1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Where does the NWT Bible Falsify?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by tigger2, Jul 28, 2019.

  1. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    Another good example from Mr. Countess’ table is that of Mark.

    In Mark, he claims, there are only two times that Mark quoted from the OT where “Jehovah” was used in the OT manuscripts. But there are 9 times in Mark that the NWT has used “Jehovah.” Therefore, according to Countess, the NWT has used the Divine Name in Mark ”dishonestly7 times!

    All of the 9 uses of “Jehovah” in Mark by the NWT are: Mark 1:3; 5:19; 11:9; 12:11; 12:29 (twice); 12:30; 12:36; and 13:20. Is it really true that only two of these use a quote from the OT where “Jehovah” was actually used?

    (1) ALL of the 13 trinitarian Bible translations I used above to determine what is considered a quote from the OT and what is not show Mk 1:3 to be a quote from Isaiah 40:3 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). The NKJV also uses the name LORD here which means "Jehovah" was intended.

    (2) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles indicates Mk 5:19 to be a quote from the OT. However, the context makes the connection to Jehovah probable. In addition, 7 Hebrew New Testament translations do use “Jehovah” at Mk 5:19. This includes the two respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have: Delitzsch’s and the UBS’.

    The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges tells us for Mark 5:19: "... ὁ Κύριος occurs only twice, here and Mark 11:3. Here it doubtless means Jehovah, as Lk. interprets it, placing ὁ θεός at the end with emphasis. In Mark 11:3 it means Christ, but probably in the sense of 'Master' rather than 'Lord'.”

    It certainly does not seem dishonest for “Jehovah” to be used here, but it apparently is not a quote from the OT.

    (3) SIX of those same trinitarian Bibles (NKJV; NASB; JB; NJB;; Moffatt; and Beck) show Mk 11:9 to be a quote from Ps. 118:26 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV and DNKJB use the keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the OT original! The NIVSB also tells us in a footnote for Mk 11:9, “A quotation of Ps. 118:26.” Also 14 Hebrew New Testaments use “Jehovah” at Mk 11:9. This includes the two modern, respected trinitarian Hebrew New Testaments I have in my possession.

    (4) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:11 to be a quote from Ps. 118:23 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV and DNKJB use the keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was also in the original quote!

    (5) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord God....”) to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV again uses its keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was in the OT!

    (6) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:29 (last part of verse: “...the Lord is one.”) to be a quote from the OT: Deut. 6:4 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV and DNKJB again use the keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was also in the original quote!

    (7) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:30 to be a quote from Deut. 6:5 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV and DNKJB again use the keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was also in the original quote!

    (8) ALL of those same trinitarian Bibles show Mk 12:36 to be a quote from Ps. 110:1 (which does use “Jehovah” in the OT manuscripts). And NKJV and DNKJB again use the keyword (‘LORD’) here which indicates “Jehovah” was also in the original quote!

    (9) NONE of those same trinitarian Bibles shows Mk 13:20 to be a quote from the OT. However, as in Mk 5:19 above, the context makes the connection probable. In addition there are 10 Hebrew New Testament translations which use “Jehovah” here in Mk 13:20. This includes the 2 respected trinitarian translations I have in my possession. It certainly does not seem dishonest for “Jehovah” to be used here, although it does not appear to be a quote from the OT.

    The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges tells at Mark 13:20: "κύριος. Elsewhere in Mk this use of Κύριος without the art. is found only in quotations: Mark 1:3, Mark 11:9, Mark 12:11; Mark 12:29-30, Mark 12:36." And they all are quotes from the OT which include the Divine Name!

    It is obvious that at least 7 of the 9 uses of “Jehovah” in Mark by the NWT are from quotes by Mark of the OT which also used “Jehovah”!

    So exactly who is being dishonest? Are there really only 2 places in Mark where an OT passage using “Jehovah” is being quoted or referred to by Mark? Mr. Countess insists there are! Everyone else says there are at least 7! And some other respected trinitarian sources agree that “Jehovah” is also an appropriate understanding in the two other places where the NWT uses “Jehovah” in the Gospel of Mark! So, honestly, exactly who is being dishonest?
     
