the NWT is amazingly deceptive and twisted. It could take years to fully grasp all the doctrimally motivated alterations.
It could be years before the WTS is done tampering with the textus receptus so that it will fit their theology.
New World Translation Errors
by ClassAvenger 75 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Hamas
Grade A research again Undisfellowshipped ! I will be adding your info to my site shortly thank you so much !
-
ChristianObserver
Hello :-)
You might want to use a different Bible translation (not KJV) in your discussions. The KJV contains the Johanine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 - which was probably a gloss added later: "For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost and these three are one" and a favourite criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses about the KJV. The RSV/NRSV are considered to be more scholarly by some.
You can access a 50's version of the Awake magazine which criticised the KJV about the time the NWT appeared:
Not sure if the link will work - you might need to copy and paste it. It will give some idea of what the WTBTS think of the KJV.
-
ClassAvenger
Yes, he already answered back to me saying that 1 John 5:7 was something added later and that many agreed that it was not an authentic versicle. Can anyone explain the addition of that text to me?
-
onacruse
ClassA, there are a good number of Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John. The most notable are the Siniaticus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th cent.), and Vaticanus (4th cent.), none of which include the extra words of 1 John 5:7, 8. The NIV Study Bible comments:
...the addition is not found in any Greek manuscripts or NT translation prior to the 16th century.
Barnes rightly observes:
...it is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be wanting in all the early Greek manuscripts.
So how did it get there? The Abingdon Bible Commentary offers:
...some time, in the fourth century or toward the end of the third, a Spanish Chirstian (probably), who wrote in Latin, formed [the phrase]. Perhaps he wrote it on the margin of his copy of 1 John and some later copyist thought it part of the text, but in any case these words were quoted as part of the Latin Bible in Spain at least as early as 380 AD...This "gloss"...spread, and finally became so universal in Latin-speaking Christianity that it was even translated into Greek and was added to a few late Greek [manuscripts]. From these it found its way into printed editions, and so into the first English versions.
An interesting historical perspective on how the Bible came to be the "Bible."
Craig
-
Alleymom
The Comma Johanneum is a textual variant which has long been recognized by most textual scholars as a a scribal interpolation of a marginal gloss into the body of the text. It was never quoted by the Church Fathers in the great Trinitarian debates, and it does not appear in any of the early Greek manuscripts. It is not usually used as a Trinitarian proof-text, because almost all Christian scholars (outside of the small "King James Only " camp) reject it as a false reading.
Even very conservative, traditional Bible scholars who reject the Westcott-Hort Greek text (the one used as the basis of the NWT) because of its "Coptic corruptions" do not accept the Johannine Comma as genuine. For instance, Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad who edited The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, do not include the Johannine Comma in1 John 5:7.
The King James Version reads as follows for 1 John 5:7-8:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
There are 498 extant Greek manuscripts which contain the fifth chapter of the first epistle of John. Of those 498 manuscripts, the words "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and there are three that bear witness in earth" are found in only 8 manuscripts: numbers 61, 88, 221, 429, 629, 636, 918, and 2318. However, six of those eight contain the words only in the margin, usually in a more modern hand than that of the original.
Here is a breakdown of the evidence:
#61 -- a 16 th century edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament text.
Erasmus’s first two editions of the Greek NT did NOT contain the Comma Johannine because it was in none of the manuscripts Erasmus had seen. When the Catholic church protested his omission of the Comma, Erasmus promised to add it to future editions IF manuscript evidence was produced, and ta-da(!) a manuscript was conveniently found. So the 3 rd edition does contain the Comma; however, Erasmus added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript has been prepared expressly in order to force him to add it to his Greek NT. It is thought that the passage was copied from the Vulgate and inserted into the Greek manuscript by a Franciscan friar (Froy or Roy).
# 88 -- a 12th century Greek minuscule. The Comma appears in the margin in a modern handwriting
#221 – a 10th century Greek minuscule. The Comma is added in the margin and the marginal addition is dated to about 15th or 16th century
#429–a 14th century Greek minuscule. Comma in the margin
#629 –a 14th century Greek minuscule. Comma in the body text.#636 – a 15th century Greek minuscule. Comma in the margin in a modern handwriting.
#918 – a 16th century Greek minuscule. Comma in the body text.
#2318 – an 18th century Greek minuscule with the Comma in the margin of the text.Written in the Latin of the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.
