What Should I Read?

[Axiom1322]

So, I've read Mark and Luke, and I'm five chapters into John. I was wondering if I should read Matthew, or save that one for later and move on to the Epistles after John?

Secondly, What are a couple Epistles I should look into? (Remember, I'm a young person reclaiming their faith.) Thank you so much.

 

[Axiom1322]

Does anyone have any advice for me?

 

[greentwiga]

The letters of Paul are difficult and I didn't read them for a few years. Gospel of John was written so we might be saved. The letter of I John was written so we might know we are saved. Letters of Peter are also good. Psalms and proverbs make the easiest OT reading. Stick with these till you feel ready for others.

 

[Unix]

After those, an idea would be to continue with Moses and Joseph in Genesis.
After that Colossians.
Then Jude.
After that Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, not to be confused with Ecclesiastes) if You want more wisdom, use the NRSV Apocrypha - can be purchased separately - Sirach is a pretty long book - more than 50 chapters - so to get the NRSV Apocrypha just to read that is not unreasonable. I prefer another version for the Old Testament Apocrypha: Revised English Bible (can also be used separately) but use NRSV for parts of Sirach.
If You need help ordering Bibles, just get in touch with me with a visitor message and I'll help You out.

2 Corinthians is a really valuable read although I'm not sure it's easy and I strongly recommend You read only chapters 1-9.

 

[greentwiga]

Does anyone have any advice for me?

How are you doing with your reading? You might try Acts, and the letters of Peter. Some of the Old testament books are interesting for their stories. Jonah, Judges for stories like Samson and Gideon. Daniel has interesting stories and some intriguing prophesies. I am deep into harder to understand books, like the first 5 books of Moses. I study the passages for myself and don't always come up with the same interpretations. If you have any questions about these other books, feel free to ask me.

 

[OzSpen]

So, I've read Mark and Luke, and I'm five chapters into John. I was wondering if I should read Matthew, or save that one for later and move on to the Epistles after John?

Secondly, What are a couple Epistles I should look into? (Remember, I'm a young person reclaiming their faith.) Thank you so much.

Since you are a young person reclaiming your faith, the kind of translation you use is as important as the books of the Bible you use.

To start, I'd recommend the New Living Translation(NLT); the NLT is available free online at Biblegateway with a drop-down menu for many translations, including the NLT. I'd read these books of the Bible in this order:

1. Matthew;
2. Book of Acts;
3. Some of the Psalms;
4. Ephesians;
5. James;
6. Some more of the Psalms;
7. Genesis;
8. 1 & 2 Peter;
9. Some more of the Psalms;
10. John;
11. Then find a Bible reading plan that helps you work your way systematically through the Bible over, say, a 2-3 year period of time. I can help you locate one of these if interested.

In Christ, Oz

 

[Unix]

Apocryphas and New Testaments are sold separately, both when it comes to the NRSV and the REB. The REB is good for a young Christian, the language is fairly easy and intuitive and there are not that so many passages in formal language as to make You choke. Even so it's much more accurate than versions such as the NLT and NIV:

I prefer another version for the Old Testament Apocrypha: Revised English Bible (can also be used separately) but use NRSV for parts of Sirach.

 

[greentwiga]

I happen to love Genesis and am deep into the study of it. I would not recommend reading James, Genesis, and Ephesians to a new Christian. As one grows in ones walk, start reading those books, but stop if it is too much. You will be ready later. I do recommend reading easy to read versions, though I now focus on the NASV and the Greek and Hebrew. Again, that comes later. I strongly recommend, Don't read Apocrypha until you have read all the books in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament without Apocrypha) I have read them but until you understand the various possible sources, it is better to avoid them.

 

[Unix]

I was not recommending anyone to read the entire Old Testament Apocrypha, just one specific book and told which Bible versions to choose and that the Apocrypha has been printed as separate books. I don't understand what would be so hard about Sirach (Ecclesiasticus):

I strongly recommend, Don't read Apocrypha until you have read all the books in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament without Apocrypha) I have read them but until you understand the various possible sources, it is better to avoid them.