  2. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    Zech. 12:10/John 19:37

    Jehovah says: “...they shall look upon ME whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for HIM, as one mourneth for his only son” - Zech 12:10, KJV.

    Of course Dr. Countess insists that Jehovah’s saying, “me whom they have pierced” proves that Jesus is Jehovah. He has no real explanation for the NT text that actually clarifies this scripture, but insists that it, too, somehow, shows that Jesus is Jehovah.

    Although Countess is trying to show the “dishonesty” of the New Testament of the JW translation, the NWT, as it concerns “evidence” of Jesus being Jehovah, the “evidence” is so sparse that he is forced to slip back to an acknowledged corrupt text in the Old Testament for further “proof”!

    Unfortunately for Dr. Countess (and the many other charlatans who attempt this particular “proof”), even many trinitarian translations of Zech. 12:10 disagree:

    “... when they look upon him whom they have pierced” - RSV. Also in agreement with this rendering (and completely ignored by Countess) are NRSV; GNB; MLB; NAB (1970); NAB (1991); LB; Mo; AT; JB; NJB; NLV; BBE; and Byington. (The ASV says in a footnote for “me” in Zech. 12:10: “According to some MSS [manuscripts], ‘him’.” Also see Rotherham footnote.)

    Even the context tells us that the latter non-trinitarian rendering is the correct one. Notice that after saying that they will look upon me (or him) God continues with “they shall mourn for him”! Notice how the KJV (and those following its tradition) contradicts itself here. The “me” in the first half simply does not agree with the “him” of the second half. Since there has never been any question about the accuracy of the word “him” in the second half, the disputed word of the first half (which has manuscript evidence for both renderings) must also properly be rendered as “him” (or “the one”).

    The testimony of the first Christian writers to come after the NT writers (the ‘Ante-Nicene Fathers’) confirms the non-trinitarian translation of Zechariah 12:10 (“him”). Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (repeatedly) rendered Zech. 12:10 as “him whom they pierced”! This is specially significant because trinitarian scholars and historians claim these particular early Christians (including Origen who doesn’t quote Zech. 12:10 at all in his existing writings) are the very ones who actually began the development of the trinity doctrine for Christendom! If any of the earliest Christian writers, then, would use a trinitarian interpretation here, it would certainly be these three. Since they do not do so, it must mean that the source for the ‘look upon me’ rendering originated even later than the time of Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (early 3rd century A.D.)!

    The Septuagint (LXX) uses “me” (in the existing copies, at least - 4th century A. D. and later), but it is significantly different from the Hebrew: “They shall look upon me, because they have mocked me, and they shall make lamentation for him, as for a beloved [friend], and they shall grieve intensely, as for a firstborn [son].” - Zech. 12:10, Septuagint, Zondervan, 1976 printing. In other words, (1) they will look upon God whom they have mocked [not “pierced”] as their judgment arrives and (2) they will mourn Christ. The two are not the same person here, nor the same God!

    “The [Hebrew] text of Zech. 12:10 is corrupt. The LXX [Greek Septuagint] text reads:... (‘they shall look upon me whom they have treated spitefully’) .... The text in [Jn 19:37] does not follow the LXX; but it has also avoided the impossible [‘me’] of the Hebrew text.” - p. 195, John 2, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

    The JPS translation of Zech 12:10 in Tanakh (NJV) also reveals that the text of Zech 12:10 is corrupt. The NJV (New Jewish Version or Tanakh published by the Jewish Publication Society) is highly praised for its accuracy by noted trinitarian Bible scholars Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht in their book So Many Versions? which analyzes and critiques modern Bibles:

    “The NJV is a monument to careful scholarship .... It ranks as one of the best translations of the Hebrew Bible [the Old Testament] available.” - p. 143, SMV, Zondervan Publ.
    A footnote says that the Hebrew sometimes rendered “when they look upon” is “uncertain.” Although it uses the pronoun “me,” it renders Zech 12:10,

    “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born.” - Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

    But most important of all, closely examine John 19:37 (even in the KJV) where this scripture has been quoted by John! All translations show John here translating Zech. 12:10 as “They shall look upon him [or ‘the one’] whom they pierced.” So we have this Apostle and inspired Bible writer telling us plainly (and undisputed even by trinitarian scholars) that Zechariah 12:10 should read: “They shall look upon him” (not ‘me’). Therefore, Jehovah is speaking in Zech. 12:10 of someone else who will be pierced - not Himself!

