Sabra
Active Member
- Nov 26, 2005
- 205
- 3
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Labor
saladin1970,
Others have already dealt quite impressively with this point.
Why was the extended part of 1 John 5:7 removed? Because it wasn't in the Bible to begin with! The fact, that the extended part of 1 John 5:7 does not appear in the earliest and most reliable (best) manuscripts has nothing to do with the fallibility of the Bible, rather the fallibility of man's interpretations and copying of the original manuscripts. Everyone knows that the Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew and the New Testament mainly in Greek. The fact that translations and copies of these earliest and most accurate manuscripts contains errors not found in the original implies that there is something wrong with how people have copied them or translated them. If you wish to argue that the Bible is fallible, then please do so with reference to the original manuscripts in the original languages, and not to copies or translations that have been done by man.
All what has been proven here is that fallible people have stuffed up the original infallible Word of God for their own purposes. No one Christian holds that the KJV translation is the infallible Word of God, nor the NIV translation or any other translation. We all hold that the original manuscripts are the Word of God and that modern day translations are based on the Word of God. Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God or "God-breathed". Translators do their best to ensure accuracy as they translate from the original language into English, for example, but occassionally they do make a mistake or don't get the correct intended meaning of a passage. But this has nothing at all to do with the infallibility of the Bible as the Bible was not originally written in English.
Also, we first start to get a glipse of the Trinity at work in Creation, Genesis 1:2 says, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. Hmm, I wonder whom this is a reference to? But I think the point about the Trinity being established long before the extended verse of 1 John 5:7 was added has been bashed over the head enough times by various people.
Others have already dealt quite impressively with this point.
Why was the extended part of 1 John 5:7 removed? Because it wasn't in the Bible to begin with! The fact, that the extended part of 1 John 5:7 does not appear in the earliest and most reliable (best) manuscripts has nothing to do with the fallibility of the Bible, rather the fallibility of man's interpretations and copying of the original manuscripts. Everyone knows that the Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew and the New Testament mainly in Greek. The fact that translations and copies of these earliest and most accurate manuscripts contains errors not found in the original implies that there is something wrong with how people have copied them or translated them. If you wish to argue that the Bible is fallible, then please do so with reference to the original manuscripts in the original languages, and not to copies or translations that have been done by man.
All what has been proven here is that fallible people have stuffed up the original infallible Word of God for their own purposes. No one Christian holds that the KJV translation is the infallible Word of God, nor the NIV translation or any other translation. We all hold that the original manuscripts are the Word of God and that modern day translations are based on the Word of God. Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is inspired by God or "God-breathed". Translators do their best to ensure accuracy as they translate from the original language into English, for example, but occassionally they do make a mistake or don't get the correct intended meaning of a passage. But this has nothing at all to do with the infallibility of the Bible as the Bible was not originally written in English.
Also, we first start to get a glipse of the Trinity at work in Creation, Genesis 1:2 says, and the Spirit of God was moving over the water. Hmm, I wonder whom this is a reference to? But I think the point about the Trinity being established long before the extended verse of 1 John 5:7 was added has been bashed over the head enough times by various people.
Upvote
0