 

[OzSpen]

Apocryphas and New Testaments are sold separately, both when it comes to the NRSV and the REB. The REB is good for a young Christian, the language is fairly easy and intuitive and there are not that so many passages in formal language as to make You choke. Even so it's much more accurate than versions such as the NLT and NIV:

The NLT and NIV are dynamic equivalence translations so are accurate as meaning-for-meaning translations. NLT uses simpler language to the NIV and is excellent for new Christians.

I know and teach NT Greek and find the NLT, a committee translation, to be an excellent translation that uses basic English language. I recommend it particularly for new believers and those who have English as their second language.

 

[JimmyH]

John MacArthur's "How To Study The Bible" is a good beginner's method, or good for anyone who wants to read the Scriptures and end up knowing them better.

 

[rmalex]

I would start with the Gospels. Leave Paul's letters until later; they have very good content but are slightly difficult to read. Acts is a reasonable start after the Gospels or try going back through the OT and look at some famous characters such as King David, Samson, etc.

 

[Dennis Hardy]

Daniel 2, 7, and 9

 

[Dialogist]

So, I've read Mark and Luke, and I'm five chapters into John. I was wondering if I should read Matthew, or save that one for later and move on to the Epistles after John?

Secondly, What are a couple Epistles I should look into? (Remember, I'm a young person reclaiming their faith.) Thank you so much.

Hi, there!

My recommendation based on guidance I have been given is:

1. Read through Matthew and Luke very slowly, each at least three times, paying close attention to what we can actually put into practice in our lives and not getting hung-up on hard-to-understand passages. Perhaps a daily journal would help.
2. A good concise guide to understanding the Gospels can be found in a very old (i.e. 11th century) book that has recently been translated into English: Theophylact's Explanations of the Gospels. Theophylact was an Orthodox Christian (not Roman Catholic) clergyman living in what at the time was part of the Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, but today is part of Bulgaria. His commentaries are very clear and are based on the collected patristic commenataries that he had compiled. His commentaries, which were written originally in Greek, are very helpful because he will often discuss idiomatic nuances of the Greek text that are lost on modern (especially non-Greek) translators. The editors of the King James Bible often consulted his commentaries when they struggled to understand and translate certain passages. The English edition I linked also highlights a number of errors in the King James Version which have propagated to other versions.
3. After #1, read through all of the Gospels together a few times. The Gospels are important because they should be the basis by which we interpret and understand the rest of Scripture, not the other way around.
4. While completing the above, always try to read a few Psalms every day. My recommendation would be to read the Psalms (and, in fact, all of the Old Testament) from a translation of the Greek Septuagint rather than of the Masoretic Hebrew Text. Jewish scholars admit that the Hebrew in many passages of the Masoretic Text is unclear and they will sometimes (grudgingly) consult the Septuagint (which is older than the Masoretic Text compilation) in order to get a clearer sense of the more obscure passages.
5. After the Gospels, I would read Acts.
6. After Acts, I personally think John's epistles are a good place to start, followed by all of Paul's epistles except Romans, then the remaining Epistles, and finally Romans. Romans is a difficult text and I would recommend consulting Dmitri Royster's Commentary to get a clear understanding (he also wrote a commentary on Hebrews).
7. I would avoid Revelation until you read everything else in the Bible.
8. Here, I think the other wisdom books are a good thing to read, starting with Proverbs, the Wisdom of Sirach (sometimes called Ecclesiasticus) and the Wisdom of Solomon (you will find these last two books missing from most Protestant Bibles, though)
9. Next, the Torah - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, with special attention to Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy
10. Then perhaps simultaneously read the historical books in tandem with the Prophets, especially Isaiah and Ezekiel.

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Probably quite a bit different from others you have received. I had been a Catholic and a Baptist before coming to the Orthodox Church, so I have seen quite a few "systems", but the one above feels the best for me personally.

 

[briquest]

The NLT and NIV are dynamic equivalence translations so are accurate as meaning-for-meaning translations. NLT uses simpler language to the NIV and is excellent for new Christians.

I know and teach NT Greek and find the NLT, a committee translation, to be an excellent translation that uses basic English language. I recommend it particularly for new believers and those who have English as their second language.

