Featured 1 John 5:7,8

Oh Jor-dan... still waiting

 

Tertullian (AD 215, a little over a century before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)(Adversus Praxes(Against Praxeas c. XXV)) "'And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete [lit. Spirit] makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity' refers to the unity of their substance, not the oneness of their number."

Cyprian (AD 250)(Treatise I, On the Unity of the Church, sec. 6), "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

Priscillikian (AD 380, within 50 or so years of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)(Liber Apoligeticus): "As John says 'and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.'" (contemporary existence alongside Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Also note that quotes are added by the later editor, this verse may have ended at "are one" because he's quoting it).

St. Jerome himself (AD 390)(prologue to the Canonical Epistles): "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.'" This is actually the reason some belive that Jerome's text had 1 John 5:7 in it. I don't have a good translation of this to post, mine's pretty shoddy (though I've read it elswhere). I don't expect you to take my word for it, but in a nutshell, he's saying that it's by the negligence of translators that 1 John 5:7 is not left intact. Also considering this statement, seeing as how it's not found in his Vulgate, it would seem that it conveniently vanished sometime after his death. If he would say irresponisibility caused the omission, why would he then cut it out? The first copy of his Vulgate that we have is the Codex Fuldensis (AD 546). The other major fact is that Jerome never finished his translation, which was finished by subsequent other editors; a lot could have happened in that time.

These are just a few I found,

Information courtesy of Therealbrianw from bibleversiondiscussionboard.com

 

Maybe I missed it, but where do they quote it??? I see trinitarian formulae and NT verbage to describe a doctrine ("these three are one"). But I don't see 1 Jn 5:7 quoted. After all, "these three are one" is not in question. "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" is what is at issue, and I didn't see any quotation of that.

 

bump for Jordan

 

There is enough evidence here that even the most liberal scholars agree that these fathers (except Tertullian) are certainly quoting the Comma (howbeit from memory) as scripture and accept it as such.

HankD

 

Can you source this? Similar statements are often made, but no one gives a source except Phil Stringer of the Dean Burgon Society. Stringer sources Winston Churchill, who wrote this: "About ninety million copies are thought to have been published in the English language alone. It has been translated into more than seven hundred and sixty tongues" (The New World, Vol. II of "A History of the English Speaking Peoples," p. 120 in the paperback). Churchill doesn't source his figure. At any rate, it looks to me like Stringer is misinterpreting Churchill, who likely was talking about how many languages the Bible itself (as opposed to the KJV) had been translated into in 1956 when he wrote the book. That is about the right figure for that time frame.

This is inaccurate, since the KJV NT was translated from the TR.

 

The Bible almost all evangelicals use in Japan is the Shinkaiyaku, based on the NASB. I once had a missionary who is KJVO when in the States tell me, "John, we should be very careful to tell them their Bible is the Word of God, and not introduce doubt into their hearts."

However, he taught the young preachers in the Bible school, "I was saved through the KJV, and called through the KJV, therefore it is the Word of God for the English language." (I call this the argument from blessing, and it is fallacious.) He put this on a test, and the students answered, "Since Brother R. was saved and called through the KJV, so it is the preserved Bible in the English language. However, we were saved and called through the Shinkaiyaku, so it is the preserved Bible in Japanese." :type:

 

I have always wondered how you deal with people who do not have a accurate translation of the bible like we have the KJV in english.

 

1. Never undermine their confidence in their own Bible, even if it is a lousy translation.
2. I have no problem with saying from the pulpit when the translation is really off: "It can also be translated this way...." But I won't tell them they have a "bad Bible" if they have no other options.
3. Work on a new translation. Starting or leading such an effort depends on the missionary's linguistic abilities. However, even those who have not mastered the language can help in such an effort: PR, finding nationals to proofread or help, formatting (into PDF form for printing, etc.), graphics, etc.

In Japanese we have four complete Bibles in print: the Bungo (very difficult classical Japanese), the Kougo (full of errors), the Shinkai (mentioned above; based on the NASB) and the Shinkyoudo (an ecumenical version: liberal and Catholic translators mostly). So we finally began working on our own NT from the TR, the Lifeline NT. We're ready to publish John and Romans after over 10 years.

 

Where I am we have a Bible College as well. I teach the same thing. College students need to know that. But the OP started with a different premise and different environment. I was preaching in an evangelistic service that required a translator. Most of them were illiterate. Almost half were unsaved with a Catholic background. Many were influenced by Islam. Most of the ones that were saved were new believers. In that situation how can I go to the Greek and tell them that certain words are missing (when I come across them in my preaching), and given them the doubt or shake their confidence that they don't have God's Word in their Bible?
These are not Bible College students. It is an evangelistic meeting.

