I John 5:8?

[Pressing-On]

The Interlinear:

"the Spirit and the water and the blood also these three in one are" I John 5:8

Some say that "These three are one" was added and not original to the text.

If a person were reading the New International Version, this is what they would see:

"the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NIV)


Comments?

[Amanah]

Good topic, looking forward to reading the replies

[Apostolic1ness]

The Interlinear:

"the Spirit and the water and the blood also these three in one are" I John 5:8

Some say that "These three are one" was added and not original to the text.

If a person were reading the New International Version, this is what they would see:

"the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NIV)


Comments?

blessed holy trinity

JK

[Michael The Disciple]

That verse was the first verse shown to me used to prove Oneness doctrine. These three ARE one, not agree in one.

[Pressing-On]

That verse was the first verse shown to me used to prove Oneness doctrine. These three ARE one, not agree in one.

That is awesome! In your studies, do you have any reference or documentation on how this verse came to be viewed and written both ways, ie, Oneness and Trinitarian?

Have you taught a lesson surrounding this passage?

[1ofthechosen]

That is awesome! In your studies, do you have any reference or documentation on how this verse came to be viewed and written both ways, ie, Oneness and Trinitarian?

Have you taught a lesson surrounding this passage?

I see those as the witness in the earth As John 3:5 says the new birth would be, water and Spirit. While people fight over where is the blood applied, this scripture shows to me where it is upon the earth. That if you don't have all 3 witnessed the water and the Spirit you have not the blood. Which there's so many people that say oh well you just have to have the Spirit, or you just need to be baptized. But this scripture says that all 3 agree in one. You have to have all 3 or no new birth.

I see some sources just say 1 John 5:7 was added while others 5:8 also. Thats funny Brother Michael said it was one of the first scriptures shown to him to explain the oneness. For me it was a great revelation on salvation and the new birth, because they are the witness of whether your saved or not.

[Esaias]

The Interlinear:

"the Spirit and the water and the blood also these three in one are" I John 5:8

Some say that "These three are one" was added and not original to the text.

If a person were reading the New International Version, this is what they would see:

"the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NIV)


Comments?

The last time I used an NIV was as a doorstop.

[Pressing-On]

I see those as the witness in the earth As John 3:5 says the new birth would be, water and Spirit. While people fight over where is the blood applied, this scripture shows to me where it is upon the earth. That if you don't have all 3 witnessed the water and the Spirit you have not the blood. Which there's so many people that say oh well you just have to have the Spirit, or you just need to be baptized. But this scripture says that all 3 agree in one. You have to have all 3 or no new birth.

I see some sources just say 1 John 5:7 was added while others 5:8 also. Thats funny Brother Michael said it was one of the first scriptures shown to him to explain the oneness. For me it was a great revelation on salvation and the new birth, because they are the witness of whether your saved or not.

:thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

The last time I used an NIV was as a doorstop.

Lol! What is your opinion on the NLT?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Lol! What is your opinion on the NLT?

I like how it translates Genesis 3:16 :couch

[houston]

I like how it translates Genesis 3:16 :couch

And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.


:happydance

[Pressing-On]

I like how it translates Genesis 3:16 :couch

Interesting that it is the scripture that you centered in.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Interesting that it is the scripture that you centered in.

Had a sister from another church family heard that one of our elders preached from it. She made a special trip to that Sunday night service with notebook and pen to ask questions. Needless to say elder answer all questions, neatly, and in order. But, that is another thread for another time. :D

[Apostolic1ness]

And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.


:happydance

now that explains a lot!

[Pressing-On]

Had a sister from another church family heard that one of our elders preached from it. She made a special trip to that Sunday night service with notebook and pen to ask questions. Needless to say elder answer all questions, neatly, and in order. But, that is another thread for another time. :D

So, I have a friend who really likes the NLT. I like it okay, but I don’t love it. What is your opinion?

[houston]

So, I have a friend who really likes the NLT. I like it okay, but I don’t love it. What is your opinion?

I love the gospels and most of the OT in the NLT.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So, I have a friend who really likes the NLT. I like it okay, but I don’t love it. What is your opinion?