King James version is majority text, look at the changes in niv or google kjv vs other translations to know more about how and why and where bibles were changed altered and for what reason!

No Contradiction
Matthew 26:29, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 27:48, "And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink."
Contradiction

Matthew 26:29, " I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vinefrom now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 27:48, " Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink."

Clearly, if Jesus took wine, sour or otherwise, and drank it on the cross, we have a contradiction that would make Jesus out to be a liar. The Greek word used for "fruit of the vine" at the Last Supper and the Greek word used for "wine vinegar ("sour wine" in some English translations) is not the same Greek word. What Jesus tasted on the cross was water mixed with vinegar, a common drink among the Roman soldiers. This vinegar did not necessarily come from grapes; it could be made from figs, palms, fermented grain extract, etc. Therefore, Jesus did not lie, and the Greek language bears this out. However, the great majority of English Bible translations including such popular ones as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and the Amplified have Jesus
contradict Himself.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

List of Bible verses not included in modern translations
F = footnotes o is omitted B = bracketed in sentence.
Bible translation
Passage NIV NASB NKJV RSV NRSV ESV NCV TLB REB HCSB AMP CEB CJB CEV ERV GW EXB GNT Knox LEB MSG Mounce NET NIrV NLV NLT OJB
Matthew 9:34 F
Matthew 12:47 O F F F F O F F F F
Matthew 17:21 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O F O O O O O F
Matthew 18:11 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Matthew 21:44 O F F F B F O F F F F O F
Matthew 23:14 F B F O O F O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 7:16 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O F F O O O O O O
Mark 9:44 F B F O O F O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 9:46 F B F O O F O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 11:26 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Mark 15:28 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Mark 16:9–20 B F F F B F F B F B F F B F B B B B
Luke 17:36 F B F O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Luke 22:20 F F F O F
Luke 22:43 B F O F B F F F B+F B F
Luke 22:44 B F O F B F F F F B+F B F
Luke 23:17 F B F O O F O O F B F O O F O O F O O O O O O B
Luke 24:12 O F F O F
Luke 24:40 F F F F F
John 5:4 F B F O O F O F F B O O O O F O O O O O B O B
John 7:53–8:11 B F O F B F F B F B B+F B
Acts 8:37 F B F O F F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O B O B
Acts 15:34 F B F O O F O O F O F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Acts 24:7 F B F O O F O F B O O O O O O O O O B
Acts 28:29 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Romans 16:24 F B F O O F O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

 

[OzSpen]

King James version is majority text, look at the changes in niv or google kjv vs other translations to know more about how and why and where bibles were changed altered and for what reason!

No Contradiction
Matthew 26:29, "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 27:48, "And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink."
Contradiction

Matthew 26:29, " I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vinefrom now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

Matthew 27:48, " Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink."

Clearly, if Jesus took wine, sour or otherwise, and drank it on the cross, we have a contradiction that would make Jesus out to be a liar. The Greek word used for "fruit of the vine" at the Last Supper and the Greek word used for "wine vinegar ("sour wine" in some English translations) is not the same Greek word. What Jesus tasted on the cross was water mixed with vinegar, a common drink among the Roman soldiers. This vinegar did not necessarily come from grapes; it could be made from figs, palms, fermented grain extract, etc. Therefore, Jesus did not lie, and the Greek language bears this out. However, the great majority of English Bible translations including such popular ones as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, and the Amplified have Jesus
contradict Himself.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/m-m.html