    "John gives a more accurate translation [of Zech 12:10]: ὄψονται εἰς ὃν ἐξεκέντησαν: 'They shall look on Him whom ( ἐκεῖνον ὃν) they pierced.' The same rendering is adopted in the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, and is also found in Ignatius, Ep. Trall., 10; Justin, I. Apol., i. 77; and cf. Revelation 1:7, and Barnabas, Ep., 7." - The Expositor's Greek Testament, John 19:37.

    There simply is no real evidence strong enough for Dr. Countess, or anyone else, to honestly insist that “the antecedent of ‘the one’ in the phrase ‘the one whom they pierced’ [Jn 19:37] can be none other than Jehovah God.”

    And for him to insist that the NWT is dishonest for translating Zech. 12:10 in the same way that so many respected trinitarian scholars have done is dishonest in itself!
     
    #282 tigger2, Sep 25, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  3. Ancient Soul

    Ancient Soul The Spiritual Universe

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,411
    Ratings:
    +432
    Religion:
    None
    And not only will those very limited 144,000 be "saved", those "saved" ones written in the so-called "Book of Life" were written into it at the foundations of the earth. So it's all a done deal. No matter what they do, or blindly believe in, they are either written in there or not, and there's NOTHING they can do about it.
     
  4. coconut theology

    coconut theology coconuts for Jesus

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2020
    Messages:
    683
    Ratings:
    +118
    Religion:
    ProteSDAnt
    What "the Original Greek and Hebrew Texts" (sic) are you specifically referring to? (please notice the highlighted word you used in my question to you).
     
  5. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    CT wrote: "What "the Original Greek and Hebrew Texts" (sic) are you specifically referring to? (please notice the highlighted word you used in my question to you)."

    Thank you, CT for a comment that is on-subject at least.

    I think we all know that none of the original manuscripts exist today. However, Bible translators have a number of texts available to them today. These modern texts have been compiled from early manuscripts by recognized scholars and organizations.

    So whichever Greek or Hebrew text a translator chooses (W&H; Nestle; United Bible Societies; etc.) that is the original text for his English (or other) translation.
     
    #285 tigger2, Sep 26, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  6. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    Terms that Countess objects to in the NWT:

    KERAS SOTERIAS - Literally this is “a horn of salvation,” and Countess strongly objects to the NWT translating this as “a mighty savior” in the 1951 ed. at Lk. 1:69. - p. 76 (even though the NWT translators provided a footnote which said: “Literally, ‘raised up a horn of salvation.’”)


    However, the NWT, since 1969 (at least), has rendered it more literally as “a horn of salvation” in the main text. (It should be noted that Countess' book was Copyrighted in 1982, first printed in April 1982, and the second edition which I am examining came out in January 1987.)

    But look at these renderings of Lk. 1:69 by other respected Bibles: “a mighty savior” - NRSV; “a mighty Saviour” - CBW; “a mighty Savior” - AT; “a powerful Savior” - MLB; “a strong deliverer” - REB; “a saving power” - NJB; “victorious Savior” - Beck (NT); “a power for salvation” - JB; “a deliverer of victorious power” - NEB; “a mighty Deliverer” - Weymouth; “a mighty Savior” - CEV; “a mighty Deliverer” - Wesley; “a strong saviour” - Moffatt.

    Obviously the NWT translators thought (as did the translators of NRSV; NEB; REB; JB; NJB; AT; MLB; etc.) that “horn of salvation” would “hide the thought,” and so they rendered it in the “modern English idiom” at first. When they revised it later, however, they restored the more literal “horn of salvation.” But, as proved by the renderings of many other translators, neither rendering is improper in a literal Bible!

