Added to the Bible. Entire sentences.

[kingisjesus]

1st. John 5:7-8 (KJV,NKJV) HAS ENTIRE SENTENCES ADDED TO THE BIBLE. THis is how the KJV& NKJV have it.



1 John 5:7-8 (King James Version)
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


1 John 5:7-8 (New King James Version)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:7-8;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-30627a)] the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.


THIS IS HOW IS MORE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED.

1 John 5:7-8 (New International Version)7For there are three that testify: 8the[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20john%205:7-8;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30617a)] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.



1 John 5:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20JOHN%205:7-8;&version=31;#en-NIV-30617) Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)



Dosn't this just bother you?:mad:

[jad123]

1st. John 5:7-8 (KJV,NKJV) HAS ENTIRE SENTENCES ADDED TO THE BIBLE. THis is how the KJV& NKJV have it.





THIS IS HOW IS MORE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED.





Dosn't this just bother you?:mad:

Actually I must disagree with you on this. What aggravates me is that the NIV removes words from its translation. The NIV is a "Thought for Thought" translation not a "Word for Word" translation. I own a NIV. I enjoy reading the NIV, but for serious Bible study I would never use it.

[kingisjesus]

And what does the NIV have to do with the subject?

[ramesses]

Provided a translation keeps true to the meaning it is acceptable however what I cannot agree on is those who only believe in the King James as being the authoratitive text.


The King James was first published in 1611, if you want an old readable English text use the Wycliffe from 1391.
It is the Wycliffe that the King James was written from.

Saying that I believe that there has been much progress in translations and commentaries since those times and we should search around for our favourite translations.
Cross reference.
I always cross reference on a passage if I am studying it, it is really helpful.

I generally read from the New Living Translation but will cross reference with the KJV, NIV and YLT (young's literal)

[kingisjesus]

I can understand adding a word or two to clarify the meaning of the text, but adding entire statements to support a theology is wrong.


in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness

You will not find this in older manuscripts.

[Evangelica]

There are bibles that are translations, word for word, and others that are interpretations,Someone putting it into different word patterns. For studies a person should always use the translations and for leisure reading the interpretations, but check with the translations for correctness.
Did you know that when Wycliff was being debated and ready to be thrown out, during a meeting of all the higher-ups, an earthquack took place with it`s center near where the debate was. It didn`t change the opinions of the clergy much, but the common folk were reinforced under Wycliff. Bit of trivia
:)

[jad123]

And what does the NIV have to do with the subject?


Well lets see, look at your original post and you use the NIV as a more correct translation.

[BigNorsk]

The example you give is rather famous. When Erasmus produced his greek text of the New Testament, he did not have that addition in his text. When many Catholics complained, his defense was that he did not have any Greek manuscripts that contained it.

Well in time for his, I believe, third edition, a manuscript was produced and he included it. Since his text, which eventually became known as the Textus Receptus is really only based on a handful of manuscripts it is still in the text of the New King James Version. The forged manuscript is in England today, I don't remember exactly where or what it is called, but it still is available.

It does only occur in a very few Greek manuscripts, several of them are marginal notes, not in the text itself, and all of them very late in date.

The thing that makes me the saddest, is even though it is about as clearly an after the fact insertion into the text, there are still people who, simply because it is in the KJV, claim that it is correct and other translations are wrong for not having it.

The fact that the extra naming of the Trinity is not in any translation not from the Textus Receptus has nothing to do with style of translation. The phrase is not even in the Majority text or Byzantine text (same thing different names).

It was a common insertion in the Latin manuscripts of the day, though it wasn't in the original Vulgate. I offer as some easy evidence, Wycliffe's translation which was done from Latin manuscripts since he didn't have access to Greek.

1 John 5:7-8 WycliffeNT
(7) For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.
(8) `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon.

The Douay-Rheims also made from Latin manuscripts also has it.

1 John 5:8-9 DRB
(8) And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
(9) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son.

All this even though it is believed the original Vulgate has:

1 John 5:7-8 Vulgate
(7) quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
(8) Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

It should be noted that the insertion is true, but it is just clearly not in the God-breathed original.

One thing that bothers me about it is that Muslims are taught that the Bible is unreliable and that christians have changed it to read other ways. Well one big problem Muslims have is the Trinity, they have real problems getting that idea to fit with the thing that has been drummed into them that "God is one." Well one of the first things that happens is someone drags out a KJV and goes to 1 John 5:7-8, and that Muslim has been taught that that is an insertion, so the whole thing confirms to him that what he has been taught is true. That the Bible has been changed and is therefore untrustworthy.

It really messes things up because the big unreconcilable difference between Christianity and Islam is who are Jesus and Mohammed. Either Jesus is God and Mohammed is a false prophet, or Mohammed is the greatest prophet and Jesus is the second greatest prophet. That insertion weakens the Bible in the eyes of the Muslim and makes it much harder to "prove" to them who Jesus really is.

I'm sure the person who got the phrase inserted into Eramus' text thought he was doing a great thing, God's work, if you will. Yet that "white lie" has had serious repercussions that stretch to this day and still stretches on. I would hope that any christian that is tempted to tell lies to supposedly further the kingdom of God would remember this example.

Marv

[Stan53]

Does it bother me? No. Is it important? No.
What is important is where I am in Christ.

[Lynn73]

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13|18|219

No, it doesn't bother me because I think it's the KJV that's correct, not the NIV.

[vincejohn]

I agree it was probably added but it is true. In heaven and inside of us if we a good trying children dwells The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the Godhead the Holy Royal family even if it is not in the original scriptures it was written down by the inspiration of God.
Dont let this bother you too much KingisJesus...if it is truth it is of God.

[kingisjesus]

Provided a translation keeps true to the meaning it is acceptable however what I cannot agree on is those who only believe in the King James as being the authoratitive text.


Well ofcourse I do not think the K.J.V. is authoratitive if you read the O.P. you will see that I have a major problem with it.

[christandisrael]

1st. John 5:7-8 (KJV,NKJV) HAS ENTIRE SENTENCES ADDED TO THE BIBLE. THis is how the KJV& NKJV have it.





THIS IS HOW IS MORE CORRECTLY TRANSLATED.





Dosn't this just bother you?:mad:
Pray about it. That we may resolve our differences.