I want the truth , no beating around the bush

[4enlightment]

If the trinity does exist and Jesus,the father and the holy spirit are one then may i ask why jesus prayed to the father yet the father prayed to the son.Also the father was a complete god by himself when jesus was on Earth so mathematically how much person does " Jesus " make up of the being known as god since the father is a complete god by himself

It is written that Adam wasn't complete, and so that is why He has given him a helper that came from him. Is it possible that a man can give birth, that if you believe in the Word? If so, then God can give birth to anything that he loves. God had accepted His Mercy to reign in Him, and withheld His wrath. Pretty soon He will not need His wrath anymore, because there will not be anyone around that will offend Him.

Isaiah 54:16“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc;

2 Samuel 24:16When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the Lord relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

The bible was originally written a number of years after the death of Jesus Christ.Now my question is the King James Version is based on a later manuscript compared to the New International Version which uses a manuscript earlier to the death of Jesus Christ?
In 1 John Chapter 5 Verse 7
The King James Version states :" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This sounds like the trinity
However the earlier manuscript in the New International version states : "For there are three that testify"

Isn't this proof an alteration to the later manuscripts and show a sense of corruption.If you disagree please note why you do.Thank you, keep in my mind it isn't my intention to offend nor hurt anyone.

Hi there, this article Will be a help to you concerning the authenticity of the reading of 1 John 5:7 as found in the King James Bible and also all the earlier reformation Bibles (i.e. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva, etc.).

It will also affirm the fact that the reading as found in the King James Bible is the geniune and authentic one.

And that the shorter reading as found in the modern Vatican versions is the corrupt, altered, and counterfeit one.


1 John 5:7 - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[ThomistColin]

Look to the writings of Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus of Rotterdam studied and found that verse seven was never part of the manuscripts that were kept by the Church. It had been added at some point in a copy of the manuscripts. Now Erasmus believed that this was not done out of malice, but instead that it was a commentary that had been included.

 

[Nick1939]

Responding to I want to know the truth, no beating around the truth; the question of 1 John 5:7-8 if this is an insertion the answer is YES, and you are right to question its validity, As it is also few other verses, that verse does NOT appear in other more reliable translations, such as Rotherham, G, Lamsa, E, Nestle, K, Aland of the Greek text, which omit this verse .. Plus the Catholic dewy translation reveal who allow this verse, in the dewy translation and into KJB, the footnote of the catholic bible reads this way, "According to the evidence of many manuscripts and the majority commentators this verse should read; For there are three that bear witness the Spirit, the Water and the Blood these three are one. The holy sea (pope) reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading I hope this answers your question.

Stay with the Truth and the Truth shall make you free. John 8:32
Keep asking and you will be given IF you love the Truth.
God Bless in your pursuit!
nick1939

 

[princeofpeace]

This is ridiculous! You are straining at gnats! You have pulled out one tree in a forest and misusing that one item to explain an entire concept.

In the first place the first books of scripture weren't even put into writing for several hundred years. Then God's spiritual message had to be translated into human words. You are complaining about how translations were made of translations many thousands of years later. Thirty men worked at the KJV 1,600 years after Christ was crucified. It was Luther who made the idea popular that the bible should be read by everyone, the church at that time was opposed to that idea.

No particular translation is to be considered the way some look at the KJV, we are to look for God's original spiritual message and understand we are learning of it through words that are translated by men with God's help. They did the best they could, all translators do, we are to do the best we can to hear God through the words they give us.

To do that, we are never to take one verse, intellectualize and analyze it to it's death, without putting it into the context of all the rest of the bible. We are to search for God's truth.

Exactly!! Heres somthing else to think about. My uncle the pastor of my church is a true follower of Christ, you can clearly see it in not only his ministry but also the rest of his life and he uses King james Version. I myself in being taught to use King James version used it for a long time in my life but because I never understood what being a Christian meant I was never saved until the age of 25 when I was reading a NIV Bible. It's not that the NIV Bible was the truly inspired version of God's Word it was the simple fact that I read Matthew, saw how Christ lived, and said if everyman woman and child live like Him the world becomes a perfect place therefore I should live like this. As soon as I came to that realisation I instantly became a new creation. I could literally feel the sin just vanish from me and was just filled with an indescribable amount of peace and love. So if both us were truly saved from different versions of the Bible then maybe its the message as a whole not a single verses that saves you. Also remember that God isnt going to judge you on what you don't know. I'm pretty sure God isn't going wipe my name off the Lamb's book of Life for not knowing whether the rapture happens pre millenium, post millenium, or happens at all. He will wipe me out the Book if I get soo caught up in doctrine that I forget to live like Christ.

