Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all ought to at least be honest enough to accept that we frequently haven't a clue about what we spout off to others, not from the texts we have, anyway.
Please don't pull me into your "we". I know what I believe. I believe what is in the word of God, of which I am quite certain. Part of the reason I went to the Seminary is to find exactly what the Bible does in fact teaches. So I reject most translations, since most are very bad, slanted and corrupted. But I have complete confidence in the Greek New Testament. So I only use translations that strive to be faithful that text. Therefore I am quite comfortable and confident in my beliefs and I teach exactly what I believe to be true.
So there are numerous textual reasons for removing a text that was placed in I John for the purpose of "selling" people on the adoption of the dogma of the Trinity.
Other conservative scholars also doubt the authenticity of I John 5:7-8
1 John 5:7
So let's see what our OP's commentator, Daniel Wallace, writes about these passages:
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
I'm afraid that using I John 5:7-8 as a foundation for the Trinity is like the man building his house on sand. While I believe in the Trinity, it is not from any specific scripture that points one to it. It can only be arrived at utilizing both textual criticism and a brain. The dogma is just that--a creation by the early Roman Church fostered by scribal additions.
I rest the case for scribal additions and/or deletions having gutted certain central dogmas as preached by the church today. The OP may resort to citing his original videos again, but even Dan Wallace has been shown to not be a complete dunce with regard to his scholarship in textual criticism. Would to God that could be said of us all.
It is well known that the Johnnine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is not authentic. And I pointed that out to you earlier. The point that you seem not to understand is that that doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon the Johnnine Comma and therefore its inclusion did not change any point of doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity was already well established before Erasmus included the Comma in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament.
07-19-2014, 08:20 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
I guess we are not allowed to quote posts from another thread even if it is regarding the same subject using the exact same quotes from scholars. New to Me!
So there are numerous textual reasons for removing a text that was placed in I John for the purpose of "selling" people on the adoption of the dogma of the Trinity.
Other conservative scholars also doubt the authenticity of I John 5:7-8
1 John 5:7
So let's see what our OP's commentator, Daniel Wallace, writes about these passages:
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
I'm afraid that using I John 5:7-8 as a foundation for the Trinity is like the man building his house on sand. While I believe in the Trinity, it is not from any specific scripture that points one to it. It can only be arrived at utilizing both textual criticism and a brain. The dogma is just that--a creation by the early Roman Church fostered by scribal additions.
I rest the case for scribal additions and/or deletions having gutted certain central dogmas as preached by the church today. The OP may resort to citing his original videos again, but even Dan Wallace has been shown to not be a complete dunce with regard to his scholarship in textual criticism. Would to God that could be said of us all.
You know, I always was suspicious of that interpolation into 1John, the 5:7-8 because we find nothing else like it in the Bible. It effectively is the single passage in ALL of scripture that tries to sell the idea in such stark detail that there is a trinity of Gods and that they are all equal and One. There may be a few other passages that hint at it as in John's gospel, "I and MY Father are One." but nothing comes this close to actually spelling the dogma of the trinity out as the 1John.
You are one of about 50% of seminary students who hang in there, augie. Statistics show that seminaries like Dallas, Fuller and your alma mater are faith-killers. 50% of high school grads who are all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Christians eager to become ministers either drop out, lose their faith during college, or after becoming ministers strictly because of the issue the OP raised about the scriptures being inerrant. Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, and Jerry deWitt are only three of the tens of thousands of former on-fire-for-the-Lord Christians who dropped out of Christianity after finding out the Bible is rife with errors and certainly NOT inspired by God.
Ehrman often states how when he wrote a paper on a Markan statement that conflicted with general consensus and handed it in to his Professor, Bruce Metzger, the professor wrote at the bottom, "Maybe Mark just made a mistake". That, Ehrman states, started him on his road to agnosticism and then atheism.
thrill and that is the problem people always fined themselves in whose faith in God is tied up with the bible. as soon as they realise the bible has many error they lose all faith in God. It is truly a shame that God cannot be God without the bible, yet for many that is what they believe.
Again you resort to making ad hominem attacks. My integrity is not the issue and there are no contrary opinions involved in recognizing that the Bible is the Word of God but also recognizing that the manuscript copies have variants. And yes, they are experts.