I have people in the church family and the Bible studies who use all different translations in different languages. The NLT is ok, but some passages in the NIV I like as well. I told my wife to read the ESV, but she reads the original Greek, so she is constantly checking back and forth. I have read almost 30 different English translations, some from mild to wild. But, I still use a KJV, because It and the ASV were the two translations I know the best. But my opinion (its only my opinion) is to use the one which is best for your understanding. 17th century English is an issue for a lot of people. But, use a lexicon, Greek, and Hebrew dictionaries when you have a question. I understand there are those who are death on Concordances or Lexicons, but for a mature sister as yourself, you should have no problem. There are others who I would hope they would find a good teacher to help them before they pick up an English dictionary let alone a Greek or Latin one.

[Pressing-On]

I have people in the church family and the Bible studies who use all different translations in different languages. The NLT is ok, but some passages in the NIV I like as well. I told my wife to read the ESV, but she reads the original Greek, so she is constantly checking back and forth. I have read almost 30 different English translations, some from mild to wild. But, I still use a KJV, because It and the ASV were the two translations I know the best. But my opinion (its only my opinion) is to use the one which is best for your understanding. 17th century English is an issue for a lot of people. But, use a lexicon, Greek, and Hebrew dictionaries when you have a question. I understand there are those who are death on Concordances or Lexicons, but for a mature sister as yourself, you should have no problem. There are others who I would hope they would find a good teacher to help them before they pick up an English dictionary let alone a Greek or Latin one.

Thanks. I read the KJV, because I know it best as well. I read it alongside another translation of choice on Bible Gateway - side by side. I look at the KJV as providing trigger/familiar words or phrases that I can remember reading elsewhere in the Bible. Other translations don’t give me that.

What is your opinion of Thayers? I read that it uses the Koine Greek which is newer Greek and not as reliable. I may have that wrong, but I think I read that somewhere.

[Pressing-On]

I love the gospels and most of the OT in the NLT.

I like it okay. I don’t think I found one that I love. I like reading two at the same time, making comparisons. Two books I have never really enjoyed reading until just recently is I and II Corinthians.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Thanks. I read the KJV, because I know it best as well. I read it alongside another translation of choice on Bible Gateway - side by side. I look at the KJV as providing trigger/familiar words or phrases that I can remember reading elsewhere in the Bible. Other translations don’t give me that.

What is your opinion of Thayers? I read that it uses the Koine Greek which is newer Greek and not as reliable. I may have that wrong, but I think I read that somewhere.

Koine Greek is common Greek used by us simple folk. Like Aramaic was the language used by your common everyday Joe walking around Judea. Vulgar Latin is what is used in the Latin VULGATE. So the vulgar tongue of the New Testament is Koine, meaning common. My rule is don't use only one dictionary, but since you are blessed with the Internet, use many. Especially ones that give you references on how the ancient Greeks used the same words. The Bible language isn't confined to the Bible, but was used by everyone during the time of Christ. Everyone understood each other during their time and culture. We of the 21st century haven't a clue to why Paul's meeting on the Areopagus is so important to the story of Acts. Sadly individuals spend more time making things up to fit the 21st century that they lose the true meanings of what is actually being said to US.

[Pressing-On]

Koine Greek is common Greek used by us simple folk. Like Aramaic was the language used by your common everyday Joe walking around Judea. Vulgar Latin is what is used in the Latin VULGATE. So the vulgar tongue of the New Testament is Koine, meaning common. My rule is don't use only one dictionary, but since you are blessed with the Internet, use many. Especially ones that give you references on how the ancient Greeks used the same words. The Bible language isn't confined to the Bible, but was used by everyone during the time of Christ. Everyone understood each other during their time and culture. We of the 21st century haven't a clue to why Paul's meeting on the Areopagus is so important to the story of Acts. Sadly individuals spend more time making things up to fit the 21st century that they lose the true meanings of what is actually being said to US.

Thanks! :thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

Thanks! :thumbsup

Have fun

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/

[Scott Pitta]

Thayer's is hopelessly outdated.

