Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 John 5:7 For there are three witnesses: |
Bible Question: First - I'll start by saying that I am a believer. I trust in God and in the Bible. My faith is strong no matter what. I've read the comments on this forum regarding this scripture and I don't beleive it should be included in ANY Bible since it isn't at all what John wrote. Isn't the Bible suppose to give us the exact letters that were written? This makes me think . . . What else has been added to the Bible? I don't know Greek and Hebrew. I have to trust those that translated it. Things like finding additions to God's Word is exactly how we end up with cults that say our Bible is translated incorrectly and so they go off on some weird belief and drag thousands with them. I'm not a theologian but I've been taught to trust that the Bible is God's word. However, How can I trust mere man that translates it? |
Bible Answer: The Bible Changed? No Chance ____________________ "In the entire [NT] text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine." ____________________ 'The Bible Translated, Retranslated, and…Changed? No Chance 'By Gregory Koukl, President, Stand to Reason 'Can we know for certain that the New Testament has been handed down accurately? Yes, we can. '...To Err is Human 'A common attack on the Bible goes like this: Man wrote the Bible. Man is imperfect. Therefore, the Bible is imperfect. Even if this argument was valid (followed logically), it wouldn't be sound because the 1st premise presumes what it's trying to prove. What's at issue is whether natural man is solely responsible for the Bible or whether God worked through men and inspired the text. The approach is circular. 'But the argument isn't even valid. Consider this reply. '"Your argument is that man wrote the Bible and man is flawed, therefore, the Bible is flawed. If that's true then it's also the case that your argument, offered by you, a fallible human being, is therefore flawed. And if your point of view is flawed, then why should I believe it?" 'It doesn't follow that if man is capable of error, then he always does err. If so, then this person's own statements would always have to be false, because he's also an errant human. (...) 'The Verdict 'What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential–spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98 percent of the time. 'Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5 percent textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine. 'Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants." 'Geisler and Nix state unequivocally, "No book from the ancient world comes to us with more abundant evidence for its integrity than does the New Testament." 'This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we’d have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D. 'Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.' ____________________ www.str.org/free/ solid_ground/SG0005.htm |