l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 1 This is a verse directly states Trinity, let's compare the versions:
KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NIV: For there are three that testify:
NASB: For there are three that testify:
ESV: For there are three that testify:
CUV: 并 且 有 圣 灵 作 见 证 ， 因 为 圣 灵 就 是 真 理 。 | l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 2 Below, is a false statement which shows up in almost
any online search concerning 1 John 5:7: “… it is not
present in any manuscripts (Greek or otherwise) dating prior to the
16th century, and is not present in the passage as quoted by any of
the early Church fathers—even though they would have had plenty
of reason to quote it in the Trinitarian debates, had it really existed
back then….” (Wikipedia)
Now, anyone who has researched the subject at all
knows this is simply not true. In this instanc
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: This is a verse directly states Trinity, let's compare the versions:
: KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
: and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
: NIV: For there are three that testify:
: NASB: For there are three that testify:
: ESV: For there are three that testify:
: CUV: 并 且 有 圣 灵 作 见 证 ， 因 为 圣 灵 就 是 真 理 。
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 3 The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking
at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (
Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that
is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness).
Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left
to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same
participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun)
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: This is a verse directly states Trinity, let's compare the versions:
: KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
: and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
: NIV: For there are three that testify:
: NASB: For there are three that testify:
: ESV: For there are three that testify:
: CUV: 并 且 有 圣 灵 作 见 证 ， 因 为 圣 灵 就 是 真 理 。
| c****y
发帖数: 829 | 4 不好意思, 看英文我就想睡觉, 能不能给个总结啊.
Looking
left
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking
: at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (
: Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that
: is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness).
: Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left
: to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same
: participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun)
| q*******s
发帖数: 193 | 5 Regarding different versions of the bible translation (not necessarily in
connection with 1 john5:7), I will share the following.
1) A few years ago, I asked a group of divinity PhD students in my
university (one of the top divinity grad schools in the US) about different
versions of the English Bible. Their consensus was that King James Version
was the less accurate translation, when compared to other modern-day
translations. Those students spent a lot of time studying the historic time
peri | l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 6 I would suggest reading the other verse comparison posts
I posted and see for yourself. (with title starting with
'Modern Versions').
约翰一书2:27
你们从主所受的恩膏常存在你们心里，并不用人教训你们，
自有主的恩膏在凡事上教训你们。这恩膏是真的，不是假的，你们
要按这恩膏的教训住在主里面。
different
Version
time
【在 q*******s 的大作中提到】
: Regarding different versions of the bible translation (not necessarily in
: connection with 1 john5:7), I will share the following.
: 1) A few years ago, I asked a group of divinity PhD students in my
: university (one of the top divinity grad schools in the US) about different
: versions of the English Bible. Their consensus was that King James Version
: was the less accurate translation, when compared to other modern-day
: translations. Those students spent a lot of time studying the historic time
: peri
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 7 From: http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/cassidy-factfiction4.html
Why is it, then, that so many otherwise good pastors do not take the
Traditional text position? I believe there are two reasons for this. The
first is ignorance. Many pastors have been educated in the Critical text
position in Bible College and Seminary, and almost every College and
Seminary in the country has been infected with the Modernist position that
the Scriptures are somehow less than God says they are. Almost every school
t
【在 q*******s 的大作中提到】
: Regarding different versions of the bible translation (not necessarily in
: connection with 1 john5:7), I will share the following.
: 1) A few years ago, I asked a group of divinity PhD students in my
: university (one of the top divinity grad schools in the US) about different
: versions of the English Bible. Their consensus was that King James Version
: was the less accurate translation, when compared to other modern-day
: translations. Those students spent a lot of time studying the historic time
: peri
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 8 Here is another good debate:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-wallace.html
different
Version
time
【在 q*******s 的大作中提到】
: Regarding different versions of the bible translation (not necessarily in
: connection with 1 john5:7), I will share the following.
: 1) A few years ago, I asked a group of divinity PhD students in my
: university (one of the top divinity grad schools in the US) about different
: versions of the English Bible. Their consensus was that King James Version
: was the less accurate translation, when compared to other modern-day
: translations. Those students spent a lot of time studying the historic time
: peri
| q*******s
发帖数: 193 | 9 Hi, lanyjie:
I will spend time to read your posts and the link you provided. But I am
just wondering which bible version is used in your church? KJV? Many
protestant churches don't use KJV any more. In my church, the bible they
provide is NIV.
If you feel strongly about this issue, maybe you can also talk to your
pastor about the bible translation.
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: Here is another good debate:
: http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-wallace.html
:
: different
: Version
: time
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 10 The same as your church: NIV + CUV (Chinese Union Version, 和合本)。
I have been trying to persuade the minister, but no success yet.
He did give me some reference, but the article is obviously from
a modernist, which compromises on God's Word.
But the good thing is that quite a few who take this seriously
and are willing to consider the evidences, are able to accept
the truth regarding those New Age Versions.
What I feel most pitiful is that I found that the
newer CUV are already modified according
【在 q*******s 的大作中提到】
: Hi, lanyjie:
: I will spend time to read your posts and the link you provided. But I am
: just wondering which bible version is used in your church? KJV? Many
: protestant churches don't use KJV any more. In my church, the bible they
: provide is NIV.
: If you feel strongly about this issue, maybe you can also talk to your
: pastor about the bible translation.
| | | k*d
发帖数: 615 | 11 I strongly suspect that the trinity text of 1 john 5:7 is a later
addition.
