Why is there not a John 4 in the bible? I have looked at several bibles and it goes from John 3 to John 5. Just curious! Heather
I mean there is not a John chapter 5 verse 4
I mean there is not a John chapter 5 verse 4
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why?
- Thread starter heatherwayno
- Start date
- Status
- Jan 29, 2006
- 7,721
- 228
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Interesting! I don't know the answer - I've looked in my NKJV, NIV, The Message, and the Good News translations, and they all have John 4. What version are you looking at?
Upvote
0
I guess I needed to be more specific- It is John chapter 5 and it has verse 3 and 5 but not 4.
Upvote
0
Ohhh! that verse, "for from time to time an angel came down into the pool and stirred up the water. The first to plunge in after this disturbance recovered from whatever disease afflicted him."
The reason that many Bible's don't have that verse (except maybe as a footnote) is that it does not appear in most manuscripts.
The reason that many Bible's don't have that verse (except maybe as a footnote) is that it does not appear in most manuscripts.
Upvote
0
Of the Greek texts that we use in translating the New Testament, it's a minority that contain that verse. As far as English language Bibles that actually include that verse, I really don't know.
Upvote
0
- Jan 29, 2006
- 7,721
- 228
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
My NKJV has verse 4, with a footnote about how it's not included in some manuscripts - however, my NIV does not contain verse 4.
Upvote
0
AngCath,
you have to be careful when presenting this type of discussion. It has nothing to do with the "number" of manuscripts. In fact, the vast majority have the verse. However, the earliest manuscripts, and otherwise those deemed to be the best, are what are followed in modern translations. Therefore, the NIV and others will lack the verse.
Upvote
0
Nazaroo
Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)
The short answer for the omission of the verse in some 'bibles' or its placement in the margin or in footnotes, is that some early Egyptian manuscripts are missing the verses.
However, the majority of manuscripts of all ages and origins contain the verses in their usual place, including the Latin Vulgate and the traditional English and German bibles (KJV and Luther's).
Since the early 20th century however, textual critics in university settings have tended to omit any verses found missing in early manuscripts as a principle. That is, they have followed the maxim, "When in doubt, take it out!".
This however is not really a scientific or reliable way of reconstructing the New Testament text. More conservative scholars have resisted following the 'hack and slash' methods of secular scholars, and have preferred to keep traditional readings unless sufficient evidence warranted their 'bracketing' or exclusion.
A good but technical discussion of this very issue (which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of many scholars) can be found here, in this thread;
http://www.christianforums.com/t2706010-textual-evidence-for-john-81-11.html&page=2
On this actual passage, try this introduction:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh5_4.html
However, the majority of manuscripts of all ages and origins contain the verses in their usual place, including the Latin Vulgate and the traditional English and German bibles (KJV and Luther's).
Since the early 20th century however, textual critics in university settings have tended to omit any verses found missing in early manuscripts as a principle. That is, they have followed the maxim, "When in doubt, take it out!".
This however is not really a scientific or reliable way of reconstructing the New Testament text. More conservative scholars have resisted following the 'hack and slash' methods of secular scholars, and have preferred to keep traditional readings unless sufficient evidence warranted their 'bracketing' or exclusion.
A good but technical discussion of this very issue (which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of many scholars) can be found here, in this thread;
http://www.christianforums.com/t2706010-textual-evidence-for-john-81-11.html&page=2
On this actual passage, try this introduction:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh5_4.html
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