    Countess' denigration of the NWT is false once more!
     
  7. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    MONOGENES - It is certainly understandable that many will do their utmost to avoid the Biblical references to the creation of Jesus by God before the earth was created. Many modern trinitarian Bibles have therefore “retranslated” such NT words as “Firstborn,” “Beginning” (of God’s Creation), and, as here, “only begotten” (monogenes).

    This word which Countess wants to mean “only, unique” is literally from either monos, (alone, solitary) and genos, (offspring) - W. E. Vine, p. 811, or from monos (alone) and ginomai (to come into being) - pp. 1667 and 1640, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #3439, 3441, 1096.

    It literally means “onlyborn” or “onlybegotten” and is used with this sense no matter how it is translated!

    Generally acclaimed as among the most literally accurate translations of the 20th century, the ASV (1901) and NASB (including my 1963 edition of the NASB [NT] and my 1975 edition of the complete NASB Bible) both translate monogenes as “onlybegotten”at Jn 3:16, 18; and 1 Jn 4:9 ! (Also see MEV; NKJV; KJ21; MKJV; KJIIV; The Interlinear Bible; KJV)

    Noted trinitarian New Testament Greek scholar, Dr. Alfred Marshall also agrees that monogenes literally means “only begotten.” - see John 3:16 in The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1975.

    So for Countess to insist on “only” as the only proper translation of monogenes, and to condemn the NWT for rendering it as “onlybegotten” is certainly specious to say the least. - p. 77-80.

    Furthermore, his claim that some modern trinitarian Bibles have begun rendering monogenes as “only” is true enough, but his claim (p. 80) that perhaps one of the most literal trinitarian Bibles of all, the NASB [NT], does so also is inexcusable! How could such an obvious and easily disproved statement have “accidentally” remained through all the careful editing, revisions, etc. that have been done on this “Critical Analysis” since 1966?

    If Countess can improperly denigrate the NWT for the literal use of "onlybegotten," what should we think of his obvious misinformation concerning the NASB?
     
  8. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,268
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Religion:
    Christian
    What makes more sense to me is that the concept that God projected is that He knew there would be those who would do His will. He did not know who they would be until they did His will and He put His spirit upon them.
     
  9. Ancient Soul

    Ancient Soul The Spiritual Universe

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Messages:
    1,411
    Ratings:
    +432
    Religion:
    None
    Sure, make it all up as you go, that's the Christian way. But the bible says what it says and gives no wiggle room for everyone to to make up their own private escape clauses.
     
  10. YoursTrue

    YoursTrue We know gravity by happenstance. (Newton)
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    8,268
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Religion:
    Christian
    Not sure what you call wiggle room, but yes, the Bible clearly demonstrates there were and are different interpretations, some of which were pleasing to God and others of which were not. Since God gives mankind consciences, the Bible shows the history of following one's conscience and difference of ways, not all pleasing to God. If you think that all ways are ok by God, I don't, and that's possibly a discussion later on.
     
  11. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    1 Tim. 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh") - KJV

    1 Tim. 3:16 ("He was made manifest in flesh") - NWT


    As this is translated in the KJV it makes Paul say that Jesus is God “manifest in the flesh.”

    Although the KJV translates 1 Tim. 3:16 with “God” as above, nearly all other translations today use a word which refers, not to God, but to Jesus: “he (NIV; RSV; NRSV; JB; NJB; REB; NAB [‘70]; AT; GNB; CBW; and Beck’s translation), “he who (ASV; NASB; NEB; MLB; BBE; Phillips; and Moffatt),who,” orwhich.” Even the equally old Douay version has “which was manifested in the flesh.” All the very best modern NT texts by trinitarian scholars (including Westcott and Hort, Nestle, and the text by the United Bible Societies) have the NT Greek word ὃς (“who”) here instead of θεὸς (“God”). Why do the very best trinitarian scholars support this NON-trinitarian translation of 1 Tim. 3:16?

