Question for evolutionist

[badtim]

I believe one word will not fail, that is why we still have the KJV. Doesn't mean the KJV is perfect but the text from which it came was.

which text would that be, specifically? if you're referring to the receptus or the masoretic, both of those have issues also. if you're referring to the autographs, how would you know? they don't exist.

 

[createdtoworship]

which text would that be, specifically? if you're referring to the receptus or the masoretic, both of those have issues also. if you're referring to the autographs, how would you know? they don't exist.

the receptus of the byzantine text has small slips of the pen but no contradiction or error. Not everything is true in the Bible but even the lies of imperfect men in the Bible are recorded perfectly. So the Bible is without error in it's original autographs but it depends on which family of MSS you use. The byzantine are quoted from by the nicene fathers in quite a few places.

 

[createdtoworship]

He claims Metzger's point that the comma produces an awkward break in sense 'is far from true'. Yet he does nothing to address the point. instead he goes on about what 'that one' inverse 8 refers to, well το is the definite article which does not have to refer back to anything and the simplest translation of the passage is that the three witnesses are one, they are united in their testimony. If you want to insist το εν is 'that one' and refer back to something, the comma throws up really big problem.

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

According to this interpretation the Spirit the water and the blood are part of the Trinity
The phrase 'in earth' doesn't have to be knocked out because it is part of the comma. Verse 9 is a theme that comes up twice in the gospel John 5:31-36 and 8:17&18 and doesn't need the comma to make sense.

some interesting observations you have made.

 

[createdtoworship]

There's lots of evidence against the verse, but the clincher for me is that the passage was never once quoted at the council of Nicea. If it was a legitimate verse, it'd have been the first verse bar none that the Athanasians would have used to defend the deity of Christ. Yet it never was - it never rated a mention.

Edit: not that this is on-topic or anything.

augustine uses the term "three witnesses three in one" and the term 'three in one' is not in the scriptures accept in the 1 John 5:7-9- and augustine quotes it like a verse.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

"I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, 'There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one.' Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, 'the three are one:' for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another. If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one substance. Thus, if we should say, the rock and the water are one, meaning by the Rock, Christ; by the water, the Holy Ghost: who doubts that rock and water are two different substances? yet because Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same nature, therefore when one says, the rock and the water are one, this can be rightly taken in this behalf, that these two things of which the nature is diverse, are signs of other things of which the nature is one. Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, 'And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:' then, as His side was pierced by the spear, 'blood and water.' Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, 'There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:' so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, 'God is a Spirit:' by the term, blood, the Son; because 'the Word was made flesh:' and by the term water, the Holy Ghost; as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, 'But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive.' Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 'Witnesses,' who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, 'I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me.' Where, though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated from them. Howbeit neither concerning the Spirit hath He kept silence elsewhere, and that He too is a witness hath been sufficiently and openly shown. For in promising Him He said, 'He shall bear witness of me.' These are the Three Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance. But whereas, the signs by which they were signified came forth from the Body of the Lord, herein they figured the Church preaching the Trinity, that it hath one and the same nature: since these Three in threefold manner signified are One, and the Church that preacheth them is the Body of Christ. In this manner then the three things by which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to 'baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 'In the name:' not, In the names: for 'these Three are One,' and One God is these Three. And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected. For whenever in Holy Scriptures in order to exercise the minds of the faithful any thing is put darkly, it is to be joyfully welcomed if it can be in many ways but not unwisely expounded."77

from
Defense of the Johannine Comma

 

[Targ]

augustine uses the term "three witnesses three in one" and the term 'three in one' is not in the scriptures accept in the 1 John 5:7-9- and augustine quotes it like a verse.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

I was talking about the Council of Nicea in 325AD, so I'm not sure why you are talking about Augustine, 65 years later, in around 390AD.

 

[Tiberius]

I believe one word will not fail, that is why we still have the KJV. Doesn't mean the KJV is perfect but the text from which it came was.

Then why bother with the KJV at all? Why not just go from the original text that the KJV came from?

 

[createdtoworship]

Then why bother with the KJV at all? Why not just go from the original text that the KJV came from?

because it's koine greek, and I don't speak it. But you are right to a point, I like youngs literal translation. It seems to do a hefty job.

 

[createdtoworship]

I was talking about the Council of Nicea in 325AD, so I'm not sure why you are talking about Augustine, 65 years later, in around 390AD.

does the counsel of nicea even mention the trinity, I appologize for my lack of understanding. but I know that in my studies I have found trinitarian language similiar to 1 John 5:7-9 in other writings as well....

Against Praxeas (c. 213)
Tertullian chapter 2.... (160-220a.d.)

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word m such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the monarkia (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the monarkia (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). "

 

[Targ]

does the counsel of nicea even mention the trinity, I appologize for my lack of understanding. but I know that in my studies I have found trinitarian language similiar to 1 John 5:7-9 in other writings as well....

The council was about the deity of Christ, but even so, the oneness of Christ and the Father is suggested strongly in the words that were later added to 1 John 5v7-8 and would have been a key text used, yet it was never mentioned once.

