Psalm 12 and 1 John 5:7

No. it SAYS that God will preserve His WORDS.

None. Who said that God only preserved His WORDS in the Greek language? This might be evidence that God's words have not been in greek for approx 1850 years?!?!?

No. I forgot. It is much more comforatable to worship God according to lost manuscripts...

 

Well..where did God preserve 1 John 5:7 then?
Surely you're not going to tell me He preserved
it in the apostate Roman Catholic Church's Latin
Vulgate are you? And allowed it to disappear from every other witness?

-kman</font>[/QUOTE]No. He preserved EVERY word, jot, and tittle through various languages at various times in the local churches. These Bible do not exist anymore (completely) because catholics were killing these people and burning their Bibles. We do not have to have every edition of every real Bible to know that we have God's words today!

 

I posted this in another forum, so forgive me if it sound like I'm repeating myself. If you look at the original Hebrew that was used as the source for the KJV, this is what it literally says:

Yahweh's commands are pure commands. Monetary silver, earthly furnace smelted, refined sevenfold. Yahweh to guard and protect this age eternal(ly).

While the KJV authors read this to mean that the words of God will be protected and preserved, others tend to think that God's words are used to protect his people forever.

One thing is clear to me in the Hebrew, however. This verse has NOTHING to do with the KJV being the preserved word of God.

 

[ January 24, 2003, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: Scotty aka Scott J ]

 

Only the Hebrew has jots and tittles.

How convenient... those dirty catholics killed the real Christians and destroyed all the real Bibles right up until the time 17th century Anglicans used a catholic scholar's Greek text to re-create the perfect, errorless Bible. That is an incredibly creative story... but can provide at least a shred of proof?

BTW, this answer just doesn't quite jive with:

1Peter 1:24 ¶ For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

 

I've read a little about this--the Johannine Comma--myself, but I could probably read more. I'm certainly not KJO, but I believe the Majority Text is probably the more faithful witness to the original than the Critical text (which underlies most modern versions except the NKJV). I John 5:7 is one of those few places where the Received Text differs from the Majority Text, and since it is in the version I use (NKJV) I've often been curious about it.

From what I've gathered, although the Comma has only been in a handful of late manuscripts, it MAY have been alluded to by some Early Church Fathers in the West when confronting the Arian heresy. There are also reportedly some OLD Latin (which precedes the Vulgate) manuscripts which contain it. Some have pointed to some grammatical problems which would disappear if the Comma was included. (I can't speak to this possibility, since I don't know much Greek). Others have pointed to that fact that the Comma uses the formula: "Father, WORD, and Holy Spirit" rather than the more familiar "Father, SON, and Holy Spirit", indicating that this may be more appropriately attributed to John rather than to some gloss from a later scribe incorporated into the text.

As to why the Comma "fell out" of the Majority (or Byzantine) text, some have suggested that initially copying errors (spec. "homoeoteleuton") may have omitted the Comma in certain copies. Then, during the Sabellian controversey, the copies WITHOUT the Comma were more likely to be retained (the ones with the Comma being discarded), as some(heretics) could possibly interepret I John 5:7 from a modalistic viewpoint (ie the "three" merely signifying three MODES of "one" being rather than representing three distinct PERSONS). It is then speculated that the Comma was "retained" in the West for the opposite reason: the heresy fought there being Arianism which denied the unity of the Son and the Father.

Whether all this is true or not, I don't know. It sounds intriguing, but I definitely need to research this more to see how plausible it really is. I just treat the Comma as POSSIBLY being part of the original text but not PROBABLY. At any rate, its teaching is not inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. OTOH, the Trinity can still be supported from the Bible in many more places without resorting to this particular verse.

I could say more, but I'm going to bed...

 

Kman,
I believe I have read that link before. There have also been a few other articles which made similar arguments but which emphasized the particular points to varying degrees. I've also SEEN (but not READ) an article on another site "debunking" the grammatical argument--I'm sure I'll get around to reading it at some point. My position right now is that I can't be dogmatic about either the Comma's inclusion in or exclusion from the original.