Scriptural Baptism

[Groovy]

Most Christians aren't interested from what manuscript copies translations come from but I do. If you check a translation at 1Jn 5:7, the briefed translations omitted the verse, and if so, many other passages and partial passages are omitted. You can also check 2Sam 21:19, and it says "Elhanan killed Goliath." It's supposed to say "Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath." I can show you many other problems with these translations too.

Whoa, Chap, slow down! First please explain what the problem is with the NIV (for example) noting that v.7-8 is not found in early Greek manuscripts but rather was added by the Vulgate in the 14th century?

 

[netchaplain]

Whoa, Chap, slow down! First please explain what the problem is with the NIV (for example) noting that v.7-8 is not found in early Greek manuscripts but rather was added by the Vulgate in the 14th century?

Erasmus was the one who introduced the "Johannine Comma" (1Jn 5:7), which came from a few Greek manuscripts he discovered:

"Erasmus primarily used a small number of relatively late Byzantine Greek manuscripts for his Textus Receptus.
The Johannine Comma, found in 1 John 5:7-8, is a controversial passage present in some Greek manuscripts, but not the majority. While absent from the earliest and most important Greek manuscripts, it appears in a few later ones, primarily as additions to the text. These include manuscripts like 629, 61, 918, 2473, and 2318. The passage is also found in some Latin manuscripts and was included in various printed editions of the New Testament, notably those based on the Textus Receptus." ---Google AI


All Bible translations derive two primary manuscript sources: The Majority Text and the Minority Text. The Majority Text contains the majority of manuscript copies, which number around 3,500 copies. The Minority Text has only three primary sources (called the Eclectic copies) which include the Vaticanus manuscripts, the Sinaiticus manuscripts and the Alexandrinus manuscripts.

 

[Groovy]

Erasmus was the one who introduced the "Johannine Comma" (1Jn 5:7), which came from a few Greek manuscripts he discovered:

"Erasmus primarily used a small number of relatively late Byzantine Greek manuscripts for his Textus Receptus.
The Johannine Comma, found in 1 John 5:7-8, is a controversial passage present in some Greek manuscripts, but not the majority. While absent from the earliest and most important Greek manuscripts, it appears in a few later ones, primarily as additions to the text. These include manuscripts like 629, 61, 918, 2473, and 2318. The passage is also found in some Latin manuscripts and was included in various printed editions of the New Testament, notably those based on the Textus Receptus." ---Google AI


All Bible translations derive two primary manuscript sources: The Majority Text and the Minority Text. The Majority Text contains the majority of manuscript copies, which number around 3,500 copies. The Minority Text has only three primary sources (called the Eclectic copies) which include the Vaticanus manuscripts, the Sinaiticus manuscripts and the Alexandrinus manuscripts.

Okay, but what is the problem with the NIV (for example) noting that v.7-8 is not found in early Greek manuscripts, which agrees with Google/AI?

 

[netchaplain]

Okay, but what is the problem with the NIV (for example) noting that v.7-8 is not found in early Greek manuscripts, which agrees with Google/AI?

I'm tying to say that the oldest Greek manuscripts are corrupt, the four I mentioned, and that's usually the farthest I go with this issue because most do not understand the problems involved.

In his book "Which Bible," David Otis Fuller, a renowned scholar and writer repeated a truth learned from the scholarly book of Jasper James Ray that "Within the first hundred years after the death of the Apostles, Irenaeus said concerning Marcion the Gnostic, "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened."

Myself, I do not think most of the Church of Christ will realize the seriousness of this ill-gotten farce until the Lord Jesus' returns.

I can prove more of the decadence contained in the omissions, transpositions and interpolations of the modern translations if you like!

 

[Groovy]

I'm tying to say that the oldest Greek manuscripts are corrupt, the four I mentioned, and that's usually the farthest I go with this issue because most do not understand the problems involved.

In his book "Which Bible," David Otis Fuller, a renowned scholar and writer repeated a truth learned from the scholarly book of Jasper James Ray that "Within the first hundred years after the death of the Apostles, Irenaeus said concerning Marcion the Gnostic, "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened."

Myself, I do not think most of the Church of Christ will realize the seriousness of this ill-gotten farce until the Lord Jesus' returns.

I can prove more of the decadence contained in the omissions, transpositions and interpolations of the modern translations if you like!

Well, first please explain why you think

I'm tying to say that the oldest Greek manuscripts are corrupt, the four I mentioned, and that's usually the farthest I go with this issue because most do not understand the problems involved.

In his book "Which Bible," David Otis Fuller, a renowned scholar and writer repeated a truth learned from the scholarly book of Jasper James Ray that "Within the first hundred years after the death of the Apostles, Irenaeus said concerning Marcion the Gnostic, "Wherefore also Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened."

Myself, I do not think most of the Church of Christ will realize the seriousness of this ill-gotten farce until the Lord Jesus' returns.

I can prove more of the decadence contained in the omissions, transpositions and interpolations of the modern translations if you like!

