1) Trinity is taken from [1 John 5:7 (King James Version)], has been used sometimes to prove that Trinity is taught in the Gospels. The verse says: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one".
2) "Jesus as Son of God" is taken from [John 3:16] has been used to prove that Jesus is Only Son of God. The verse says: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son".
3) "Jesus as God" is taken from [John 10:30] has been used to prove that Jesus is God. The verse says: "I and my Father are one".
Yet, these verses have been removed from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV) by Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by cooperating Christian denominations, as it was an interpolation, a later addition to the text of the statement.
Why these verses are not in the RSV Bible ? If then, are Trinity and Jesus as God doctrines still valid ?
2007-07-12 15:22:21 · 9 answers · asked by LoveJesus 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
You answered your own question: "as it was an interpolation, a later addition to the text of the statement."
Is that not good enough for you? Or do you prefer to believe in known fabrications?
2007-07-12 15:26:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
These verses are missing because the text used for the RSV was taken from the 1881 Wescott-Hort Greek translation. The claim they found more manuscripts. The KJV was taken from the Erasmus text in the 1500's.
2007-07-12 15:29:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Emphatic Diaglott footnote on 1 John 5:7 slipped up on its quotation from Newcome’s translation (1808), in which the footnote reads: “This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. . . . It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.”
2007-07-12 15:33:06 · answer #3 · answered by conundrum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The RSV never attained the status of being one of the better translations, so what is more disturbing is versions like the NIV which has attained high recognition and has removed the deity of Christ from verses like John 3:16. Plus many more errors.
2007-07-12 15:29:00 · answer #4 · answered by oldguy63 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Christians that think God wrote the King James Version are more delusional than all the other Christians.
The oldest editions of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are manuscripts. And none of them agree 100%. The editors of the King James Version took many liberties, adding Christology where it didn't originally appear.
2007-07-12 15:28:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
That is why the newer versions seem to have contradictions. Even though it is archaic to some, the King James Version (authorized 1611) will not contradict and do not have to remove or apologize to anyone.
The newer versions were arranged through counsels of "smart" theologians who claimed this Greek word best means this, or this Hebrew word should be interpreted as such. (Nobody has the originals to go by anyway)
The KJV was arranged through humble servants interpreting for their king
(I know I'll get slack for this one)
2007-07-12 15:32:28 · answer #6 · answered by Amoeba Man 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which RSV are you reading ? One of them was put out to be politically correct and that rexplains those as well as other changes. ( Yes the word of God done PC) Can the world get stranger?
2007-07-12 15:29:42 · answer #7 · answered by David F 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That said verse was NEVER in the original Manuscripts.
2007-07-12 15:25:25 · answer #8 · answered by Royal Racer Hell=Grave © 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I can't answer all of them but here's one of the answers.
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
2007-07-12 15:31:37 · answer #9 · answered by Martin S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