This was the OP. Rippon disagrees with me, but I know you have been in similar situations.

 

Thomas Armitage "A History of the Baptists".
In Vol.2, nearly the last chapter.
If you can find a copy, it is easy to locate, beacause the words : "Bible Societies" , or something similiar, are in the chapter title.


"This is inaccurate, since the KJV NT was translated from the TR"

There is no extant exhaustive copy of the body of documents used in the translation of the KJV, or the copious notes which the translators made, as the notes pointing out: which readings came from which mss , were lost in a fire.

Stephanus' TR may be close, and Beza's may be a foundation, but the previous English translations were used as well.

There are some readings that came from no extant Greek mss, hencing making any succeeding TR an "aftermarket" part, and not the 'OE'.

Pick out a Greek TR, anyone you want, it isn't the sole foundational Greek Text, from whence the AV was begotten.

 

What does it actually say there?

I have translated the entire NT into Japanese (and a few books into English) from the Scrivener TR with comparison to the KJV, Stephanus and the Byzantine Textform (except for the book of Rev.) and I assure you that the differences are quite negligible. The KJV was translated from the TR, no question about it. I don't think you (or anyone else on this thread) are competent to contradict me on this.

The KJV translators obviously did a little bit of textual criticism on their own, as is evident comparing Stephanus to Scrivener. But that is not enough to say that the KJV was not translated from the TR. End of story. Period.

 

That's right, youre better than the rest of us.

Too bad you're making my point here, Scrivener vs Stephanus et al.

So people reading this post may actually think that you said something different then I did.

Anyway, I have a hard copy of Armitage's book, and I'm not going to input that much info by hand using an android.

There is a whole chapter , you'd be fond of, since Armitage was the agent of change in favor of the RV, as he was committee chair of one of the societies at the time.

He did much whining about the use of the AV, and the idolatry of the KJVO, who treated the Book like it descended strait outta Heaven.

 

Yes. Being a missionary pastor in a foreign country is quite different from Rippon's situation, though I commend him for having a burden for China.

 

Um, no, you twist my words. I'm not better than the rest of you, just more experienced and competent in Greek than you.

GreekTim is also competent in Greek, but no one else here claims to be--except perhaps you. Do you claim to be competent in Greek, then?

So, apparently you deny what you said in post #29 (my emphasis added), with which I disagreed:

The TR was most definitely not finished later than the KJV, as everyone on this thread (except apparently you) knows.

In other words, you can't prove your reference to Armitage. Sorry, until you prove your point with a quote from Armitage I'll continue to believe you are wrong.

 

This was prophet's original statement:

I have just finished reading the chapter from Armitage, Chapter XVII, "Bible Translation and Bible Societies" from a Google Books PDF (poorly scanned by the way) and found that Armitage said just the opposite of what prophet thought he said. In the 19th century, there was a huge battle between Baptists and other denominations regarding the translation of the Greek baptizo. The Baptists (including Armitage) believed that a revision of the KJV was necessary, rendering baptizo as "immerse," but others opposed this.

The joint Bible society held that missionary translations should be done with the same "principle" as the KJV, meaning in particular that baptizo should be transliterated as "baptize." This did not mean that the Bible society was a KJVO organization that wanted all missionary translations to be done from the KJV. Prophet has given no proof of his position that there were many missionary translations done from the KJV, nor can he.

Eventually the Baptists started their own Bible society, and much of the chapter was about how they did a Baptist revision of the KJV. Their new Bible society had as a specific rule that all translations were to be made from the original languages, in particular the TR for the NT. This played out in Japan in the 1870s when Nathan Brown, a Baptist translator, withdrew from the common effort for the very reason that they would not translated baptizo, but transliterated it.

 

Jordan, maybe you missed it, but I wanted your response. I'm taking you to task. There was not one quotation of the comma.

 

I just want to go back and comment on this wisecrack, which I missed before. Let me make it perfectly plain that prophet, who is really quite ignorant about my position (prophet: what Bible do I preach from in English?), totally missed the boat here. When the RSV came out, all good fundamentalists opposed it as being a liberal translation. I was too young at that time, but as soon as I was old enough I too opposed it as liberal. :type:

Again prophet missed the boat. Apparently he did not realize when he read the book (assuming he did) that Armitage wrote his book in 1886, which is 84 years before a KJVO movement actually existed!