| Re: |
Heydave wrote : /// Proudpapa, having read through the last posting I have to level the same critiscm of it as the one put on by Just-in. I know you are defending a position, but it serves no real purpose in establishing truth. This because it starts from the premise that the KJV is inerrant and therefore this verse MUST be correct. All subsequent reasoning and 'evidence' is only there to back up that position. ///
I can understand that, because I kind of feel there is a lack of evidence as to convince the skeptic that it was in the original autographs
Having said that, This is not the only topic that I have found myself as the underdog in presenting a convincing case for.
The evolutionist has the upper hand on the creationist but that does not mean that the postion of the creationist is not correct.
But there may be somethings that the creation scientist fails often to take into account such as : God may have created the Earth new but yet already with a fossil record and with the appearance of age.
But having said all of that I am not trying to defend the information that I presented so far.
At this time I am just giving information for the first
of the four possibilities :
1. it was in the original autographs
2. it mischievously got inserted
3. it accidently got inserted
4. it was Divinely inserted
| 2014/3/10 15:29||Profile|
Tennessee, but my home's in Alabama
| Re: |
How many early fathers cite this passage without attributing it to John? How many cite it while attributing it to John? It is very difficult to say with certainty that any of the patristic writers cited it as a direct allusion, but almost certain that none are known to cite with attribution to John.
Nevertheless, there is some evidence in the manuscripts, doubtful as it may seem. The best practice, IMO, and one I wish all the publishers would follow, is to include the verse in brackets and footnote the uncertainty.
My personal view? It is not in the original. Furthermore, textually, the comma doesn't fit the argument John makes.
1 John is a chiasm, an odd structure of thought and writing to us but common in Eastern writings. No boring explanations needed or offered, but there are two passages in the letter that "pair up" in the chiastic structure: 1 John 1:5-2:2 and 5:6-11. The first is stated and the second is a support for it. (If you're not familiar with chiastic writing, you can read plenty online about it. It is not easy to follow the train of thought in a chiasm. But, even we use them for effect -- which is exactly why they were used in ancient times. "I'm stuck on Band-Aids cause Band-Aids' stuck on me" is a bad example of a chiasm, but a familiar one. 1 John is more elaborate. The last 5 chapters of Daniel and most of Jeremiah are chiasms.
In any event, 1:5-2:2 say:
"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. if we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."
And, in 5:6-11,
"This is he who came by water and blood -- Jesus Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son."
So, the nut of the argument is this: God in Christ Jesus is light and our walk either testifies that God in Christ is true or that God in Christ is a liar. But, it isn't our witness that makes the light of God in Christ "true". It is self-proving for anyone who would reject Jesus. In the Hebrew tradition that the truth be established in the mouth (not the ear, but the mouth) of two or three witnesses, John names them: the Spirit who testifies of Him then and now, the water in which he was baptized (whereupon the Spirit descended upon Him as a dove and the Father spoke audibly) and the blood which He shed as a ransom for the sins of those who would reject Him. All lead to this conclusion or "testimony", as John writes: "that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."
The insertion of the comma into the flow of John's thought just doesn't fit and, in retrospect, SEEMS like a forced attempt to create an apostolically explicit formulation of the trinity where none was needed. Or, it at least seems like a copyists insertion of a marginal comment.
I could be wrong on the Comma, but this is my own personal opinion.
| 2014/3/10 15:57||Profile|
| Re: |
Proudpapa, I do like how you are honest about your position. I think you have said previously that taking the view that the KJV is inspired is a faith position, which it is.
Your analogy of creation and evolution has some validity, but it is not really the same. We would take take the view of creation by faith because God's word says it and is our foundation faith for truth. However God's word does not say there will be one particular translation (in English) that we should trust. So we have no basis for taking a faith position on the KJV.
I have no problem with the verse being in my bible (NKJV), because it says what I know to be true from the whole testimony of scripture. Alternatively if someone says it probably should not be there, again I have no problem as it does not change anything about the doctrine of the trinity in the rest of scripture. The KJV only people cry 'satanic conspiricy' about such things, but the vast majority of Christians using translations without this verse still hold to the doctrine of the trinity, so I think they are crying 'wolf' just to scare some folk into keeping to their view.
| 2014/3/10 16:04||Profile|
| Re: |
Obviously, it is in some texts, just not the majority of texts. (this is not opinion)
I wonder what the Bible would look like if we took out all the verses (like 1 Jn 5:7) that were in the minority of texts (a few manuscripts),
not to be confused with Westcott and Hort's "Minority Text" which is supported by only a small portion (5% or less) of existing manuscripts? (This is not opinion)
Taking any Bible version to be inspired is a faith position, don't you think?
| 2014/3/10 16:11|
| Re: |
Just-in wrote "Taking any Bible version to be inspired is a faith position, don't you think."
If you mean by version, 'translation' then yes. However my point is that we should not be taking any translation as being perfectly inspired and without the possibility of an alternative word or phrase better expressing what the original author wrote.