Pick up a Walter Bauer lexicon. It is the only one worth using.

[Esaias]

Thayer's is hopelessly outdated.



Please demonstrate that with examples.

[Scott Pitta]

Our understanding of Koine Greek has rather expanded since Thayer put pen to paper. This included a better understanding of Koine grammar, word use, and available literature.

I do not give examples prior to coffee intake.

[Pressing-On]

Have fun

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/

Thanks! :thumbsup

[Pressing-On]

Thayer's is hopelessly outdated.

Pick up a Walter Bauer lexicon. It is the only one worth using.

Thanks! :thumbsup

Our understanding of Koine Greek has rather expanded since Thayer put pen to paper. This included a better understanding of Koine grammar, word use, and available literature.

I do not give examples prior to coffee intake.

I hear ya! LOL!

[Evang.Benincasa]

I do not give examples prior to coffee intake.

Isn't that convenient.

[Scott Pitta]

:)

[Pressing-On]

:)

How long does your intake last? Waiting... :D

[Scott Pitta]

Our understanding of Koine Greek has rather expanded since Thayer put pen to paper. This included a better understanding of Koine grammar, word use, and available literature.

That is what my Greek professor told us right before she told us to bite the bullet and purchase the Walter Bauer lexicon.

Buy a used one for nearly the same price as a new Thayer's. But be warned: it is not keyed to a Strong's concordance. One must actually be able to read Greek to use it.

[Pressing-On]

Our understanding of Koine Greek has rather expanded since Thayer put pen to paper. This included a better understanding of Koine grammar, word use, and available literature.

That is what my Greek professor told us right before she told us to bite the bullet and purchase the Walter Bauer lexicon.

Buy a used one for nearly the same price as a new Thayer's. But be warned: it is not keyed to a Strong's concordance. One must actually be able to read Greek to use it.

So, putting this into perspective. I don't speak or read Greek.

Going out on a limb, but I doubt the larger population of the Christian world does either.

We have the printed Word - lots of translations.

Does NOT speaking or reading Greek or Hebrew, for that matter, change anything that we already know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and does NOT speaking or reading Greek or Hebrew jeopardize our salvation in any way?

[Evang.Benincasa]

So, putting this into perspective. I don't speak or read Greek.

Going out on a limb, but I doubt the larger population of the Christian world does either.

We have the printed Word - lots of translations.

Does NOT speaking or reading Greek or Hebrew, for that matter, change anything that we already know about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and does NOT speaking or reading Greek or Hebrew jeopardize our salvation in any way?

A old Abuelita who was with Brother Morley, Sister Sallie Lemons (Brother Morley's wife, a Brother Bill Drost when they were in Colombia. Could only read the scripture in Spanish, no Greek, no Hebrew, no Aramaic. Just Spanish. She knew the Word backward and forward. Jesus One God, Jesus Name Baptism, Holiness unto the Lord, and the power of the Holy Ghost infilling with speaking in other tongues all with book, chapter, and verse.
No one has to be a Greek scholar to get some Jesus name understanding. You just need the Holy Ghost desire to seek the truth not matter what the cost. I was at Abuelita's bedside when she passed on, and her grandson and myself prayed with her while she spoke in tongues and magnified the Lord in Jesus name as she passed on.

[Scott Pitta]

My only point is the Bauer lexicon is not keyed to s Strong's concordance. So if you cannot read Greek, it would be difficult to use.

As far as faith is concerned, one language is good enough.

[Esaias]

Please demonstrate that with examples.

I guess you are fasting from coffee?

:heeheehee

[peter83]

The Interlinear:

"the Spirit and the water and the blood also these three in one are" I John 5:8

Some say that "These three are one" was added and not original to the text.

If a person were reading the New International Version, this is what they would see:

"the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (NIV)


Comments?
On earth the Spirit , the water (propably the baptism) and the blood of Jesus (his life,blood=life) give testimony for the Son of God.
Water=His birth (others say is the baptism that saves us and give us testimony of remission)
Blood=His Death. His blood is his life on earth (the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground)
Spirit=the Holy Spirit that God send to witness of the alive Son of God.(His Spirit is here.)