So the words "the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and there are three that bear witness in earth" do not appear in most English translations of the Bible because textual scholars realize that those words do not appear in the original Greek text.
It is important to note that the doctrine of the Trinity in no way rests upon this particular reading. Almost all orthodox, traditional Christian scholars (IOW, "Trinitarians") reject the Johannine Comma as spurious even though they maintain the scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.
I have some websites bookmarked (both pro and con) if you are interested. Also any standard work on textual criticism (such as Metzger or Aland) has a section mentioning the Johannine comma.
Basically, many people think it's only in the KJV because Erasmus caved in and didn't stick to his guns.
Marjorie
-
UnDisfellowshipped
1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Now, I am sure that immediately when some people see 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version, they probably think that it was not part of the original Scriptures, especially since only the King James Version includes it.
However, by doing a little bit of research, I have discovered some information that supports this Verse as being part of the original Scriptures, and I will post these facts here:
1 John 5:7 is supported by Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) who wrote: "The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,‘ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘and these three are one.‘" (The Treatises of Cyprian I:1:6; 250 A.D.).
If I am not mistaken, I believe that 250 A.D. is earlier than any of the Manuscripts that have been discovered for 1 John 5:7. Please correct me if I am wrong on that.
So, if 1 John 5:7 is not part of the original Scriptures, then it was added very, very early, and was somehow accepted as being true by the Church Fathers very, very early.
That would have been somewhat like adding to the original Constitution, and then using the added words to make an arguement, and having no one notice that those words were added.
Also, here is a very good Web Page I found discussing 1 John 5:7:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html
200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
636 AD Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.
Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7."
John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."
Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.
_________________________________
However, even without 1 John 5:7, the Trinity is definitely taught throughout the Bible, especially the New Testament.
-
onacruse
Marjorie, and UD, Excellent research! If I may comment on a couple of your points:
Basically, many people think it's only in the KJV because Erasmus caved in and didn't stick to his guns.
So, if 1 John 5:7 is not part of the original Scriptures, then it was added very, very early, and was somehow accepted as being true by the Church Fathers very, very early.
That would have been somewhat like adding to the original Constitution, and then using the added words to make an arguement, and having no one notice that those words were added.
Aside from the issue of whether these words should or should not be included in the "official" Bible , what you both say illustrates very clearly how the "development" of accepted Scripture was fraught with all kinds of linguistic, territorial and political considerations.
It is so easy for a Christian today to pick up that nice little leather-bound book that has the beautiful gold-leaf title of "Bible" and just assume that what it contains was somehow, perhaps magically, preserved by God, word-for-word, from the very day of His inspiration of the words contained therein. It wasn't like that at all! Disputes and variants continued on for many centuries, even about what would otherwise be considered a pivotal text like 1 John 5:7. Indeed, if that reading was commonly accepted, it would have been a killer at the Nicea councils...but it was never used in those debates.
So also with the NWT. JWs pick it up, open the pages, and assume that what it says is "the way it is." And then take it door-to-door, as I also did for many years, and tout it as the "best Bible translation on the planet."
Again, thanks for your research...you both provide very interesting historical info.
Craig
PS: I also, now, believe that the Bible teaches the Trinity (how's that for a switch, coming from a lifer-JW? )
-
Alleymom
The NWT mistranslates the Hebrew word "degel" ("flag" or "standard") throughout the book of Numbers in the Old Testament. Their translation is "[three-tribe] division". The brackets are a give-away that something fishy is going on. This is an example of theological bias.
Numbers 1:52; 2:2; 2:3; 2:10; 2:17; 2:18; 2:25; 2:31; 2:34; 10:14; 10:18; 10:22; 10:25
You can verify this with a Hebrew-English interlinear and with a Strong's Lexicon. The word "degel" is Strong's word # 1714. Only one definition is given:
1) banner, standard
Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.
Marjorie
-
Alleymom
Cyprian certainly interpreted the passage as referring to the Trinity, but it is by no means established that he actually had the Johannine comma in his text.
I have information on both sides of this issue, if you are interested.
Daniel Wallace has addressed this in his article
"The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian".
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/cyprian.htmHere is an excerpt:
" The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum.
Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):
(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss.
On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7.
In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, "The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’"
What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language.
It is quite significant, however, that
(a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’
(b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit"), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words.
It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: "Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’." The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, "and these three are one"—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.
Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
Regards,
Marjorie