Against Praxeas (c. 213)
Tertullian chapter 2.... (160-220a.d.)

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word m such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the monarkia (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the monarkia (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One). "

Although Tertullian was one of the first to use the word trinity (trinitas in Latin), his definition of it was different to the modern definition of trinity. His views are known as ontological subordinationism, which is deemed heretical by most Christians. Hence:

As regards the subjects of subordination of the Son to the Father, the New Catholic Encyclopedia has commented: "In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical."

Source.

 

[Assyrian]

some interesting observations you have made.

Of course, this is not an argument against the comma itself, just Boyd's attempt to answer Metzger''s case against the comma.

augustine uses the term "three witnesses three in one" and the term 'three in one' is not in the scriptures accept in the 1 John 5:7-9- and augustine quotes it like a verse.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

"I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, 'There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one.' Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, 'the three are one:' for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another. If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one substance. Thus, if we should say, the rock and the water are one, meaning by the Rock, Christ; by the water, the Holy Ghost: who doubts that rock and water are two different substances? yet because Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same nature, therefore when one says, the rock and the water are one, this can be rightly taken in this behalf, that these two things of which the nature is diverse, are signs of other things of which the nature is one. Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, 'And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:' then, as His side was pierced by the spear, 'blood and water.' Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, 'There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:' so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, 'God is a Spirit:' by the term, blood, the Son; because 'the Word was made flesh:' and by the term water, the Holy Ghost; as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, 'But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive.' Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are 'Witnesses,' who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, 'I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me.' Where, though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated from them. Howbeit neither concerning the Spirit hath He kept silence elsewhere, and that He too is a witness hath been sufficiently and openly shown. For in promising Him He said, 'He shall bear witness of me.' These are the Three Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance. But whereas, the signs by which they were signified came forth from the Body of the Lord, herein they figured the Church preaching the Trinity, that it hath one and the same nature: since these Three in threefold manner signified are One, and the Church that preacheth them is the Body of Christ. In this manner then the three things by which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to 'baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' 'In the name:' not, In the names: for 'these Three are One,' and One God is these Three. And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected. For whenever in Holy Scriptures in order to exercise the minds of the faithful any thing is put darkly, it is to be joyfully welcomed if it can be in many ways but not unwisely expounded."77

from
Defense of the Johannine Comma

Look at what Augustine is doing here. He sees a symbolic representation of the Trinity in the three witnesses in verse 8, the spirit the water and the blood, and he goes to great lengths to show how this symbolism works. Yet there is no mention of a direct reference to the Trinity in the previous verse, in the comma. Why doesn't he mention it? He goes back to Matthew 28 and baptizing in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not mention of the three heavenly witnesses in the previous verse!! Doesn't make sense. Unless of course Augustine had never heard of the comma. It does however show you how the church was interpreting verse 8 as a figurative reference to the Trinity before the comma turned up, which in turn explains why the interpolation turned up here.

 

[1611AV]

Why cant man live past 120 years old?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why cant man live past 120 years old?

We can: Jeanne Calment, 122 years old.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

We can: Jeanne Calment, 122 years old.

And she was a smoker too!

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course, this is not an argument against the comma itself, just Boyd's attempt to answer Metzger''s case against the comma.

Yet there is no mention of a direct reference to the Trinity in the previous verse, in the comma. Why doesn't he mention it? He goes back to Matthew 28 and baptizing in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, but not mention of the three heavenly witnesses in the previous verse!!

the phrase "three in one" is mentioned and it is in the comma....

that phrase would have to come from somewhere...

 

[1611AV]

We can: Jeanne Calment, 122 years old.

Thanks WC.

Yeah I seen that. I would like to see the B-Certificate. I mean people in general and a man more specifically. I may start smoking soon

 

[pgp_protector]

We can: Jeanne Calment, 122 years old.

Just because

But that's not a man, that a Woman

 

[pgp_protector]

Though the oldest Man did appear to make it to 138, but died 3 years ago.
The world's oldest man dies at the age of 138 | Mail Online

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Why cant man live past 120 years old?

Apoptosis.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Thanks WC.

Yeah I seen that. I would like to see the B-Certificate. I mean people in general and a man more specifically. I may start smoking soon

Scientists did a lot of research with her and other people over 110 years old. They found a lot of genetic polymorphisms that pretty much guaranteed they'd live a long time, provided they didn't die of an accident or something. A lot of the predisposing effects are metabolic, as in a net decrease in caloric intake and usage and stuff like that predisposes to long life. They think that it's because if you burn more calories and are generally more metabolically active throughout your life, you generate more oxidative wear-and-tear on the tissues. But these people who live to outrageous ages have metabolisms that do much less wear-and-tear, so they live much longer. Fascinating stuff!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Apoptosis.

Definitely plays a huge role. But the theories I've heard have a lot to do with pathways leading to tissue injury (which results in apoptosis), such as oxidative stress, carbonyl stress, or telomere shorting. Underlying all of this is an evolutionary explanation that our bodies really are just efficient enough to get us through puberty to raise kids for the next generation. To evolution, who cares if you live to 100 if 16-30 is the prime reproductive window?