    Noted Bible scholar Dr. Frederick C. Grant writes:

    “A capital example [of NT manuscript changes] is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where ‘OS’ (OC or ὃς, who’) was later taken for theta sigma with a bar above, which stood for theos (θεὸς, ‘god’). Since the new reading suited …. the orthodox doctrine of the church [trinitarian, at this later date], it got into many of the later manuscripts .....” – p. 656, Encyclopedia Americana, vol. 3, 1957 ed. (This same statement by Dr. Grant was still to be found in the latest Encyclopedia Americana that I examined – the 1990 ed., pp.696-698, vol. 3.)

    A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by the United Bible Societies (1971 ed.) tells why the trinitarian UBS Committee chose ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] as the original reading in their NT text for this verse:

    “it is supported by the earliest and best uncials.” And, “Thus, no uncial (in the first hand [by the ORIGINAL writer]) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports θεὸς [“God”]; all ancient versions presuppose ὃς [or OC, “who” - masc.] or [“which” - neut.]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century [370 A.D.] testifies to the reading θεὸς. The reading θεὸς arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of OC as ΘC, or (b) deliberately....” - p. 641.

    In actuality it appears to be a combination of both (with the emphasis on the latter). You see, the word ὃς was written in the most ancient manuscripts as OC (“C” being a common form for the ancient Greek letter “S” at that time). Most often at this time the word for God (θεὸς) was written in abbreviated form as ΘC. However, to show that it was an abbreviated form a straight line, or bar, was always drawn above ΘC. So no copyist should have mistaken ὃς (or OC) for ΘC, in spite of their similarities, simply because of the prominent bar which appeared over the one and not over the other.

    What may have happened was discovered by John J. Wetstein in 1714. As he was carefully examining one of the oldest NT manuscripts then known (the Alexandrine Manuscript in London) he noticed at 1 Tim. 3:16 that the word originally written there was OC but that a horizontal stroke from one of the words written on the other side of the manuscript showed through very faintly in the middle of the O. This still would not qualify as an abbreviation for θεὸς, of course, but Wetstein discovered that some person at a much later date and in a different style from the original writer had deliberately added a bar above the original word! Anyone copying from this manuscript after it had been deliberately changed would be likely to incorporate the counterfeit ΘC [with bar above it] into his new copy (especially since it reflected his own trinitarian views)!

    Of course, since Wetstein’s day many more ancient NT manuscripts have been discovered and none of them before the eighth century A.D. have been found with ΘC (“God”) at this verse!

    Trinitarian scholar Murray J. Harris also concludes: “The strength of the external evidence favoring OC [‘who’], along with considerations of transcriptional and intrinsic probability, have prompted textual critics virtually unanimously to regard OC as the original text, a judgment reflected in NA(26) [Nestle-Aland text] and UBS (1,2,3) [United Bible Societies text] (with a ‘B’ rating) [also the Westcott and Hort text]. Accordingly, 1 Tim 3:16 is not an instance of the Christological [‘Jesus is God’] use of θεὸς.” - Jesus as God, p. 268, Baker Book House, 1992.

    And very trinitarian (Southern Baptist) NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson wrote about this scripture:

    He who (hos [or OC in the original text]). The correct text, not theos (God) the reading of the Textus Receptus ... nor ho (neuter relative [pronoun]), agreeing with [the neuter] musterion [‘mystery’] the reading of Western documents.” - p. 577, Vol. 4, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press.

    And even trinitarian NT Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace uses the relative pronoun ὃς (‘who’) in this scripture and tells us:

    “The textual variant θεὸς [‘god’] in the place of ὃς [‘who’ or ‘he who’] has been adamantly defended by some scholars, particularly those of the ‘majority text’ school. Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that ‘mystery’ (μυστήριον) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (ὃς) is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically [for trinitarians, of course] as the reading θεὸς may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.” [italicized emphasis is by Wallace]. - pp. 341-342, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996.