You are taking 1 John 2:27 ( you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things,) out of context. Those to whom John wrote were already relatively spiritually mature from teaching they had already received and needed no further teaching to guard them against the false teachers. In contrast, those to whom the writer of Hebrews wrote were in need of again being taught the elementary principles of the oracles of God when they should have been teachers themselves (Hebrews 5:11-12).
The Dead Sea Scrolls deal with the Old Testament. The subject is the New Testament Scriptures and whether our New Testament text is reliable.
Nice try Mike but the contrary opinion of your two views is not the variant you speak of but the outright ADDITION by men that where added to the scriptures and the belief that the bible is the unadulterated word of God.
your only defence for your two contrary opinions would be in you do not understand what unadulterated means, however I doubt that that is the case.
So when Jesus said the spirit will lead us into all truth he must have been mistaken according to your take on those scriptures.
Your claim that it is a spurious viewpoint is simply your unqualified opinion. As stated in the Commentary, the meaning of those verses is difficult to determine. And your reference to the lying pen of scribes is obviously aimed at the apostle Paul and is another false accusation on your part.
Dr. Wallace wrote this article on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. https://bible.org/article/textual-pr...thians-1434-35 and his conclusion is ''We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.''
And again, you miss the point. The addition of a verse such as the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7-8) does not change what the Bible teaches. The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on that passage.
Your claim that textual reliability is false is itself false as has been stated by the quoted textual scholars.
It is well known that the Johnnine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) is not authentic. And I pointed that out to you earlier. The point that you seem not to understand is that that doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon the Johnnine Comma and therefore its inclusion did not change any point of doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity was already well established before Erasmus included the Comma in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament.
So you agree that so called scripture is not really scripture, then turn around and say the bible is the unadulterated word of God. Mike those two views simply are not compatible.
So you agree that so called scripture is not really scripture, then turn around and say the bible is the unadulterated word of God. Mike those two views simply are not compatible.
There are examples of adulteration, unknown authorship, lying pen of the scribes, false teachers, additions, political agendas, etc. When you combine those factors with the lack of ANY original manuscripts . . . we have no idea what has been added, removed, altered or why . . . and no way to find out. How anyone can claim it is the 100% inerrant word of God is beyond belief. It doesn't NEED to be. We can test each and every verse against the Spirit of agape love for compatibility. Christ abides with us as the Living Word of God. I am afraid that truth is what is NOT believed about Christ.
Your claim that it is a spurious viewpoint is simply your unqualified opinion. As stated in the Commentary, the meaning of those verses is difficult to determine. And your reference to the lying pen of scribes is obviously aimed at the apostle Paul and is another false accusation on your part.
And again, you miss the point. The addition of a verse such as the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7-8) does not change what the Bible teaches. The doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent on that passage.
Your claim that textual reliability is false is itself false as has been stated by the quoted textual scholars.
Sorry, but YOU have missed the point of the title of your own thread. Every single established source including Daniel Wallace admits that the deletion of 1 John 5:7-8 weakens the doctrine of the Trinity. Now some point to other verses, less definitive (as you do) to support that view, but it was that particular verse which was the cornerstone of the Trinity argument. So the Trinity is simply not a rock hard principle for Christianity to lean on. Those who argue against it have significant points to make. So the unshakeable Bible you are trying to portray has been shaken. It is those of your group who are fighting to maintain viewpoints that have no solid foundation in the scholarly world. I even quoted another, MORE conservative scholar who agrees with Wallace's assessment.
And no, the lying scribes were not Paul--they just succeeded in making him look bad with their marginal notes regarding their "women should keep silent in the church" viewpoints. How do you think Paul would have felt two hundred years after the fact to find out this had been put in and is being used today by many evangelicals to prevent women from standing in the pulpit? And it is inerrantist literalists that take false additions to Paul's writings and turn them into dogma for the church---which Christians are fighting with zeal now and beginning to turn the corner on those still stuck with views from medieval times.
Interpreting scripture is one thing. Accepting the lies of scribes as the writing of Paul is simply an attempt to maintain chauvinistic attitudes of hundreds of years ago. It's time to move away from letting lying scribes set the agenda in churches.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New to Me!
because we find nothing else like it in the Bible. It effectively is the single passage in ALL of scripture that tries to sell the idea in such stark detail that there is a trinity of Gods and that they are all equal and One. There may be a few other passages that hint at it as in John's gospel, "I and MY Father are One." but nothing comes this close to actually spelling the dogma of the trinity out as the 1John.