 

[morninglory]

I would like to add my personal reason for trusting the version of the Bible that surfaced and flourished in the first time and place of the freedom to read it to the heart's content. First(Isa.46.10), all versions say that God declared/knew the end from the beginning, so he knew when the printing press would be invented, and he knew when America would be discovered with it's freedom of Religion, so he knew what version of his word would exist then too.

Ps.12.6-7 says "the words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever"; and Ps.139.4 "for there is not a word in my tongue, but lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether". With the exception of more modern spelling and the removing of the Macabees, the version of the KJV that surfaced and flourished in the Americas - is the SEVENTH primary English version. I do not believe for one second that Almighty God would allow a version of his word to surface, flourish and stand alone for over 200 years and build this nations Churches, that warned not to "add to it, take away from it, or privately interpret it", if he intended for human wisdom to come along some 300 years later and do exactly that. That warning is in both the old and the new testament, so I'm 100% sold. (Rev.22.18-19, 2 Pet.1.20, Job 5.13 wt 1 Cor.3.19, Isa.9.15-16, Jer.9.4-5, 12.10-11, Ez.13.2-7, Dan.7.25 wt Jude 16, Eph.4.14 to list a few).

Morninglory

 

[oldhermit]

The bible was originally written a number of years after the death of Jesus Christ.Now my question is the King James Version is based on a later manuscript compared to the New International Version which uses a manuscript earlier to the death of Jesus Christ?
In 1 John Chapter 5 Verse 7
The King James Version states :"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This sounds like the trinity
However the earlier manuscript in the New International version states : "For there are three that testify"

Isn't this proof an alteration to the later manuscripts and show a sense of corruption.If you disagree please note why you do.Thank you, keep in my mind it isn't my intention to offend nor hurt anyone.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Actually, no Greek MSS contains verse seven in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Gk mss. of 1Jn. Of these, the longer reading appears in only eight very late mss, one of which is mss 221 which dates prior to the 10th century A.D. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note as in the case of mss 221. It does not appear in the body of any Gk. text until it was added in mss 61 in 1520. The first time this verse appears in ANY mss comes from Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop who lived from 340 - 385. He was the fist one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin mss in about 380. Thus, it continued to appear in other Latin mss over the years. The mss evidence supporting verse seven is the weakest of any questioned text I have ever researched. It simply should not be there. In spite of this, the verse itself does not teach an untruth. It does not teach anything that is not already represented in other places in scripture.[/FONT]

 

[iamsoandso]

Actually, no Greek MSS contains verse seven in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Gk mss. of 1Jn. Of these, the longer reading appears in only eight very late mss, one of which is mss 221 which dates prior to the 10th century A.D. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note as in the case of mss 221. It does not appear in the body of any Gk. text until it was added in mss 61 in 1520. The first time this verse appears in ANY mss comes from Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop who lived from 340 - 385. He was the fist one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin mss in about 380. Thus, it continued to appear in other Latin mss over the years. The mss evidence supporting verse seven is the weakest of any questioned text I have ever researched. It simply should not be there. In spite of this, the verse itself does not teach an untruth. It does not teach anything that is not already represented in other places in scripture.

i after reading barabas,,,and then the acts of barnabas,,,,saw the same "evidence of tampering",,,i.e. "father paul",,,father as if copied and recopied until they reflect the scribes opinion(not so much the book of barnabas as the acts of barnabas),,,even though some of their content made me think they may have had valid "autographs",,,,,although i realize they were probably mistranslated,,,,the one may very well direct mankind to where several other 1st cen. manuscripts are buried...i know it goes against the grain,,,Ive been told dont worry about them,but they still look to me as if spray painted with graffiti,,,

 

