The doctrine of The Trinity

[Bull of the Woods]

How do you know that 1 John 5:7 doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th Century?

It’s a very serious thing to claim the KJV and NKJV are basically corrupt versions of the Bible.



JLB

Would you claim then that nearly every other version is corrupt?
I believe the original autographs are perfect. There are subtle, ( some would say terrible), differences between versions.

 

[for_his_glory]

The above is not for me...but

What you're saying is this:

There are 3 persons:
Mary
Jane
Susan

and One God lives in them...so you've just made 3 Gods.

It's like this:
There is ONE GOD...
INSIDE that One God...there are 3 persons
Mary
Jane
Susan

Now there is only ONE GOD.

No, that is not what I said. The words Trinity/Deity/Divinity is not found in the Bible, but means three in one as divine being (God), celestial being (God) , supreme being (God) that is all the same spirit that is God as all three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost function in unity as one spirit (not three individual persons) within the Spiritual realm of God. The scriptures I gave in post #11 explain this, but in all reality I don't think anyone can truly understand the fullness of it all.

 

[wondering]

Would you claim then that nearly every other version is corrupt?
I believe the original autographs are perfect. There are subtle, ( some would say terrible), differences between versions.

What are the original autographs and where can they be found?
You know something no one else knows?

 

[for_his_glory]

1 John 5:7 is a pretty controversial verse. It's a KJV and NKJV verse not appearing in any Greek manuscript before the 16th century. I think many if not most serious theologians would suggest arguing the trinity from elsewhere.
I believe in the Trinity by the way.

The only reason 1 John 5:7 is not found in Greek manuscripts is because Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus did not include it in his first edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516. He claimed it was not found in the Greek manuscripts that were made available to him at that time. It doesn't mean that when John wrote 1 John in Ephesus around AD 95-110 that he did not write 1 John 5:7, it just means it wasn't among the manuscripts made available to Erasmus.

 

[JLB]

Would you claim then that nearly every other version is corrupt?
I believe the original autographs are perfect. There are subtle, ( some would say terrible), differences between versions.

I would not claim that nearly every other version is corrupt.


How do you know that 1 John 5:7 doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th Century?





JLB

 

[Bull of the Woods]

What are the original autographs and where can they be found?
You know something no one else knows?

No. I doubt they exist. I trust that when the apostles or their scribes wrote the books we consider books of the NT they wrote in a uniquely Holy Spirit led way.
Subsequent translations have minor differences owing to the difficulty of translation as language changes.
But I believe, as Christ told the disciples on the last night before being crucified that the Holy Spirit would empower them to remember what he told them.
I believe likewise Paul was enabled to write inerrantly when he wrote his epistles.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I would not claim that nearly every other version is corrupt.


How do you know that 1 John 5:7 doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript before the 16th Century?





JLB

That is what most of my reading on that says. I am not a big KJV guy. You are welcome to regard it however you wish.

 

[wondering]

No. I doubt they exist. I trust that when the apostles or their scribes wrote the books we consider books of the NT they wrote in a uniquely Holy Spirit led way.
Subsequent translations have minor differences owing to the difficulty of translation as language changes.
But I believe, as Christ told the disciples on the last night before being crucified that the Holy Spirit would empower them to remember what he told them.
I believe likewise Paul was enabled to write inerrantly when he wrote his epistles.

I would go a bit further and say that the original manuscripts no longer exist...OR we've no found them and most probably never will.
Also mistakes were made for different reasons.

What has been found matches well and there are no big theological differences. But to say that we know exactly what anyone wrote is impossible. This is why I always say that the N.T. is a big idea. The writers and translators and copiers all knew what the idea was.

 

[wondering]

That is what most of my reading on that says. I am not a big KJV guy. You are welcome to regard it however you wish.