    The correct rendering of 1 Tim. 3:16, then, is: “He who was revealed in the flesh ….” - NASB. Cf. ASV; RSV; NRSV; NAB; JB; NJB; NIV; NEB; REB; ESV; Douay-Rheims; TEV; CEV; BBE; NLV; God’s Word; New Century Version; Holman NT; ISV NT; Lexham English Bible; The Message; Weymouth; Moffatt; etc.
     
    #291 tigger2, Sep 18, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2021
  12. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,202
    Ratings:
    +4,952
    Religion:
    Christian
    Very good!
    Plus, rendering it as “God manifest in the flesh”, contradicts John 1:18 (KJV), “No man hath seen God at any time.”

    Since there is another grammatically-valid rendering which agrees with context, it should be used.

    Thanks, tigger2.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    #40 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

    1 John 5:7
    The King James Version (A. D. 1611) says at 1 Jn 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    Of course even this would not mean the three are the one God as trinitarians want. The word for “one” here is in the neuter form, hen, which cannot mean “one God” since “God” is always in the masculine form in NT Greek, and grammatically adjectives (such as “one”) applied to it must also be masculine (heis ‘one,’ masculine form).

    NT Greek words meaning “one”: ἓν εἷς μια
    - hen (ἓν as written in Greek letters) is the neuter form for “one.”
    - heis (εἷς as written in Greek letters) is the masculine form for “one.”
    - mia (μια as written in Greek letters) is the feminine form for “one.”

    When the neuter “one” (hen) is applied to persons, it means “one thing.” In other words they have become united in some thing such as “purpose,” “will,” etc. That is why Jesus prays to the Father “that they [Jesus’ followers] may be one [hen, ἕν - neuter] just as we are one [hen, ἕν - neuter].” - Jn 17:22. Jesus, the Father, and Jesus’ followers are all one [hen, neuter] in something. Of course they are all united in the Father’s will and purpose! - see the ONE study.

    Even though Christians have one will with Jesus and the Father, it certainly is not their wills which dominate; it is the will of the Father which they make their will also. And Jesus, too, subordinates his will to that of the Father so that, therefore, their will and purpose become one: the Father’s alone. (“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” - Luke 22:42, NIV. cf. Mark 14:36.)

    There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be one “just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one” if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become “equally God” with him and the Father!

    But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
    The only other Bibles which include this passage that I am aware of are the Catholic Douay Version (A. D. 1609), the New Life Version (1993), the New King James Version (1982), and the King James II Version (1982). These last two are modern translations which have as their stated purpose the preservation of the text and traditions of the King James Version and which, therefore, translate from the thoroughly discredited Received Text.

    Of these four Bibles the KJIIV at least indicates the unscriptural addition of 1 John 5:7 by writing it in all italics. And buried in the Preface is the admission that 1 Jn 5:7 (among others) is not to be accepted as true Scripture.

    The New Life Version, however, claims to put an asterisk (*) to mark words or passages which are “missing in some of the early writings.” And it does so in such passages as Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-11, but it does not do so at 1 Jn 5:7.

    Since Greek was the “universal language” at the time the New Testament writers wrote and for many years thereafter, the earliest copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament were most often written in Koine Greek. Therefore the very best manuscripts (and the oldest) of New Testament writings in existence today are the most ancient (4th and 5th century) Greek manuscripts. These early Greek manuscripts were later translated into various other languages, including Latin. Although Bible translators often compare these ancient Greek manuscripts with NT manuscripts of other languages, they nearly always translate from a text that was composed from the oldest and best Greek manuscripts.

    Highly respected trinitarian scholar, minister (Trinity Church), Professor (University of Glasgow and Marburg University), author (The Daily Study Bible Series, etc.), and Bible translator Dr. William Barclay states the following about this passage:

    Note on 1 John 5:7
    “In the Authorized Version [KJV] there is a verse which we have altogether omitted [in Barclay’s NT translation]. It reads, 'For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.'”

    The Revised Version omits this verse, and does not even mention it in the margin, and none of the newer translations includes it. It is quite certain that it does not belong to the original text.

