not crucial to the doctrine of the Trinity, because Scripture provides ample support elsewhere in passages that are free of textual dispute. If this verse in John's epistle were the key verse in all Scripture to support the doctrine of the Trinity, and this verse in serious question of being spurious, then Trinitarians would be hard pressed to prove their doctrine. But, of course, this is not the case. ..... This much we know: The verse is not in conflict with any other part of Scripture. But, at the same time, it does suffer from weak textual support. In both cases, I believe the NKJV translators were justified in including it in the text, because it appeared in the manuscript from which they were translating and, conversely, so were the NASB translators justified in omitting it, because it did not appear in the manuscript they were following. Additionally, also in both cases, the translators were careful to note in the margin the reasons for handling it as they did. In neither case do I feel that the NKJV or the NASB translators were tampering with the text but were, on the contrary, being as honest and as forthright as is humanly possible to render into English a work as transparent of the manuscripts as their scholarship and language skills could afford. --Hank | ||||||
2 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | justanotherchristian | 98547 | ||
Dear Hank and All..... PLEASE.... I have done my homework on this matter and on this verse. It is directly quoted in the early 4th century by some latin writer in Spain (cannot remember the name just now) -Polannasius? (Sp). It is alluded to in apparent inference a few times in the Pre-Nicene "Fathers" - and then, there is a peculiar dangling participle left hanging off the end of the shortened quote of verse 7 that does not match up properly with the beginning of verse 8. Can't you see what is happening here? THE WHOLE BIBLE's authenticity is called into doubt by such things as this. EVEN the Vulgate and the Douay (taken from the Vulgate) have this verse, intact. This verse was never seriously challenged until Westcott and Hort..... think of that.... I will be glad to receive person e-mail at jac@jacglobal.net you can visit our main web-site at www.apostasynow.com |
||||||
3 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Hank | 98548 | ||
justanotherchristian - Do you seriously believe the Comma Johanneum poses a grave threat to the authenticity of all Scripture? I fail to see how it does. I can't agree with Riplinger about the conspiracy of "New Age" translators to pervert and emasculate Holy Writ. That's being rather too reactionary in my view. --Hank | ||||||