[oldhermit]

i after reading barabas,,,and then the acts of barnabas,,,,saw the same "evidence of tampering",,,i.e. "father paul",,,father as if copied and recopied until they reflect the scribes opinion(not so much the book of barnabas as the acts of barnabas),,,even though some of their content made me think they may have had valid "autographs",,,,,although i realize they were probably mistranslated,,,,the one may very well direct mankind to where several other 1st cen. manuscripts are buried...i know it goes against the grain,,,Ive been told dont worry about them,but they still look to me as if spray painted with graffiti,,,

The one thing that cannot be denied is the fact that the quote of verse seven was well known even in the third and fourth centuries. The verse may well be authentic but we simply do not have early enough mss evidence to prove it. If at some point a mss of 1 John containing the longer reading were discovered from say the third or forth century, this would offer much stronger mss authority to verse seven.

 

[nathan3]

The bible was originally written a number of years after the death of Jesus Christ.Now my question is the King James Version is based on a later manuscript compared to the New International Version which uses a manuscript earlier to the death of Jesus Christ?
In 1 John Chapter 5 Verse 7
The King James Version states :" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This sounds like the trinity
However the earlier manuscript in the New International version states : "For there are three that testify"

Isn't this proof an alteration to the later manuscripts and show a sense of corruption.If you disagree please note why you do.Thank you, keep in my mind it isn't my intention to offend nor hurt anyone.

Using a earlier one dose not necessarily make it better.. I think they consulted more compete manuscripts.

There is a reason some where not used if they are missing things. If you have 10 later ones that all have the same thing, your going to want to go with the majority of witnesses. Going with one witness, just because its old, dose not necessarily mean its the best witness. specially if the majority say some verse belongs.

I would not worry like often people do from time to time. Don't fall into an endless trap of doubt. Your best holding off on assumptions and reaching conclusions prematurely formed on half truths.

Your still learning just like we all are, give your self a chance to study whats actually written .


And the King James isa good version, not perfect but its a good translation. And close to the original as your going to get , without going into the manuscripts themselves yourself.


You can buy your own set of manuscripts ,and call it a day. Then if something is seems a little off, you can learn a meaning of a word or two yourself by study. And thats good to do. Use a Strong's concordance to start off with.

 

[nathan3]

For I John 5:7

Well, Bullinger backs it up this claim , that all the words "" from heaven"" , to "" in earth"" , Supposedly was not found in an Greek MS before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies . So, for that reason, some believe they have crept in. I'll have to read up on it.

Then verse 7 into 8 ,would then read like this : For there are three that bare witness ( as in Vere 6 ) " the Spirit , and the water ," and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I don't see that as a big deal, John 1: , remains the same throughout all the manuscripts. It's nothing to get in upset about. This happens when dealing with old copies. Occasionally here will be some mistake or misunderstanding here or there.

 

[lookingforthetruth]

This is ridiculous! You are straining at gnats! You have pulled out one tree in a forest and misusing that one item to explain an entire concept.

In the first place the first books of scripture weren't even put into writing for several hundred years. Then God's spiritual message had to be translated into human words. You are complaining about how translations were made of translations many thousands of years later. Thirty men worked at the KJV 1,600 years after Christ was crucified. It was Luther who made the idea popular that the bible should be read by everyone, the church at that time was opposed to that idea.

No particular translation is to be considered the way some look at the KJV, we are to look for God's original spiritual message and understand we are learning of it through words that are translated by men with God's help. They did the best they could, all translators do, we are to do the best we can to hear God through the words they give us.

To do that, we are never to take one verse, intellectualize and analyze it to it's death, without putting it into the context of all the rest of the bible. We are to search for God's truth.

So what your asking me to do pretty much is even though the bible has major contradictions we are just meant to ignore it and have blind faith which could possibly mean walking towards our doom ? I can't stand fire let alone imagine hell so i'd rather use logic in this case

 

[Ariel82]

The Bible doesn't have contradictions.

Men's understanding and personal account of events often contradict but the central message of the Bible is constant: Prophecy is the Testimony of Jesus Christ and His salvation and redemption of sinners.