    “The facts are as follows. First, it does not occur in any Greek manuscript earlier than the 14th century. The great manuscripts belong to the 3rd and 4th centuries [most scholars date them to the 4th and 5th centuries], and it occurs in none of them. None of the great early fathers of the Church knew it. Jerome’s original version of the [Latin]Vulgate does not include it. The first person to quote it is a Spanish heretic called Priscillian who died in A. D. 385. Thereafter it crept gradually into the Latin texts of the New Testament although, as we have seen, it did not gain an entry to the Greek manuscripts.

    “How then did it get into the text? Originally it must have been a scribal gloss or comment in the margin. Since it seemed to offer good scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity [and since there was no good scriptural evidence for this new doctrine introduced by the Roman church in 325 A. D.], through time it came to be accepted by theologians as part of the text, especially in those early days of scholarship before the great manuscripts were discovered. [More likely it was written in the margin of an existing manuscript with the intention that future trinitarian copyists actually add it to all new copies.]

    “But how did it last, and how did it come to be in the Authorized [King James] Version? The first Greek testament to be published was that of Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus was a great scholar and, knowing that this verse was not in the original text, he did not include it in his first edition. By this time, however, theologians [trinitarians, of course] were using the verse. It had, for instance, been printed in the Latin Vulgate of 1514. Erasmus was therefore criticized for omitting it. His answer was that if anyone could show him a Greek manuscript which had the words in it, he would print them in his next edition. Someone did produce a very late and very bad text in which the verse did occur in Greek; and Erasmus, true to his word but very much against his judgment and his will, printed the verse in his 1522 edition.

    “The next step was that in 1550 Stephanus printed his great edition of the Greek New Testament. This 1550 edition of Stephanus was called - he gave it that name himself - The Received Text, and it was the basis of the Authorized Version [KJV] and of the Greek text for centuries to come. That is how this verse got into the Authorized Version. There is, of course, nothing wrong with it [if the trinity were really true as trinitarians like Barclay himself want!]; but modern scholarship has made it quite certain that John did not write it and that it is a much later commentary on, and addition to, his words; and that is why all modern translations omit it.” - pp. 110-111, The Letters of John and Jude, The Daily Study Bible Series, Revised Edition, The Westminster Press, 1976. [Material in brackets and emphasis added by me.]

    Noted Trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace admits the same:

    The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org

    And respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:

    “For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition.” - p. 240, Vol. VI, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.

    The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows:

    “After μαρτυροῦντες [“bearing witness”] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following: εν
    τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῇ γῆ
    . That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

    To Be Continued...
     
    #293 tigger2, Sep 26, 2021
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  14. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    1 John 5:7 (KJV) continued

    “(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.

    “(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

    “(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
    “The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....

    “(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

    “(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.” - pp. 716-718, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.

    Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work, The Expositor's Greek Testament:

    It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):

    "A Latin interpolation, certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

    The very trinitarian Zondervan Publishing House has published a book by trinitarian scholars Dr. Sakae Kubo and Prof. Walter Specht entitled So Many Versions? It is an examination and critique of the most popular Bible translations of the 20th century. In the chapter devoted to the New King James Version [NKJV] this book says:

    “In the original printing of the NKJV, the famous Trinitarian passage in 1 John 5:7-8a had the only textual footnote - one that advised the reader that these words “Are from the Latin Bible, although three Greek mss. [manuscripts] from the fifteenth century and later also contain them” (the note has since been revised to read “four or five very late Greek manuscripts....”). It is well known that the first and second editions of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament lacked this passage because he did not find it in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He was so certain that it was a recent addition to the text that when he was criticized for not including it he promised to insert it in his next edition if anyone could produce a single [Greek] manuscript that contained it. Such a manuscript (Codex Montfortianus, #61 of the sixteenth century) was finally shown him in England, and he kept his promise in his third edition of 1522 [the early sixteenth century]. But this passage clearly had no place in the autograph [actual writings by John] of John’s first epistle.” - pp. 293-294.