Well, what you are proving is that extant versions of the Bible are the result of a complicated history comparable to making sausage, and we cannot know which version is correct, so we must have faith that God ensured they all are sufficiently true to accomplish His purpose of revealing His requirement for salvation to humanity.

Using 1John 5:7-8 as an example, verse 6 indicates that "the Spirit, the water and the blood" is the correct reading, don't you think? Although "the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" are true enough and reading it that way won't corrupt anyone, right?

Do you have another problematic passage for us to consider?

 

[Beetow]

.
FAQ: What is the water mentioned in John 3:5?

REPLY: Well; it appears to me that this water is very peculiar and definitely not
intended for normal uses like bathing, washing, or irrigation, rather, it's a
supernatural water, and its intended use is as a beverage, so to speak.

● John 4:10 . . Jesus answered her: If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that
asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living
water.

Now obviously the water that Jesus offered the woman wasn't natural H2O. Had it
been, Jesus would not be asking the lady for a drink of hers because his slacks
one's thirst forever, viz: living water keeps its users hydrated nonstop.

● John 4:13-14 . . Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but
whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him
will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

"living water" is apparently a figure of speech that speaks of special characteristics
relative to God's Holy Spirit.

● John 7:37-39 . . On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said
in a loud voice: If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink! Whoever
believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from
within him! By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later
to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet
been glorified.

Also:

● 1Cor 12:13 . . For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-- whether Jews
or Greeks, slave or free --and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

And finally in last chapter of the last book of the Bible, the scope of the benefit is
extended so to make it available to the entire world.

● Rev 22:17 . .The Spirit and the bride say: Come! And let him who hears say:
Come! Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free
gift of the water of life.

Now regardless of how someone might interpret the living water and/or how they
might feel about it; there are at least five things we know for sure.

1) It's supernatural

2) It sustains eternal life.

3) Folks need only to imbibe it once.

4) It's free of charge with no strings attached.

5) The offer requires a response.

So: I suggest finding a quiet place. Cover you face with your hands: it will give you
a sense of connection, and In your own words-- out loud or under your breath --tell
God you would like to have the living water that His son advertises in the new
testament.
_

 

[netchaplain]

Well, first please explain why you think

Well, what you are proving is that extant versions of the Bible are the result of a complicated history comparable to making sausage, and we cannot know which version is correct, so we must have faith that God ensured they all are sufficiently true to accomplish His purpose of revealing His requirement for salvation to humanity.

Using 1John 5:7-8 as an example, verse 6 indicates that "the Spirit, the water and the blood" is the correct reading, don't you think? Although "the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit" are true enough and reading it that way won't corrupt anyone, right?

Do you have another problematic passage for us to consider?

I sure do appreciate your replies, but I think we do not need to progress with the issue of false translations, and thanks for your concern. God bless!

 

[netchaplain]

.
FAQ: What is the water mentioned in John 3:5?

Just thought I'd share this

John Gill- "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit:" by "water," is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for water baptism is never expressed by water only, without some additional word, which shows, that the ordinance of water baptism is intended: nor has water baptism any regenerating influence in it; a person may be baptized, as Simon Magus was (Act 8:9, 13, 18, 24), and yet not born again; and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a Gospel church state.

"Yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: such a mistaken sense of this text, seems to have given the first birth and rise to infant baptism in the African churches; who taking the words in this bad sense, concluded their children must be baptized, or they could not be saved; whereas by "water" is meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as it is elsewhere; see Ezekiel 36:25. Which is the moving cause of this new birth, and according to which God begets men again to a lively hope, and that by which it is effected; for it is by the grace of God, and not by the power of man's free will, that any are regenerated, or made new creatures."

The thief of the Cross went to heaven without water baptism!

 

[Groovy]

I sure do appreciate your replies, but I think we do not need to progress with the issue of false translations, and thanks for your concern. God bless!

Probably not, but I think a lot of discrepancies are minor and there is no point in making a mountain out of molehills, so all reputable translations are just fine: put 'em in the tank and they'll get you where you need to go.
Hasta la vista!

 

[Groovy]

I sure do appreciate your replies, but I think we do not need to progress with the issue of false translations, and thanks for your concern. God bless!

Okay, but I just looked at 2 Samuel 21:19, and again the NIV notes the alternate reading, so as long as translations do that I think calling them corrupt or false overstates the "issue". Let us not be too quick to judge the spirituality of those who worked hard to give us the best Bible they could, especially because it does not matter if every jot and tittle is exactly correct. Sausage is good! (BTW, I was a Chap too :^)

 

[Corn Pop]

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

Jesus saying through him who was baptised in the law given to Moses and was raised by the Spirit of God as sinless and worthy does one enter the Kingdom of God. Through Christ is the baptism of water and spirit. Even as the thief on the cross a hopeless sinner with the death sentence with nothing left to lose put there belief and trust in Christ and said remember me when you come into your kingdom and Christ credited him with that.