I have a question?

[sentipente]

Ask yourself one question. Why have the oldest manuscripts survived? The answer is nobody used them because they were corrupted so they didn't wear out. There was no printing press back then. They were hand copied. If you were using a Bible everyday it would wear out sooner or later so you would make copies. This is why there is no early manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.

I think you have a future in scriptwriting.

 

[GuardianShua]

The Waldenses believed 1 John 5:7 was part of Scripture. Their Bible was older than the Latin Vulgate by some 200 years.

Just because the older manuscripts don't support it doesn't mean it isn't part of Scripture. The older manuscripts are corrupted. The majority of witnesses supports 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.

Ask yourself one question. Why have the oldest manuscripts survived? The answer is nobody used them because they were corrupted so they didn't wear out. There was no printing press back then. They were hand copied. If you were using a Bible everyday it would wear out sooner or later so you would make copies. This is why there is no early manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV.

Addition.


This is what I found in regards to Genesis 1:26. Here is the transliteral: "And said Elohiym: making (man or Adam) in our image and likeness." The words "Let us" were not there. According to the N.I.V. Concordence the words (Let us) are A.I.T.= asisted in translation. Here are some additional verses from the N.I.V. bible to think about.
#1. Matthew 26:64. "Yes, it is as you say,"

#2. Mark 14:62. "I am, said Jesus." Did Jesus say yes or I am.

#3. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I am!" Or did Jesus say; Before Abraham was born, I lived.

#4. Micah 5:2. "Out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.

#1. Matthew 28:19. "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," It is recorded in history that the oldest script said, "In my name."

#2. Acts 4:12. "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

#3. Acts 10:48. "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

#4. Acts 19:5. "They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

#5. Romans 6:3. "All of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus ."

N.I.V. 1 John 5:7-8. 7. "For there are three that testify: 8. The Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
Vulgate 1 John 5:7."For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

Textual Commentary on Revelation 1:11.

K.J.V. Revelation 1:10-11. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,) What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

The bracketed, emboldened portion of the above KJV text was not in the original text of verse 11, as explained below. The NRSV and TEV versions of this verse accurately reflect in English what was written in the original Greek text of that verse.

NRSV 1:10-11. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying, "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea."

TEV 1:10-11. On the Lord's day the Spirit took control of me, and I heard a loud voice, that sounded like a trumpet, speaking behind me. 11 It said, "Write down what you see, and send the book to the churches in these seven cities: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea."

Commentary

Modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, (I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,)

The wording at the beginning of the King James Version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned as a footnote in any modern translation. Now the voice of coarse is the Son of Man; and he is the (first and last) god to be born into this world; however he is not the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End.
K.J.V. 1:12-13. 12. And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

Now all of the different bibles tell us that God the Father is a Spirit, and that He is Holy. Therefore one of His many name titles is Holy Spirit.

 

[daro2096]

So are you saying Matthew 3:16-17 is not Scripture too since that meantions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Elohiym is plural.
(Strong's H430)
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

And God ('elohiym) said('amar), Let us make(`asah) man( 'adam) in our image(tselem), after our likeness(d@muwth) : and let them have dominion(radahover)...

Since the word for God is in the plural sense that means when its says let us make man and in our image the translators were not translating wrong.

It would be wrong to translate it as God said I make man in my image in my likeness.

 

[GuardianShua]

So are you saying Matthew 3:16-17 is not Scripture too since that meantions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Elohiym is plural.
(Strong's H430)
1) (plural)
a) rulers, judges
b) divine ones
c) angels
d) gods
2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)
a) god, goddess
b) godlike one
c) works or special possessions of God
d) the (true) God
e) God

And God ('elohiym) said('amar), Let us make(`asah) man( 'adam) in our image(tselem), after our likeness(d@muwth) : and let them have dominion(radahover)...

Since the word for God is in the plural sense that means when its says let us make man and in our image the translators were not translating wrong.

It would be wrong to translate it as God said I make man in my image in my likeness.

Elohiym means (God of the living.)

 

[GuardianShua]

Elohiym means (God of the living.)

Matthew 3:16. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." I know a parabol when I see one. John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. /// And even this scripture John 1:18 that I have quoted here is not translated correctly. The point being, is that your reading a parabol. No man other than Jesus has seen God. Throughout scripture we are told that God is Holy and He is a Spirit.

 

[daro2096]

Matthew 3:16. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." I know a parabol when I see one. John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. /// And even this scripture John 1:18 that I have quoted here is not translated correctly. The point being, is that your reading a parabol. No man other than Jesus has seen God. Throughout scripture we are told that God is Holy and He is a Spirit.

If the spirit of God descended on Jesus who was talking from heaven?

Bible also says God is 7 spirits in Revelation chapter 1.

And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; Isaiah 11:2

1. The spirit of the LORD
2. The spirit of wisdom
3. The spirit of understanding
4. The spirit of counsel
5. The spirit of might
6. The spirit of knowledge
7. The spirit of fear of the LORD

 

[daro2096]

I have already shown you that the hebrew word for God Elohiym is in the plural form. If God was singular they would have used YHWH.