Now the strange thing is the grammatical order :
"The spirit the water and the blood also these three in one are"
Some people claim the because the "these" is on masculine does not make sense so the text could also include the "three that bear record in heaves".
But otherwise i dont think something serious about. :)

[Esaias]

On earth the Spirit , the water (propably the baptism) and the blood of Jesus (his life,blood=life) give testimony for the Son of God.
Water=His birth (others say is the baptism that saves us and give us testimony of remission)
Blood=His Death. His blood is his life on earth (the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground)
Spirit=the Holy Spirit that God send to witness of the alive Son of God.(His Spirit is here.)

Now the strange thing is the grammatical order :
"The spirit the water and the blood also these three in one are"
Some people claim the because the "these" is on masculine does not make sense so the text could also include the "three that bear record in heaves".
But otherwise i dont think something serious about. :)

Does it not mean "these three are into the one", as in these three things point to the same thing, or belong to the same thing?

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. 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. 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. 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.
(1 John 5:6-10)

Seems to be saying that the water, Spirit, and the blood are the witness of God that He has testified of His Son, and that all true Christians have that witness in themselves. Meaning, all true Christians have the water, Spirit, and the blood in their lives. And from other Scriptures, this appears to be referring to water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (by His blood), and receiving the Holy Spirit.

[1ofthechosen]

Does it not mean "these three are into the one", as in these three things point to the same thing, or belong to the same thing?

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. 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. 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. 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.
(1 John 5:6-10)

Seems to be saying that the water, Spirit, and the blood are the witness of God that He has testified of His Son, and that all true Christians have that witness in themselves. Meaning, all true Christians have the water, Spirit, and the blood in their lives. And from other Scriptures, this appears to be referring to water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (by His blood), and receiving the Holy Spirit.
That's the way I see it. And to tell you the truth I got a strong revelation off 1 John 5:8. It showed me where the blood is applied, as people argue over this all the time. Without being born of water, and Spirit there is no blood. But these three agree in one. So someone can say they are saved, but you don't have to wonder. There is 3 witnesses upon this Earth that agree in one, if any is missing then they are not saved. No ifs ands or buts...

I got a revelation of that God allowed that verse to give you Spiritual discernment. But did they add that, because 1 John 5:7 seems totally out of place?

[Pressing-On]

Does it not mean "these three are into the one", as in these three things point to the same thing, or belong to the same thing?

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. 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. 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. 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.
(1 John 5:6-10)

Seems to be saying that the water, Spirit, and the blood are the witness of God that He has testified of His Son, and that all true Christians have that witness in themselves. Meaning, all true Christians have the water, Spirit, and the blood in their lives. And from other Scriptures, this appears to be referring to water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (by His blood), and receiving the Holy Spirit.

The CEV places the water and blood coming from Jesus' side:

"Water and blood came out from the side of Jesus Christ. It wasn't just water, but water and blood. The Spirit tells about this, because the Spirit is truthful."

What is the passage actually saying when it says, "he that came by..."

[Pressing-On]

A old Abuelita who was with Brother Morley, Sister Sallie Lemons (Brother Morley's wife, a Brother Bill Drost when they were in Colombia. Could only read the scripture in Spanish, no Greek, no Hebrew, no Aramaic. Just Spanish. She knew the Word backward and forward. Jesus One God, Jesus Name Baptism, Holiness unto the Lord, and the power of the Holy Ghost infilling with speaking in other tongues all with book, chapter, and verse.
No one has to be a Greek scholar to get some Jesus name understanding. You just need the Holy Ghost desire to seek the truth not matter what the cost. I was at Abuelita's bedside when she passed on, and her grandson and myself prayed with her while she spoke in tongues and magnified the Lord in Jesus name as she passed on.

My only point is the Bauer lexicon is not keyed to s Strong's concordance. So if you cannot read Greek, it would be difficult to use.

As far as faith is concerned, one language is good enough.