List of Bible verses not included in modern translations
F = footnotes o is omitted B = bracketed in sentence.
Bible translation
Passage NIV NASB NKJV RSV NRSV ESV NCV TLB REB HCSB AMP CEB CJB CEV ERV GW EXB GNT Knox LEB MSG Mounce NET NIrV NLV NLT OJB
Matthew 9:34 F
Matthew 12:47 O F F F F O F F F F
Matthew 17:21 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O F O O O O O F
Matthew 18:11 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Matthew 21:44 O F F F B F O F F F F O F
Matthew 23:14 F B F O O F O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 7:16 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O F F O O O O O O
Mark 9:44 F B F O O F O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 9:46 F B F O O F O O F B O O O O O F O O O O O O
Mark 11:26 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Mark 15:28 F B F O O F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Mark 16:9–20 B F F F B F F B F B F F B F B B B B
Luke 17:36 F B F O O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O O
Luke 22:20 F F F O F
Luke 22:43 B F O F B F F F B+F B F
Luke 22:44 B F O F B F F F F B+F B F
Luke 23:17 F B F O O F O O F B F O O F O O F O O O O O O B
Luke 24:12 O F F O F
Luke 24:40 F F F F F
John 5:4 F B F O O F O F F B O O O O F O O O O O B O B
John 7:53–8:11 B F O F B F F B F B B+F B
Acts 8:37 F B F O F F O F F B F O O O O F O O O O O B O B
Acts 15:34 F B F O O F O O F O F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Acts 24:7 F B F O O F O F B O O O O O O O O O B
Acts 28:29 F B F O O F O O F B F O O O O F O O O O O O B
Romans 16:24 F B F O O F O F B F O O O O F O O O O O B

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

The more accurate question is: Have you noticed how many extra verses have been added to the KJV? In fact, the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT and the integrity of the NT Greek text is based on the integration of a multiplicity of Greek texts that have been preserved in over 5,000 partial and complete portions.

This we do know is that when Erasmus compiled the NT to form the Textus Receptus that was used in the translation of the KJV, he could not find any MSS that contained the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. How did he know there were these verses? He had access to the Latin Vulgate. So he translated those verses from Latin to Greek for the Textus Receptus. Since that time, not one MSS has agreed specifically with all of the translation that Erasmus did into Greek. So, the KJV uses MSS evidence that is not contained in MSS Erasmus had available. Therefore, the KJV has added to Scripture because of Erasmus's practical efforts.

Oz

 

[briquest]

The more accurate question is: Have you noticed how many extra verses have been added to the KJV? In fact, the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT and the integrity of the NT Greek text is based on the integration of a multiplicity of Greek texts that have been preserved in over 5,000 partial and complete portions.

This we do know is that when Erasmus compiled the NT to form the Textus Receptus that was used in the translation of the KJV, he could not find any MSS that contained the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. How did he know there were these verses? He had access to the Latin Vulgate. So he translated those verses from Latin to Greek for the Textus Receptus. Since that time, not one MSS has agreed specifically with all of the translation that Erasmus did into Greek. So, the KJV uses MSS evidence that is not contained in MSS Erasmus had available. Therefore, the KJV has added to Scripture because of Erasmus's practical efforts.

Oz

1 John 5:7KJV "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."NASB "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

" NASB leaves out the last 15 words of the verse, and skips to v.8, leaving out the first part of it also, and mentioning the three witnesses on earth without saying where these witnesses are, and mentioning none in heaven. This is an attack on the Trinity, a key doctrine for the true Christian. Most cultic religions reject this doctrine.

1 John 5:8 KJV "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." NASB "For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." When you put the two verses together the totality of the NASB is: 1John 5:7-8"And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
That is not similar in meaning in any way to the original. All the underlined parts above are left out. This is an abomination. We must remember Revelation 22:19 (KJV) "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." I think they have bitten off more than they will be able to chew.

 

[OzSpen]

1 John 5:7KJV "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."NASB "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

" NASB leaves out the last 15 words of the verse, and skips to v.8, leaving out the first part of it also, and mentioning the three witnesses on earth without saying where these witnesses are, and mentioning none in heaven. This is an attack on the Trinity, a key doctrine for the true Christian. Most cultic religions reject this doctrine.

1 John 5:8 KJV "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." NASB "For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." When you put the two verses together the totality of the NASB is: 1John 5:7-8"And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
That is not similar in meaning in any way to the original. All the underlined parts above are left out. This is an abomination. We must remember Revelation 22:19 (KJV) "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." I think they have bitten off more than they will be able to chew.

It's actually the other way around. The KJV, because it is based on later MSS from 10th-12th centuries for the Textus Receptus of the NT, and not the earliest MSS, the Textus Receptus has added words and it's the earlier MSS used for the NASB that do not add these extra words that are in the KJV.