Also translations by their very nature need to be updated over the years as some words mean different things today than when first used. Example would be that years ago if someone said they were having a gay day, everyone knew they meant 'happy day', but if someone said that today it would mean something completely different, so you would change your word so you are not misunderstood.
Anyway, coming back to the subject. The problem I see in using these articles is that they cannot even consider the possibility of this verse being a human addition because to do so would mean accepting that the KJV is not inspired. I don't have a view on this verse as I have not studied it to know. I'm open to learn, but I can't accept these biased views that cannot even consider the possibility because of a false premise.
| 2014/3/10 16:52||Profile|
| Re: |
That's funny about the word "gay". I still use it sometimes. I just cannot keep up with all the changing meanings of words. In like manner, I stopped trying to keep up with all the new Bible versions. The other day in one of our meetings a brother wanted us all to turn to a psalm and read it aloud, together. It sounded like a cacophony of noise as everyone had a different version. Everyone just looked dumbstruck at each other and politely smiled. We can't even turn to a scripture and sing it as a group, anymore. And, there are so many scripture songs.
| 2014/3/10 17:29|
| Re: |
Heydave wrote : /// I think you have said previously that taking the view that the KJV is inspired is a faith position, which it is.///
I agree, it is more of a faith position rather than an intellectual position.
Heydave wrote : ///Your analogy of creation and evolution has some validity, but it is not really the same. We would take take the view of creation by faith because God's word says it and is our foundation faith for truth. However God's word does not say there will be one particular translation (in English) that we should trust. So we have no basis for taking a faith position on the KJV.///
What the Bible does do is reveal to us aspects of its own nature.
My understanding of acts 7:53 seems to me to confirm that the scriptures have been given to us by the disposition, ordination, direction of angels.
As I have written about in past threads : Jesus based theological argument on written words not just general concepts, and as in the case of the debate with the sadducees over the resurrection of the dead, He based that argument on the verb tense difference between (I am) rather than (I was.).
It was not the original autoghraphs that they where reading, It was copies of copies of copies and possibly even a translation apart from the original hebrew similar to that of the greek Septuagint or an Aramaic translation.
Paul tells Timothy that 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God'.
Modern thought often acknowledges what the Scriptures reveal about there own nature but they claim that it only the nature of the original autoghraphs, we must remember the original autoghraphs no longer exist.
But all of the above Scriptures are speaking about copies of copies of copies (not the original autoghraphs) and possibly even a translation similar to the greek Septuagint or an Aramaic translation.
This was a little bit of a rabbit trail off of the thread. I hope to get back on topic, I just wanted to give some quick brief understandings behind my position.
| 2014/3/10 19:57||Profile|
| Was the Johannie comma mischievously inserted ?|
Was the Johannie comma mischievously inserted ?
As I have been researching those people whom have approached the Johannie comma and 1 Tim 3:16 or any other Scripture with a mindset that perhaps such verses have been mischievously inserted. It appears that such a mindset can often open a vacume that has sucked many away from all trustworthiness of the Scriptures and even trustworthiness of God.
'...if even one part of the Bible is thought to be false, how can any of it be trusted ? - Charles Ryrie'
Now admittedly one could take a majority text approach such as Zane Hodges and others, and believe that a few of the minority readings such as the Johannie comma have accidently crept in, and still hold to a foundation of inspiration, and we may look at that some more later on while discussing the third possibility : was it accidently inserted ?
If I where to believe that any Scripture was mischievously inserted, Than I would naturally believe that those men whom delibertly did so where dishonest men,
and if they are dishonest, than I would conclude that there agenda was also dishonest and intended to lead me away from God.
This seems to to be the vacume that has and continues to suck many men such as Isaac Newton, Johann Jakob Wettstein and others away from The trinitarian belief and away from believing in the Diety of Christ.
This train of thought has swept pupils of Bruce Metzger such as Bart Ehrman so far away from the faith as to embrace agnostisism.
This vacume is the tactic that Ehrman uses with his students to destroy there faith in the Bible, in which he boast to have a high persentage of success at.
| 2014/3/11 13:26||Profile|
| Re: Was the Johannie comma mischievously inserted ?|
| 2014/3/11 15:09||Profile|
| Re: Was the Johannie comma mischievously inserted ?|
To me the word "mischievous" has an element of malice or an intent to do harm such as throwing eggs at a house on Halloween or putting tacks on the teachers chair.
I don't believe that to be the case with 1 John 5:7. While I believe the addition was intentional I don't believe it was mischievous or malicious. I think it was done to add some clarity by a well meaning person.
I think that is true of all of the passages that are disputed as to whether they were in the originals such as the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery or the very last verses in Mark.
I'm not sure how a passage could be "mistakenly" added. Some of the numerical figures in the historical books that don't seem to make sense could have been copyist errors but that is different than the addition of a verse or verses.
Also I am not sure what is meant by "divinely inserted" but if it means what I think it means that may apply to the passage of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. If it was not in the originals it should have been and God fixed it.
| 2014/3/11 15:10||Profile|