Coolhand

In regard to this, how would you say that the added or omitted portion of 1 John 5:7 changes the meaning of the pericope of verses 1 through 11? This is what I am not getting and what I think gets to the heart of your approach versus my approach. How does it change the meaning of the passage from your perspective? Have you discovered the meaning of this passage or are you just counting letters and words with no regard to content? How does it "derail" the text and make it "impotent?"

From page 11: Which is based on the majority text: οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν However, this was not continued by the critical text, the UBS text, or by Nestle’s work: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, No modern translations that I am aware retain this tradition except the KJV and the NKJV. Neither version changes the meaning of what is being said. You could argue that the addition in 5:7 teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, which I agree, but this doctrine is already taught in other places. Look at all the references to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are obviously not talking about the Father only. If it could be proven that ALL references in the New Testament are supposed to be either the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit you might have something in my opinion; but that is not the case. Now which is it: a) Was this line added? b) Was it left out? This is where I think we all need to have humility in approaching this because we do not have the originals. We have copies with many variants. Any speculation (in my opinion) is just speculation. When people start claiming the copiers of the texts were evil and wicked men they expose a bit about themselves. As a results we see what the result was from the above comparison of Greek texts in context in our English Bibles: NASB: 1 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. 5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. 10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. KJV 1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 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 agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. NIV 5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, 4 for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 thea Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. 9 We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. 10 Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. My argument on this passage is that: a) There is an apparent addition or omission but which it is cannot be determined without an original autograph. I agree that one is right and one is wrong, we are aware of it, and we have both, so there is no conspiracy of deception that is going on. b) The meaning of the text in which this sits in its context is not changed due to the mention of God, the Son of God, and the Spirit with in this portion of Scripture; the trinity is already understood from the context of this passage.

Which one do I use? This one: http://www.amazon.com/Biblia-Utriusque-Testamenti-Editio-Hebraica/dp/1598561790

You are trying to get me to argue points that I am not arguing. I asked you which texts you were refering to, which I suppose if there were so many it would be a rather easy task, however, you refer me to a length work which you apparantly are expecting me to take a part for you, and give you commentary on. And if I don't you apparant feel you have won. I have already told you that arguing about who the bigger heretic is, is not my interest. I think it is time for you to admit you do not have an example or state the example of: 1) the text that is altered and 2) what the text should say I'm not really sure what your problem is. By the way, Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece claims to be the closest to the original text; which I thought was ironic when compared to what he allegedly said in the post of yours.

You haven't explained anything, you copy and pasted something; unless you claim you wrote somthing that has an author attached to it. I did read your post, by the way; the whole thing. But that still is no substitute for you stating your case, but whatever; I figure if you had something to say you would say it instead of playing all these games. In teresting point from the article you posted is that Professor Nestle, the one whose name is on the Greek New Testament that the major Bible translations use. What are your thoughts on that? Its almost a "which way is it" deal.

Here is another: http://www.bartdehrman.com/mp3_MBTS_resurrection/MBTS_resurrection.htm

Here one for ya:

Looking for a good link that compares Dead Sea Scrolls with the Hebrew Tanakh. Any ideas?

Are we talking about texual evidence, or the writings of the church fathers (and others) arguing over who the bigger heretic is?

Since the 4th century seems to be the target of the alleged crime, this might place an interesting spin on things: "Category:3rd-century biblical manuscripts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd-century_biblical_manuscripts The 4th Edition Greek New Tesament has a rather thorough apparatus which lists the variants and which papyrus, or uncial, miniscule, version, or lectionary they come from. Many people who hold the point of view that Cronshaw holds seem suprised that so many of Greek texts predate the 4th century.

I read the article and saw a lot of one man quoting another man; no actual textual displays for the debates. Definately nothing I see worth rebutting, definately nothing new anyways. Doctrines about I am not interested in arguing about. In addition, the whole Arian debate was argued for thousands of years; not interesting. From page one: And from page three: ...which is the big set up for.... From page five: Which is where I should have stopped an hour ago, but didn't. Beside all the quoting and misquoting going, on the argument I assume you are taking is: "The proof that the Scriptures were altered,is evidenced by the thorough job done by the corrupt "Correctores" that destroyed all the evidence."

Amazing...............

So if I have this right, I am supposed to read 46 pages (I did a count) and then I am supposed to argue what I believe to be your side of an arguement with myself? Is that it?

Excellent! I have "Misquoting Jesus" as well. "The translator is a traitor" I know the problem. Here is a link to online interlinear Bibles; Hebrew and Greek. I agree, quit screwing around with the English Bible for exegesis. Wouldn't it be nice to raise the bar that high. ....really?.......

What Scriptures are you claiming were altered?

I'm not saying I'm too busy to hear his argument; I'm trying to get him to state what his argument is based on. This idea of "here, read this this explains it" and then expecting someone else to figure out what the person's argument is, is incorrect in my opinion. If the argument is so complex that 30 something pages is required to express it, it is probably so convoluted it is not worth understanding. If it cannot be stated specifically then it is not an argument; it would be more of a feeling. The validity of the argument cannot be evaluated until the argument is stated; which we are still waiting for. How can something be clear and concise if 80% of it is difficult to understand?

How about this? Can either of you point specifically to an altered biblical text? Put your theology and and philosophy aside and show me a text that was altered and the proof that it was altered. That should not take take 30 pages of sectarian discourse; it should take about 2 paragraphs or less.

Bro......I am currently reading 8 books for school, 1 for work, and 2 for church. The point is not about me having the "fortitude" to wade through what appears to be about 30 pages of text that may or may not state your points of support for your arguement, it is about you actually having a case to state or not. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

State your case bro.......what text were altered? what did they originally say? and when did the alteration happen?

Thousands of texts are not a weak argument.

Regardless of how many time you repeat this, it is still a weak argument with no support.

See what I mean?

My desire is that a Jew reading my sermons would say that aleast I have the proper perspective in handling the Tanakh, and that I do not "Christianize" Jewish ideas. Most Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, so they would disagree with me there. I would argue that corruption is a better word than an evolution. People do not want to acknowledge that there is a God, and that by lying, blaspheming this God, and stealing they have broken this God’s laws and stand guilty before God; condemned for their willful and volitional actions. That is the crux of this alleged “evolution.” It is insulting to people to acknowledge their faults. Until a person can, people like Spong will continue to gain followers, because he tells people what they want to hear. They want to hear God made me this way, it is not my fault, it is someone else’s fault, and that this is all just fairy tale. If a person can read the Bible, compare what the Bible says to what Spong says and find agreement, then there is no reason to further discuss it because then you have to put reason aside. Or, have a discussion that violates the Law of Non-Contradiction ("A" cannot be "A" and not "A"), which then means you have suspended the Law of Identity and the Law of the Excluded Middle. It would be irrational.

....yeah......I would say it is essential......

Here is my question about Spong: Why does he wear the collar and align himself with a with the Episcopal church and write authoritatively about the Bible when he denies the plain church doctrines and the plain reading of the Bible text? The man is a philosopher and a motivational speaker, no doubt. His ideas on loving I totally agree with and can't think of anyone that would not agree with. However, his doctines and philosphy do not agree with the denomination that he ties himself to; and in fact appear to be in conflict and disagreement with Episcopal doctrines. ????????