This kind of thing happens when a MSS is hand copied over and over. The early MSS were hand copied. Words can be added or deleted. I know when I hand copy existing writing.

Oz

 

[briquest]

The more accurate question is: Have you noticed how many extra verses have been added to the KJV? In fact, the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc are based on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the OT and the integrity of the NT Greek text is based on the integration of a multiplicity of Greek texts that have been preserved in over 5,000 partial and complete portions.

This we do know is that when Erasmus compiled the NT to form the Textus Receptus that was used in the translation of the KJV, he could not find any MSS that contained the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. How did he know there were these verses? He had access to the Latin Vulgate. So he translated those verses from Latin to Greek for the Textus Receptus. Since that time, not one MSS has agreed specifically with all of the translation that Erasmus did into Greek. So, the KJV uses MSS evidence that is not contained in MSS Erasmus had available. Therefore, the KJV has added to Scripture because of Erasmus's practical efforts.

Oz

I see you side with many Founders of Church religions on this issue

Charles Taze Russell in 1899 made his accusation specific and the forgery late: "the spurious words were no doubt interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the (Trinity) doctrine himself, and thought that the holy spirit had blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a difficulty by perpetrating a fraud."[28]

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare was a textual scholar who wrote in 1910 a section specifically about "famous orthodox corruptions", including "The text of the three witnesses a doctrinal forgery".[29]

Preserved Smith in 1920 called the verse "a Latin forgery of the fourth century, possibly due to Priscillian".[30]

Gordon Campbell, author of Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 asserts that the Comma is "a medieval forgery inserted into Bibles to support a trinitarian doctrine that had been erected on a disconcertingly thin biblical base.".[31]

The popularity of the modern "orthodox corruption" view of Bart Ehrman has increased the forgery claims, especially on the Internet. Ehrman calls the Comma "the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Nonetheless, in my judgment, the comma's appearance in the tradition can scarcely be dated prior to the trinitarian controversies that arose after the period under examination."[32] Ehrman posits his other corruptions as around the 2nd century, so Ehrman is considering the Comma as exceptional and placing the "appearance" of the Comma in the 300s or 400s, close to Priscillian's verse usage and citation as from John.



Doctrinal issues, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism[edit]
Theories of both authenticity and spuriousness often interweave doctrinal and Christological concerns as part of their analysis of 'Origins', how the verse developed and was either dropped or added to Bible lines.

John Guyse gave a summary in the Practical Expositor that was a type of model for many of the later doctrinal expositions by those defending authenticity from a Trinitarian perspective.

"the Trinitarians therefore had less occasion to interpolate this verse, than the Antitrinitarians had to take it out of the sacred canon, if any, on either side, can be supposed to be so very wicked as to make such an attempt ; and it is much more likely that (Guyse describes homoeoteleuton or other omission) than that any should be so daring as designedly to add it to the text". [n 22]
Often those who oppose authenticity take the position that the Comma was included in the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam because of its doctrinal importance in supporting Trinitarianism. The passage is often viewed as an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with notable exceptions.[n 2


It is interesting that the Owners of Zonderman that publish the NIV and other christian books also produce the satanic bible and the joy of Gay sex in there many books of renown.

King James Bible http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-21.htmYe cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

 

[OzSpen]

I see you side with many Founders of Church religions on this issue

Charles Taze Russell in 1899 made his accusation specific and the forgery late: "the spurious words were no doubt interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the (Trinity) doctrine himself, and thought that the holy spirit had blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a difficulty by perpetrating a fraud."[28]

Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare was a textual scholar who wrote in 1910 a section specifically about "famous orthodox corruptions", including "The text of the three witnesses a doctrinal forgery".[29]

Preserved Smith in 1920 called the verse "a Latin forgery of the fourth century, possibly due to Priscillian".[30]

Gordon Campbell, author of Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011 asserts that the Comma is "a medieval forgery inserted into Bibles to support a trinitarian doctrine that had been erected on a disconcertingly thin biblical base.".[31]

The popularity of the modern "orthodox corruption" view of Bart Ehrman has increased the forgery claims, especially on the Internet. Ehrman calls the Comma "the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Nonetheless, in my judgment, the comma's appearance in the tradition can scarcely be dated prior to the trinitarian controversies that arose after the period under examination."[32] Ehrman posits his other corruptions as around the 2nd century, so Ehrman is considering the Comma as exceptional and placing the "appearance" of the Comma in the 300s or 400s, close to Priscillian's verse usage and citation as from John.