    So, even those who finally added this spurious text to the English Bible translations knew it was not written by John! But, even with many revisions and thousands of changes to the KJV, this trinitarian tampering with the word of God has remained for nearly 400 years!

    The trinitarian authors of So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible’s use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:

    “The brochure advertising this revision [the NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project “to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version.” To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed. But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God.” - p. 294, So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.

    Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:

    “Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: 'in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, 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 in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words “on account of the truth.” In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther’s death] Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther’s text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies. They were not in Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim in many places by them].”

    The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the KJV at 1 Jn 5:7: Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions); Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.

    [[Added from information found on an internet site:

    Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), “one of the greatest historians who ever lived” explains the reason for the removal of 1 Jn 5:7 (as found in KJV) from most modern Bibles:

    "Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." - Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.

    Gibbon was defended in his findings by his noted contemporary, British scholar Richard Porson who also published conclusive proofs that the verse of 1 John 5:7 as found in the KJV was only first inserted by the Church into a few Latin texts around 400 C.E. - Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

    Regarding Porson's clear proof, Gibbon later said:

    "His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

    To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), still unhesitatingly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God (often without so much as a note to inform the reader that nearly all respected scholars of Christendom acknowledge it as a non-scriptural late addition by uninspired trinitarian copyists).

    Peake's Commentary on the Bible also tells us:
    "The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."]]


    WHY did trinitarian copyists and scholars think it necessary to construct this “scripture” and actually add it to the Holy Scriptures? What, then, does this tell us about the evaluation of the rest of the “evidence” for a trinity by these very same trinitarians? Isn’t this most terrible, blasphemous action by them actually an admission that the rest of the “evidence” for a 3-in-one God is completely inadequate? Why else would they do such a desperate, terrible thing?

    WHAT does this tell us about those men who first constructed the “trinity doctrine” and forced it on an unwilling Roman Church in 325 A. D. at the Nicene Council? (See HIST and CREEDS studies .)

    WHY do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to “preserve” this clearly dishonest King James Version tradition in not only the most-used King James Version itself (which has been revised many times with thousands of other changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    348
    Ratings:
    +279
    Religion:
    JW
    #41 Faith, Believe

    Bowman claims the NWT is attempting to “obscure the truth” by “the rendering of ‘exercise faith’ instead of ‘believe.’” (John 3:16)

    But the word usually translated ‘believe’ in many Bibles (pisteuo) may honestly be rendered ‘exercise faith,’ which implies certain action on the part of the believer. For example, the highly reputed (and highly “orthodox”) Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Abridged in One Volume) tells us:

    I. The OT Legacy. OT faith corresponds to Gk. pisteuein inasmuch as both involve trust in persons and belief in words (including God and his word). The OT term, however, carries a stronger element of acknowledgment and obedience. - p. 852.

    II. General Christian Usage.

    1. Continuation of the OT and Jewish Tradition.

    ....

    b. pisteuo as “to obey.” Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:18; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13. - pp. 853, 854, Eerdmans Publ., 1985.

    And Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 511, also tells us:

    pisteuw [pisteuo] .... g. used especially of the faith by which a man embraces Jesus, i.e. a conviction, full of joyful trust, that Jesus is the Messiah .... conjoined with obedience to Christ - Baker Book House, 1977.

    So, even some of the most respected New Testament scholars admit that pisteuo includes the idea of obedience with belief! This requires belief in and acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf and action on the part of the believer. There are many things true believers must do and must not do. Doing (or not doing the forbidden things) certainly does not earn salvation. But not acting in obedience to the word of God may well prevent you from receiving the free gift of salvation.

    There is clearly an inseparable union between true faith and actions on the part of the true Christian. As James 2:14-26 tells us:

    What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him? .... Even so, faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. .... You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? .... For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. - NASB.

    Notice, “just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead”! Faith and works (or active obedience to the word of God) are just as inseparable as the body and spirit are inseparable in a living man! When this faith is spoken of, then, it certainly should not be considered dishonest to translate it with that understanding: “exercise faith.” (See the FAITH study.)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...