I first noticed this discrepancy 1 john 5:7 when I read the story of
Sir Isaac Newton. In fact he was one of the earliest who
noticed this addition. This addition is in opposite view of
the mainstream monotheism of early judeo-christianity.
For a random link obtained by google, see e.g.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14965.htm
I borrowed a book on an early bible Codex Sinaiticus
written around 350AD. There is no trinity
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: Below, is a false statement which shows up in almost
: any online search concerning 1 John 5:7: “… it is not
: present in any manuscripts (Greek or otherwise) dating prior to the
: 16th century, and is not present in the passage as quoted by any of
: the early Church fathers—even though they would have had plenty
: of reason to quote it in the Trinitarian debates, had it really existed
: back then….” (Wikipedia)
: Now, anyone who has researched the subject at all
: knows this is simply not true. In this instanc
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 12 Below are some other evidences that strongly support
the trinity text, as well as some links to other ones.
Hope that will be interesting to you.
====================================================
And These Three Are One
1 John 5:7 is the clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity,
yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and
Jehovah witness versions.
Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is
not found in the majority
【在 k*d 的大作中提到】
: I strongly suspect that the trinity text of 1 john 5:7 is a later
: addition.
: I first noticed this discrepancy 1 john 5:7 when I read the story of
: Sir Isaac Newton. In fact he was one of the earliest who
: noticed this addition. This addition is in opposite view of
: the mainstream monotheism of early judeo-christianity.
: For a random link obtained by google, see e.g.
: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14965.htm
: I borrowed a book on an early bible Codex Sinaiticus
: written around 350AD. There is no trinity
| k*d
发帖数: 615 | 13 Excerpt from Codex Sinaiticus including 1 John 5:7–9. It lacks the Comma
Johanneum. The purple-coloured text says: "There are three witness bearers,
the Spirit and the water and the blood".
Codex Sinaiticus (London, Brit. Libr., Add. 43725; Gregory-Aland nº &#
1488; (Aleph) or 01) is a 4th century uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible,
written between 330–350. | k*d
发帖数: 615 | 14 Comma Johanneum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Christianity Portal
The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) known since the 4th century[
1] and contained in most translations of the First Epistle of John published
from 1522 until the latter part of the nineteenth century, owing to the
widespread use of the third edition of the Textus Receptus (TR) as the sole
source for translation. In translations containing the clause, such as the
King James Versio
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: Below are some other evidences that strongly support
: the trinity text, as well as some links to other ones.
: Hope that will be interesting to you.
: ====================================================
: And These Three Are One
: 1 John 5:7 is the clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity,
: yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and
: Jehovah witness versions.
: Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is
: not found in the majority
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 15 There are sufficient reasons to believe that
Codex Sinaiticus is a corrupted codex.
Specifically, it is believed to have been
corrupted by those who held Arian beliefs,
that is, they believe Jesus Christ is not
the same as God, but a lesser, created god.
For a classic reference, please see the
book by Rev. Frederick Nolan:
AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY
OF THE GREEK VULGATE
OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT
available at:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html
From the Cathol
【在 k*d 的大作中提到】
: Excerpt from Codex Sinaiticus including 1 John 5:7–9. It lacks the Comma
: Johanneum. The purple-coloured text says: "There are three witness bearers,
: the Spirit and the water and the blood".
: Codex Sinaiticus (London, Brit. Libr., Add. 43725; Gregory-Aland nº &#
: 1488; (Aleph) or 01) is a 4th century uncial manuscript of the Greek Bible,
: written between 330–350.
| l*****e
发帖数: 112 | 16 The first consideration is THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. The strength of forgery
or interpolation is similarity and not uniqueness. The Trinitarian formula,
Father, Word, and Holy Spirit" is unique not only for John but for all NT
writers. The usual formula, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" would have been
assuredly used by a forger. [Incidentally, this argument is an antidote for
rationalists who repudiate the authenticity of the Petrine authorship of 2
Peter. Peter uses a unique spelling for his nam
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: This is a verse directly states Trinity, let's compare the versions:
: KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
: and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
: NIV: For there are three that testify:
: NASB: For there are three that testify:
: ESV: For there are three that testify:
: CUV: 并 且 有 圣 灵 作 见 证 ， 因 为 圣 灵 就 是 真 理 。
| k*d
发帖数: 615 | 17 All these so-called arguments are very debatable. See a long debate at
http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html
Latin Manuscript Evidence Concerning 1 John 5:7-8
A Debate between Dr. Gregory S. Neal and Dr. Thomas Holland
During the month of September in 1998 Dr. Gregory Neal (r*****[email protected])
engaged Dr. Thomas Holland (L*******[email protected]) in a significant debate on
the the canonicity of 1 John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johanine Comma.
The following is an edited account of the debate, with m | k*d
发帖数: 615 | 18 I believe that the evidence for the extra phrase (the `Comma') is much weaker and
more indirect. The evidence against the extra phrase is much stronger and
direct (see the one photo that I posted).
In order to convert my belief, I would need someone to supply at least two
direct counter-evidences: post similar photos from 2+ manuscripts that are well
accepted to be dated earlier than Codex Sinaitius and contain the extra
phrase,
and please show that these are not ``corrupted codex'' [I do not be
【在 l*****e 的大作中提到】
: There are sufficient reasons to believe that
: Codex Sinaiticus is a corrupted codex.
: Specifically, it is believed to have been
: corrupted by those who held Arian beliefs,
: that is, they believe Jesus Christ is not
: the same as God, but a lesser, created god.
: For a classic reference, please see the
: book by Rev. Frederick Nolan:
: AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY
: OF THE GREEK VULGATE
|
|