Doctrinal issues, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism[edit]
Theories of both authenticity and spuriousness often interweave doctrinal and Christological concerns as part of their analysis of 'Origins', how the verse developed and was either dropped or added to Bible lines.

John Guyse gave a summary in the Practical Expositor that was a type of model for many of the later doctrinal expositions by those defending authenticity from a Trinitarian perspective.

"the Trinitarians therefore had less occasion to interpolate this verse, than the Antitrinitarians had to take it out of the sacred canon, if any, on either side, can be supposed to be so very wicked as to make such an attempt ; and it is much more likely that (Guyse describes homoeoteleuton or other omission) than that any should be so daring as designedly to add it to the text". [n 22]
Often those who oppose authenticity take the position that the Comma was included in the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam because of its doctrinal importance in supporting Trinitarianism. The passage is often viewed as an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with notable exceptions.[n 2


It is interesting that the Owners of Zonderman that publish the NIV and other christian books also produce the satanic bible and the joy of Gay sex in there many books of renown.

King James Bible http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-21.htmYe cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

You have here engaged in a poisoning of the well logical fallacy. See HERE for a description. Such fallacious reasoning prevents us from having a logical discussion about this topic.

One of the most thorough contemporary scholars (now with the Lord, having died in 2007, aged 93) of the 20th century to examine NT manuscript evidence used to provide a Greek text for translation of the NT was Bruce M Metzger. In The Text of the New Testament (1992:101), he wrote:

Among the criticisms levelled at Erasmus one of the most serious appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes' Complutensian Polygot, that his text lacked part of the final chapter of 1 John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning `the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth' (1 John v. 7-8, King James version). Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript containing these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing his text. In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found - or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus stood by his promise and inserted the passage in his third edition (1522), but he indicates in a lengthy footnote his suspicions that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.

So, Erasmus, the one responsible for gathering the NT of the Greek Textus Receptus behind the KJV NT was not convinced 1 John 5:7-8 was original. He was no cultist. He was a thorough scholar who knew the Greek MSS that were available for Erasmus and today's Greek NT.

However, when you want to associate what I said with a founders of church religions , i.e. cultists like Charles Taze Russell, you are using a poisoning the well logical fallacy. I suggest that you become familiar with the technique you used - a logical fallacy - and do not ever accuse me of engaging in such false reasoning.

Norman Geisler and William Nix, in A General Introduction to the Bible (1986:451) confirm this: 'In 1535 a fifth and final edition of Erasmus's Greek text was published. It was still based on the Byzantine text-type, contained readings from very late manuscripts, and included the spurious reading of 1 John 5:7-8 as well as his translations back into Greek from Latin of the verses in Revelation'.

Geisler & Nix explain that

'the King James translators followed the text of Erasmus that contained this rendering [of 1 John 5:7-8], and on the basis of the testimony that appears in insignificant and late minuscule [running writing] manuscripts that omit it, as do the Greek Fathers, and the manuscripts of all the ancient versions (including the Old Latin and Vulgate) is disregarded. The earliest instance of this longer reading being quoted as a part of the actual text of 1 John comes in a fourth-century Latin treatise attributed to either the Spanish heretic Priscillian or to his follower Bishop Instantius. In fact, the acceptance of the longer rendering as a genuine part of the text of 1 John violates almost every major canon of textual criticism' (Geisler & Nix 1986:483-484).

Therefore, 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) happens to be an addition by a Greek copyist and NOT by a cultist like Charles Taze Russell. So it is an addition to the Textus Receptus, which flowed into the English translations of the KJV and NKJV; it is NOT a deletion by the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV, etc.

Oz

Works consulted
Geisler, N L & Nix, W E 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible, rev & exp. Chicago: Moody Press.

Metzger, B M 1992. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd enl ed. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.