 

[sentipente]

I have already shown you that the hebrew word for God Elohiym is in the plural form. If God was singular they would have used YHWH.

I wish you had not added that second phrase because it not leaves the impression of a Deity who switches from singular to plural.

 

[JonMiller]

What is wrong with that?

JM

 

[sentipente]

What is wrong with that?

JM

It shows that his complaint had no value. Essentially, he ended up supporting what he claimed to be opposed to.

 

[GuardianShua]

I wish you had not added that second phrase because it not leaves the impression of a Deity who switches from singular to plural.

He sure stept into that one. Dont forget though, we all have had foot -N- mouth disease.

 

[reddogs]

Originally the Adventist church did not support the trinitarian doctrine, because it was introduced by the Catholic Church into scripture. Also it is propogated by secret societies. But as more baptist came into the Adventist Church it was re-established. Now my question is: The document that states Ellen white believed in trinitarism, was it produced before Ellen's death, or after.

Good Question

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Some further reading from Andrews University Seminary Studies on the historical development of trinitarianism in Adventism (part 1) and the development in EGW (part 2):

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm

The conclusion from part 2:

Conclusion

Part 1 of this study noted that the 1946 General Conference session was the first to officially endorse belief in the Trinity,[83] just 100 years after James White's strong rejection of that idea in the 1846 Day-Star. This change was not a simple reversal. The evidence is that Ellen White agreed with the essential positive point of James's belief, namely that "the Father and the Son" are "two distinct, litteral [sic], tangible persons." Subsequent evidence shows that she also agreed with James's negative point: that the traditional, philosophical concepts held by many trinitarians did "spiritualize away" the personal reality of the Father and the Son.[84]

Soon after this she added the conviction, based on visions, that both Christ and the Father have tangible forms. She progressively affirmed the eternal equality of Christ and the Father, that Christ was not created, and by 1888, that an adequate concept of the atonement demands the full and eternal Deity of Christ. Only in the 1890s did she become aware of the full individuality and personhood of the Holy Spirit, but when she did, she referred to the Holy Spirit in literal and tangible terms much like those she had used in 1850 to describe the Father and the Son.[85] By 1905, she explicitly declared her belief in three divine persons united in one God.

This confirms the fourfold hypothesis with which this article opened. First, E. R. Gane's characterization of Ellen White as a "trinitarian monotheist" is accurate regarding her mature concept of God, from 1898 onward. She never, however, used the term "Trinity" to describe her belief about God. Perhaps the closest she came was her use of the phrase "heavenly trio."[86] A likely reason why she consistently shunned the term "Trinity," even after she had embraced certain aspects of trinitarian teaching, is the second hypothesis: that she had become aware of two varieties of trinitarian belief, one that she embraced and one that she vehemently rejected. An uncritical use of the term "Trinity" might appear to endorse philosophical concepts to which she was diametrically opposed.

This seems especially plausible in light of the third hypothesis, that as she endorsed conceptual steps toward a biblical trinitarianism, her developing understanding exerted a strong influence on other Adventist writers, leading eventually to a substantial degree of consensus in the denomination.

Fourth, the method by which the early Adventists sought to separate the biblical elements of trinitarianism from the elements derived from tradition, was to completely disallow tradition as a basis for doctrine, and struggle through the long process of constructing their beliefs on the basis of Scripture alone. In doing so, they virtually retraced the steps of the NT church in first accepting the equality of Christ with the Father, and second, discovering Their equality and unity with the Holy Spirit as well. In the process, their theology showed temporary similarities to some of the historical heresies, particularly Arianism. Their repudiation of tradition as doctrinal authority was costly in terms of the ostracism they endured as perceived "heretics," but their dependence on Scripture brought them eventually to what they believe is a more biblical view of the Trinity.[87] A controversial corollary is the conviction that the classical formulation of the Trinity doctrine, resting as it does on Greek philosophical presuppositions of timelessness and impassibility, is simply incompatible with a thoroughly biblical theological system.[88]

Not an objective observer, but a systematic theologian deeply involved in the development of the Adventist doctrine of God, Fernando Canale has written extensively on the distinction between a theology based on Greek philosophical presuppositions, and one based on biblical presuppositions.[89] He argues that

In a very real sense, Adventist emphasis on Scriptures as the sole source of data for executing theology has given theological reflection on God a new and revolutionary start. Systematically distrustful and critical of traditional theological positions, Adventists were determined to build doctrines on the basis of Scripture alone. The difficulties implicit in this fresh approach may account for the scant number of Adventist statements on the doctrine of God.[90]

Canale makes a strong case for his contention that because Adventists, "departed from the philosophical conception of God as timeless" and "embraced the historical conception of God as presented in the Bible," they were enabled to develop a genuinely biblical view of the Trinity.[91]

Do with it what you will and evaluate its claims. In the endnotes is a link to Erwin Gane's MA thesis.

 

[GuardianShua]

Some further reading from Andrews University Seminary Studies on the historical development of trinitarianism in Adventism (part 1) and the development in EGW (part 2):

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity2.htm

The conclusion from part 2:



Do with it what you will and evaluate its claims. In the endnotes is a link to Erwin Gane's MA thesis.

Thanks DR.