If you have a bible which removes the latter part of 1 John 5:7, then your "bible" is not the word of God.

[Mikey-for-sure]

And who is sure of this statement ?( Someone had to decide and write what you stated, as none of us were at the first compilation of the bible. )

Since the only words of God we have are written from oral or long lost letters to the first churches, how do we know where the stop is in any passage ?

Not to be facetious but to gain understanding, why do ppl not trust in the Holy Spirit to be their guide ? Are we at the stage in this world, that much learning" is making ppl mad or insane with their own understanding ?

Is this a progressive forum? Interesting. Your statements say we believe in different Dieties. But for my own sake, May God Rebuke you.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Is this a progressive forum? Interesting. Your statements say we believe in different Dieties. But for my own sake, May God Rebuke you.

No this is a " Christian" forum.

I believe in one God who manifest in three personalities. To persuade men of their sinful state and the need of belief in the D, B,and R of his Son, Jesus, the Christ.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh , justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

To take away the sins of the world. To all who will believe and repent ! This is the deity of Jesus, my God, saviour and redeemer.

Btw, I believe in all after the comma is true.

If the Lord rebuke me then I needed his chastisement and gladly welcome it, but not on your say so !

 

[St. SteVen]

Translations have errors due to differences of language and culture.

There are also scribal errors, additions and omissions. Not to mention doctrinal bias in translation as well.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think his point is the modern Bible translations based on the Alexandrian texts are missing words, so it is not the whole "word of God." Personally, I prefer the NKJV too. I like as much of the Bible as I can get.

Yikes!
The Alexandrian texts are the oldest and therefore MOST original.
If there are MORE words in later manuscript copies, they were ADDED.
That's added in later manuscript copies, not taken away from the Alexandrian manuscript copies.

 

[St. SteVen]

Telephone is a great analogy for what we have today compared to in the beginning.

Even the disciples, the twelve, didn't understand Jesus.
Compound that by the average 20-40 years before they wrote it down,
and questions about who actually did the writing... ???
Where does that leave us?

 

[St. SteVen]

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book... (Revelation 22:18)

Hmm.

19 ...and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:19)

Hmm.

Which principle above applies to the Comma?

This is one good reason to appreciate the NIV translation.
It says SCROLL, not book.

There was at least one scroll for every "book" of the NT.

Revelation 22:18-19 NIV
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

 

[Lambano]

This is one good reason to appreciate the NIV translation.
It says SCROLL, not book.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh! You caught me! (Though one could argue the same principle applies to the whole black leather-bound "book" with the gold lettering on the cover and the middle section with maps of the Holy Land.)

 

[St. SteVen]

(Though one could argue the same principle applies to the whole black leather-bound "book" with the gold lettering on the cover and the middle section with maps of the Holy Land.)

Yes, but on what basis?
Have you seen this topic?

Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled, Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 Source link provided at the bottom of this post. I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Lambano]

Yikes!
The Alexandrian texts are the oldest and therefore MOST original.
If there are MORE words in later manuscript copies, they were ADDED.
That's added in later manuscript copies, not taken away from the Alexandrian manuscript copies.

The principle is, if the verse didn't exist in a 400 AD manuscript and is found in a manuscript from 1000+ A.D., it looks suspicious. But the KJV-only crowd doesn't want to the hear that.

I remember a Jack Chick tract condemning the Alexandrian manuscripts for removing certain verses (especially the one in question here). And another one condemning the addition of the Apocrypha in the Catholic bibles. I miss those tracts. The Bible in comic strip format is about my speed.

 

[Lambano]

Yes, but on what basis?
Have you seen this topic?

Debunking the the Doctrine of Preservation

Quoted from The Berean Patriot article titled, Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus – Textual Criticism 101 Source link provided at the bottom of this post. I'll have to split this into several posts to fit the maximum allowed post size...

www.christianityboard.com

The epistemological problem is that this puts boundaries and uncertainty on what we can know using the Sola Scriptura methodology. The "traditions of the apostles" methodology didn't work so well either, which leaves us unmoored and adrift in a sea of uncertainty. For a religion that's supposed to be anchored on faith and trust, we don't handle uncertainty very well.

I suppose that leaves us with the Wesleyan quadrilateral: Scripture, Church Tradition, Reason, and Experience. We interpret scripture using the other three anyway.

 

[Jack]

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (NKJV)
13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

 

[St. SteVen]

For a religion that's supposed to be anchored on faith and trust, we don't handle uncertainty very well.

This bit caught my eye.
Especially the "anchored on faith" part.
Faith is a belief in something we can't verify in physical terms. ???

Which gives credence to the agnostic position - we can't know for sure.
Ironically, both sides agree on that point; only the conclusions differ.
- The agnostic chooses not to believe.
- The believer choose to believe, obviously.

 

[Lambano]

Especially the "anchored on faith" part.
Faith is a belief in something we can't verify in physical terms. ???

The confidence in the things hoped for; the assurance of things unseen?

I learned that "trust" is probably the more accurate term.

 

[St. SteVen]

The confidence in the things hoped for; the assurance of things unseen?

Right, That's a more biblical statement.
A strange thing for us to claim we are anchored to. (at the top of our voice) - LOL
"My anchor holds... and grips the solid,,, rock!" (old hymn)

I learned that "trust" is probably the more accurate term.

Yes. That's easier to get our head around. Agreed.
When we get to the end of our rope, tie a knot and hang on...
As long as that rope is held on the other end by God, we will be fine.

 

[Jack]

Right, That's a more biblical statement.
A strange thing for us to claim we are anchored to. (at the top of our voice) - LOL
"My anchor holds... and grips the solid,,, rock!" (old hymn)

Yes. That's easier to get our head around. Agreed.
When we get to the end of our rope, tie a knot and hang on...
As long as that rope is held on the other end by God, we will be fine.

Not if you reject Jesus as your God.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

In english, the Authorized (King James) Version of the Holy Bible is the word of God. The reason why bibles which pervert 1 John 5:7 are not the word of God is because they negate a precept which the Holy Ghost has set forth in both testaments. Which is:

"...At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established."
— (Deuteronomy 19:15).

And again in the new testament:

"...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
— (2 Corinthians 13:1).

And so, the Holy Ghost has given us two witnesses. Heaven:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
— (1 John 5:7).

And earth:

"And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
— (1 John 5:8).

And what is the record? It is:

"...That God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
— (1 John 5:11-12).

May God reveal this to you. Because the hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them. Amen.

"The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant."
— (Psalm 25:14).

Sorry but your KJV only version, all others are perversions just doesn't hold water. I love and use use the KJV, have done so for over 40 years now. But there are many excellent translations as well as many lousy translations.

The only infallible inerrant Scripture are the original autographs and all faithful copies of them. Translating from one language to another always causes the work to suffer.

I know all about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I know about teh Alexandrian/Antiochan conflict. But no one can show that the omission of 1 John 5:7 or any other omissions found in the TR are the result of intentional evil or mischief. If one can He would become renowned in teh believing world for exposing it.