Yup i was led to the right place. Stuck to Gods word, They even mentioned they fight for prolife, theres was some music that brought me to tears, and im extremely welcome back
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (74)
sorted by:
This is completely not true. Statements like this expose the lack of training one has in the field of 1st century textual criticism. The translations that we have today may differ in style (some are thought for thought, while others are word for word, and others are a combination of the two), they are all within a 99.9% accuracy from what the original autographs said. No variation or discrepancy touches any major doctrine of Christianity. We can be utterly confident that the Bible we hold in our hands today, is what the original authors wrote down.
Next question.
Grew up in the Catholic Church and learned basic rules and history but nothing more. Early 20's joined Baptist Church where KJ was used but NIV was my choice because I understood everything I was reading where KJ left me baffled as to what was being written.
I have read both KJ and NIV cover to cover and NIV is where I learned about Christianity. Spent years teaching Sunday School and used both to explain lessons.
Criticism of NIV was a few verses omitted for the most part but not understanding the language in KJ would have left me without a clue.
I think it's more important to find a version of the Bible that is easiest for you to read and understand. The best translation in the world is useless if you can't make sense of it. Once one becomes more knowledgeable about Christian principles, then one can consider switching to a different version.
To me, it's most important that you find something that you will actually read and use. One can worry about the subtle differences later.
1 John 5:7
New International Version For there are three that testify:
New Living Translation So we have these three witnesses—
English Standard Version For there are three that testify:
New American Standard Bible For there are three that testify:
NASB 1995 For there are three that testify:
King James Bible For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Denying the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is just ONE VERSE of over 3000 that were perverted.
The Comma Johanneum, also known as the Comma Johannine, is a textual variant in regards to 1 John 5:7-8. The word comma simply means “short clause,” and Johanneum means “pertaining to John.” Without the “comma,” 1 John 5:7-8 reads, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” With the “comma,” 1 John 5:7-8 reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” If the Comma Johanneum was originally part of 1 John 5:7-8, it would be the clearest and most direct reference to the Trinity in the entire Bible.
However, it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. None of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John contain the comma, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Comma Johanneum in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D. It is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. While some of the Latin manuscripts containing the Comma Johanneum are ancient, the Comma Johanneum did not appear in the original Latin Vulgate written by Jerome.
In the 16th century, when Desiderius Erasmus was compiling what became known as the Textus Receptus, he did not include the Comma Johanneum in the 1st or 2nd editions. Due to intense pressure from the Catholic Church and others who wanted it included because of its support for trinitarianism, Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum in later editions of the Textus Receptus. His decision resulted in the Comma Johanneum being included in the King James Version of the Bible and later in the New King James Version. None of the modern Greek texts (UBS 4, Nestle-Aland 27, Majority Text) contain the Comma Johanneum. Of all the modern English translations, only the New King James Version and Modern English Version include the Comma Johanneum.
While it would be convenient for there to be an explicit statement confirming the Trinity in the Bible, it is highly unlikely that the Comma Johanneum was originally a part of 1 John. Some ancient scribe, either intentionally or accidentally added it to a Latin manuscript, and then that addition was copied thousands upon thousands of times. This eventually resulted in the Comma Johanneum appearing in the vast majority of Latin manuscripts. Whatever the scribe’s motives, it is absolutely wrong to add to God’s Word. While what the Comma Johanneum says is true, it is not a God-breathed statement and does not belong in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is taught and implied in many other biblical passages. If God thought an explicit mention of the Trinity was necessary, He Himself would have made sure it was in His Word.
Some ancient scribe, either intentionally or accidentally added it to a Latin manuscript, and then that addition was copied thousands upon thousands of times.
Sorry bro, the final authority up in this camp is the Bible itself. The book that I have is God breathed and inspired, and it is complete in itself. You can join up with the world system of scholarship, I am not of this world. I have faith in the God I worship and adore to give me His Words of life as He promised He would.
1 Corinthians 1:21 KJV For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
What you don't seem to grasp is that the very reason we even know there are variations or errors (like the above statement says) is because of the sheer number of manuscript copies we have to work from. So statements like "There are errors in the bible" presupposes we know what the original said in order to call something an error or mistake.
Because we have so many (over 25,000 - not even including the quotations by the early Church Fathers) copies, we're able to work back to what the original autographs said within a 99.9% accuracy. And that .01% has nothing to do with ANY doctrinal teachings of Christianity.
No, the original autographs were God breathed and inspired - the copies and translations were not.
Self refuting statement because you have to rely on the scholarship of those who translated the original KJV.
You're getting hung up on where the verses are marked. The original texts didn't have chapters and verses, but they are helpful for references. If you go to the You Version Bible app, choose 1 John 5:7-8, click on to highlight, then choose compare at the bottom, you can see about 9 versions, and they all pretty much agree. I don't read Hebrew yet, but I have been reading the Bible through several times, choosing a different version each time, and while there are a few differences, they don't change the overall meaning of the passage.
You're getting hung up on roman catholic satanical propaganda.
99.9% is not 100%, and it is certainly far from "perfection". My statement still stands, and you my good sir, have shown how much you lack in reading comprehension.
Flawed is flawed. Satan could probably do (and most certainly has done) a lot with that .1% inaccuracy.
Speaking of "reading comprehension," it appears you overlooked where I said:
Yes, exactly, thanks for pulling my point out of your post for me. major is not 100%, it is not complete, it is not the whole nor the entirety in all facets.
Well done. Keep it simple. Doubts are not faith, which means they make terrible arguments for faith.
The truth will be impossible to find anyways if the person reading is distracted by a mind set on fleshly things like what is safe to eat and touch.
How can you know they are 99.9% accurate?
Agreement is a better term. The 26,000+ extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament cross examined are in that ballpark of agreement. Even the beloved, perhaps idolized, Textus Receptus is included in that study. The sources are in agreement. The sense of the literature should follow through the translations in agreement.
Ah ok.
BTW, someone is downvoting us!
The KJV Only thing is a VERY big deal to those who ascribe to it. Lots of passion. It's a headache to deal with because it's a belief on top of a belief and by nature of it you can't reason with faith. I hope it doesn't wreak to much havoc here...