There are a few verses that were added on.
There's a whole story that scholars all agree never happened.
And it's one of everyone's favorites....
But, again, the idea is there and there's nothing wrong with it and is what Jesus would have done.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

On Wednesday night last week (prayer meeting) the pastor said something regarding the trinity. Then read 1 John 5:6-8. He is a strict KJV man. He told us if we have a bible that worded it a different way we should throw them away.
Now I have always been a NIV person because the pastor of the church through which I came to the faith used that predominantly, though he would pretty often explain a passage from other versions including the KJV.
My continued use of the NIV is basically a matter of comfortable habit, and not the result of a body of research into the different versions.
I know godly people who use NIV, and likewise the KJV and other versions. I don't feel too corrupted.
My thing is to know the person Jesus Christ more and more. I will look into different versions but daily I am still inclined to use my NIV. It does predate some editing that newer ones have that I think confused some gender and other things. But I use my older one and haven't researched the new one either.
In general I like to say "peace" when it comes to issues that arise between believers that I don't regard as too critical. But acknowledge they may know better than me and I need to learn more.
So when the pastor made his point on 1John 5:7 I did do some reading from a lot of sources.
But I can say not enough that I had a sound footing to comment on that aspect of the KJV. It was fresh in my mind and I did comment. In hindsight I should not have.
"Peace"? I hope so.

 

[JLB]

That is what most of my reading on that says. I am not a big KJV guy. You are welcome to regard it however you wish.

Until you have something a little legitimate, besides “your not a big King James guy”, I will stick with what


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 NKJV


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 KJV


because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
1 John 5:7 Young’s Literal Translation




JLB

 

[Bull of the Woods]

When I said "I am not a big KJV guy" I meant I am not an expert. I did not mean I have any kind of negative regard for it any differently from any other version.
I should have left well enough alone.
I apologize.

 

[JLB]

When I said "I am not a big KJV guy" I meant I am not an expert. I did not mean I have any kind of negative regard for it any differently from any other version.
I should have left well enough alone.
I apologize.

I think we as a community of believers should be in agreement on foundational doctrinal tenets of our common faith.


To me, it serves no Godly purpose to undermine the validity of the Bible, especially the King James and New King James.


Many folks are confused about such issues as the Godhead,
(Trinity). My hope is CF.net would be a place where people can come to find the truth.


These three are one, is correct biblical teaching about the Godhead.


This one is three, is modalism or oneness and is not correct.



JLB

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I believe in the trinity. Definitely not the one is three.
I am sorry to have touched a nerve.

 

[for_his_glory]

Let's not assume things unless there is proof of what one is claiming to be true, IE: 1 John 5:7. Bull of the Woods apologized for bring this up so it's time to let it go and move on.

The topic is about the Trinity and not a debate about what translation is the worst or best. Trinity is a very hard subject to fully understand as I believe none of us could ever fully comprehend it all.

 

[Bull of the Woods]

I always have liked Christ's baptism.
Christ was baptized. God the Father spoke that this is His Son, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ.
That gives the fact of three persons. Other passages speak of a oneness between them.

 

[ezrider]

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 NKJV


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 KJV

The Word is NOT the Son; But the Word was in the Son.

 

[wondering]

On Wednesday night last week (prayer meeting) the pastor said something regarding the trinity. Then read 1 John 5:6-8. He is a strict KJV man. He told us if we have a bible that worded it a different way we should throw them away.
Now I have always been a NIV person because the pastor of the church through which I came to the faith used that predominantly, though he would pretty often explain a passage from other versions including the KJV.
My continued use of the NIV is basically a matter of comfortable habit, and not the result of a body of research into the different versions.
I know godly people who use NIV, and likewise the KJV and other versions. I don't feel too corrupted.
My thing is to know the person Jesus Christ more and more. I will look into different versions but daily I am still inclined to use my NIV. It does predate some editing that newer ones have that I think confused some gender and other things. But I use my older one and haven't researched the new one either.
In general I like to say "peace" when it comes to issues that arise between believers that I don't regard as too critical. But acknowledge they may know better than me and I need to learn more.
So when the pastor made his point on 1John 5:7 I did do some reading from a lot of sources.
But I can say not enough that I had a sound footing to comment on that aspect of the KJV. It was fresh in my mind and I did comment. In hindsight I should not have.
"Peace"? I hope so.

I like to say that we are not people of the book.
We believe in a person....not a book.
We also believe in that book because it teaches us about the person....they're all good if we can consider that it teaches us the basics. For all else we go to God.

 

[for_his_glory]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Jesus is the life of God who is the word of God come in the flesh to be that light (life) unto men. Men could not understand the light that walked among them until the light was taken up and another light/life of God (Holy Spirit) came down to indwell men giving them understanding of the light/life of God.

 

[wondering]

The Word is NOT the Son; But the Word was in the Son.

I've never heard this.
The Word was GOD.

Then how do YOU explain the word?