For the record!

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hello.


    >>> "Our oldest manuscripts do not have "in heaven: the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these THREE ARE
ONE. And there are three testifying on Earth."  Early in
the 16th century an EDITOR translated these words from
LATIN manuscripts and INSERTED them into his Greek New
Testament..." *1
     It goes on to say how that even Martin Luther rejected
these when he conpiled his translation "EVEN THOUGH THEY
TAUGHT THE TRINITY!"
     The point is this and yes it deserves all caps!  THE
WORD OF GOD IS INFALLIBLE BUT NOT A TRANSLATION.
The NIV is a "translation" and you are going to have to
establish criteria for those who write these "inspired
translation" since they 
all disagree.<<<


I am not picking on Bro. Litteral by any means (we're friends), but I must take
issue with the above line of thinking that has been promulgated by MANY on the
list.  It is very true that there is overwhelming support for the redaction by
Erasmus in 1 John 5:8 as mentioned above.  However, I still consider it God's
Word like the rest of the Bible as it has been handed down to us.  If there is
no translation that can be said to be the Word of God, then the vast majority
of  us are left without any guidance.  If God would oversee and protect His word
so that it survived all these years (since Moses) then I have got to believe
that He has also protected it and kept it pure in these last few millennia--even
through the translation process.  How can we say that the the manuscripts that
our English versions were translated from are the Word of God, but our English
translations are not?  For one thing, even the oldest available manuscripts
are not in 100% harmony.  And what about all of these new manuscripts that
have been found (e.g. gospel of Thomas, etc.).  If we hold that mistakes were
made in the preservation of God's Word because some verses are not found in the
oldest manuscripts, then what is to stop of us from believing that these other
sources are also part of God's Word?  We must believe that God has had His hand
over the ENTIRE PROCESS and accept our English Bible (whatever translation that
may be) as the Infallible Word of God.

It is unwise to single out 1 John 5:8 as an uninspired forgery, no matter what
evidence there may be to support this claim.  This is surely not the only
pericope that "scholars" have found questionable.  What about the story in John
about the woman caught in the act of adultery?  What about a large portion of the
last chapter of Mark?  Scholars have told us that these portions of Scripture
are not authentic because they do not appear in the oldest available texts.
Many would have us to believe that they also are uninspired additions by
copyists.  These two examples only begin to scratch the surface.

Well...what's your point, Bro. Kirk?  Simply this...I refuse to believe that God
would allow something as important and essential as His Word to be compromised
or violated.  If this means accepting 1 John 5:8 than I am willing to accept it.
 What is so damaging about it anyway?  "These three are ONE."  Do we not believe
that the One God revealed Himself in three primary modes or manifestations?
There is no indication in 1 John 5:8 of a plurality of persons in the
Godhead...so what is the problem?  There isn't a problem.  The eternal truth the
mighty God in Christ has stood the test of time.  The Word of God has endured
and will endure regardless of the evil times in which we live.

***********************
 Kirk Van Ooteghem  
 00kmvanooteg@bsu.edu
 University Libraries
 Ball State University
***********************