Have you ever studied criminal law and heard eyewitness testimony of an event?

if they all give the exact same story, with the same details highlighted then the police become suspicious that the story was rehearsed package of lies.

The fact that the 4 gospels highlight different stories about Jesus life shows that it was written by different authors.

think about someone writing the story of your life. Some would know certain stories while other people would not because they were not there with you during all the major events in your life.

in the same manner ask your family members to tell you the story of your birth and see how the different accounts are related to you and then determine if that should be a basis of accusing one of your family members of lying.

 

[lookingforthetruth]

The Bible doesn't have contradictions.

Men's understanding and personal account of events often contradict but the central message of the Bible is constant: Prophecy is the Testimony of Jesus Christ and His salvation and redemption of sinners.

Have you ever studied criminal law and heard eyewitness testimony of an event?

if they all give the exact same story, with the same details highlighted then the police become suspicious that the story was rehearsed package of lies.

The fact that the 4 gospels highlight different stories about Jesus life shows that it was written by different authors.

think about someone writing the story of your life. Some would know certain stories while other people would not because they were not there with you during all the major events in your life.

in the same manner ask your family members to tell you the story of your birth and see how the different accounts are related to you and then determine if that should be a basis of accusing one of your family members of lying.

I'll show you contradictions http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf

 

[RedTent]

So what your asking me to do pretty much is even though the bible has major contradictions we are just meant to ignore it and have blind faith which could possibly mean walking towards our doom ? I can't stand fire let alone imagine hell so i'd rather use logic in this case

Why in the world would you change my saying that we must search for the spiritual message God intends us to learn to saying you want to use your own logic and you think your logic will keep you out of fire!!

I have a program on my computer so I can put several translations side by side along with Strong's. I am not looking for contradictions, I am looking for God's truth.

 

[lookingforthetruth]

Why in the world would you change my saying that we must search for the spiritual message God intends us to learn to saying you want to use your own logic and you think your logic will keep you out of fire!!

I have a program on my computer so I can put several translations side by side along with Strong's. I am not looking for contradictions, I am looking for God's truth.

I believe god is perfect and God would not make a mistake when writing a book .That's my logic and are you telling me there's no contradictions in the bible?

 

[Dan58]

The evidence I've discovered proves that 1 John 5:7-8 was used (quoted) prior to the Greek manuscripts which didn't include it. There are also many scholars who believe that the Johannine Comma as represented in the KJV is authentically accurate; Defense of the Johannine Comma

"Cyprian 200 - 258 AD. "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200• 258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse. Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John. Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check." NTEB: Early Manuscript Evidence For Including 1 John 5:7

"Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today." Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

1 John 5:7-8 is cited in many first century church lectionaries, which is evidence that the verse existed prior to the Vulgate and predates all Latin translations. So it all depends on who you believe, but here is yet another source I used; 1 John 5:7
1 John 5:7-8

 

[Karraster]

The Word of God is perfect. The Bible proves the Bible. There may be passages that seem to you contradictory,..Judas hanged himself from a tree/ Judas guts spilled in a field...both are true. What are you referring to? No better time than now to get the truth you earnestly seek.

 

[Dan58]

Also consider what theologically makes sense? From the NIV; "7) For there are three that testify:8) the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." Where in the bible do you find a verse like vs 7? Its like finding a verse that only says "Jesus saith". Its an awkward rendering and seems obvious to me that the remainder of verse 7 was removed.

From 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV). The omitted words in the NIV are capitalized;
7) "For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8) AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Note that a forger would have likely used "the Son", instead of "The Word" which is only consistent with John's writing style; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). "And his name is called The Word of God"( Revelation 19:13). "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18). It all consistently flows together.

Also consider the relevancy of vs 9) "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son". If the Johannine Comma is removed, then where is the witness of God spoken of in the verse? It is not there, the context is completely muddled in the NIV.

 

[lookingforthetruth]

@dan58, The bible was written after the death of Jesus okay. So the people who spread the quotations and teachings of Jesus are spread by an" evil and adulterous generation"Mathew 12:39 . The people who spread the teachings of Jesus were evil according to Jesus true ? his own words ? Now @ karraster i'll show you contradictions and explain them to me please
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBAttachments/101_Contradictions_In_The_Bible.pdf