bible versions

[gilgal]

how can you tell what version's reliable
http://wn.com/Textus_Receptus

[Richard Amiel McGough]

how can you tell what version's reliable
http://wn.com/Textus_Receptus

There are a lot of videos in that link you posted. And they present a variety of views. Is there one of them that you think is convincing?

[gilgal]

There are a lot of videos in that link you posted. And they present a variety of views. Is there one of them that you think is convincing?

Actually I didn't look at them yet. You don't need to look at them I just want to open the subject of the bible versions.

1John 5:7
Acts 8:37

We can start with these.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Actually I didn't look at them yet. You don't need to look at them I just want to open the subject of the bible versions.

1John 5:7
Acts 8:37

We can start with these.

The reason those verses are questioned is because they don't appear in many early manuscripts. Indeed, 1 John 5:7 is missing from them all as far as I know.

The issue is really simple. There are many different manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Which ones are correct? The only way to determine that is to look at the evidence and use our brains to the best of our ability. The folks who push KJV Only or TR Only do not know what they are talking about.

[gilgal]

The reason those verses are questioned is because they don't appear in many early manuscripts. Indeed, 1 John 5:7 is missing from them all as far as I know.

The issue is really simple. There are many different manuscripts of the Greek Bible. Which ones are correct? The only way to determine that is to look at the evidence and use our brains to the best of our ability. The folks who push KJV Only or TR Only do not know what they are talking about.

Thomas Holland had mentioned that 1John 5:7 included shows a perfect Greek grammar.

Plus that's the only place where clearly mentions the Triune God.
Also Acts 8:37 shows that baptism must be preceded by a believing heart found nowhere else.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thomas Holland had mentioned that 1John 5:7 included shows a perfect Greek grammar.

Plus that's the only place where clearly mentions the Triune God.
Also Acts 8:37 shows that baptism must be preceded by a believing heart found nowhere else.

Doctrinal reasons are not good reasons. On the contrary, the fact that 1 John 5:7 directly supports that doctrine of the Trinity suggests it was added later after that doctrine was developed some hundreds of years after the NT was written.

As for Acts 8:37, that's not the only verse that says you need to believe before being baptized:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

And what does "perfect grammar" have to do with the validity of the verse? There are lots of verses with very poor grammar that no one says should be rejected for that reason.

The folks who push for KJV Only or TR Only make very poor arguments.

[gilgal]

Not doctrinal, gramatical.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thomas Holland had mentioned that 1John 5:7 included shows a perfect Greek grammar.

Plus that's the only place where clearly mentions the Triune God.

Not doctrinal, gramatical.

The Trinity is not a doctrine?

[gilgal]

No i'm refering to the articles used on the nouns. If the verse is missing the gramar wouldn't make sense.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

No i'm refering to the articles used on the nouns. If the verse is missing the gramar wouldn't make sense.

I thought that's what you might have meant, but it's very different from what you said.

In any case, I am familiar with that argument. It has some merit, but not enough to declare that the verse belongs in the Bible.

When I wrote the Bible Wheel book, I found evidence for the inclusion of that verse that I thought was pretty compelling. I talked about it in my article called Three Witnesses for 1 John 5:7.