I agree with you both. It just appears from reading posts through the years, we have people who criticize those that do NOT speak or read the original languages, when it wasn't necessary to do so all along. Just sayin'... That was what I was trying to get at.

[Esaias]

The CEV places the water and blood coming from Jesus' side:

"Water and blood came out from the side of Jesus Christ. It wasn't just water, but water and blood. The Spirit tells about this, because the Spirit is truthful."

What is the passage actually saying when it says, "he that came by..."

"from the side" is not in the original, so I discount that entirely.

He came by water refers to His baptism by John. That He came by blood signifies His death. He was presented to us as the Messiah by His baptism, and by His death. And the Spirit bears witness to His Messiahship, as Paul says in Romans:

Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

And again he says:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So Jesus was presented to us as the Son of God (Christ, or Messiah) by His baptism, His death, as well as the Spirit, which not only testified by means of the various miracles He did, but especially by His resurrection.

And this witness is something the believer has in him- or herself, namely the water, Spirit, and the blood. that is, the believer identifies with Christ in baptism, into His atoning death, and in the Holy Ghost (the new life God has given to those who believe).

[Pressing-On]

"from the side" is not in the original, so I discount that entirely.

He came by water refers to His baptism by John. That He came by blood signifies His death. He was presented to us as the Messiah by His baptism, and by His death. And the Spirit bears witness to His Messiahship, as Paul says in Romans:

Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

And again he says:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So Jesus was presented to us as the Son of God (Christ, or Messiah) by His baptism, His death, as well as the Spirit, which not only testified by means of the various miracles He did, but especially by His resurrection.

And this witness is something the believer has in him- or herself, namely the water, Spirit, and the blood. that is, the believer identifies with Christ in baptism, into His atoning death, and in the Holy Ghost (the new life God has given to those who believe).
:bliss:amen:hanky

[Pressing-On]

"from the side" is not in the original.
What is the "original text"?

[Esaias]

What is the "original text"?

The Greek. The CEV is a translation, and the text the CEV is a translation of does not have "from the side". The CEV is a really bad translation, more like an interpretive paraphrase, like The Living Bible.

[Pressing-On]

The Greek. The CEV is a translation, and the text the CEV is a translation of does not have "from the side". The CEV is a really bad translation, more like an interpretive paraphrase, like The Living Bible.
I agree.

If the majority of Christians do not read Greek, which translation is the best?

[Pressing-On]

One other question - You've quoted several times from the Interlinear at BibleHub. Do you find it reliable?

[Esaias]

I agree.

If the majority of Christians do not read Greek, which translation is the best?

Why, the King James, of course.

:thumbsup

There's also Young's Literal Version, the Geneva Bible, and even Jay Green's Literal Version.

Assuming of course we're talking about English speakers.

[Esaias]

One other question - You've quoted several times from the Interlinear at BibleHub. Do you find it reliable?

So far. Although usually I refer to either a Literal Version or sometime's Berry's Interlinear, or the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (interlinear). Although I try to check everything with my Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, and other sources. I have found Gill, JFB, and KandD as well as Barnes and Clarke to be good sources for looking at the original languages and providing insight into usages and meanings.

[Pressing-On]

So far. Although usually I refer to either a Literal Version or sometime's Berry's Interlinear, or the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (interlinear). Although I try to check everything with my Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, and other sources. I have found Gill, JFB, and KandD as well as Barnes and Clarke to be good sources for looking at the original languages and providing insight into usages and meanings.:thumbsup

I've always liked JFB. Read some things in the Pulpit Commentary that I liked.Gill seems to lean a little Catholic. At least that is my impression.

[Pressing-On]

Why, the King James, of course.

:thumbsup

There's also Young's Literal Version, the Geneva Bible, and even Jay Green's Literal Version.

Assuming of course we're talking about English speakers.

I like to check the YLV as well. :thumbsup

[Esaias]

:thumbsup

I'very always liked JFB. Read some things in the Pulpit Commentary that I liked.Gill seems to lean a little Catholic. At least that is my impression.

Ha! He was a Baptist, took over from Spurgeon. I think he'd take exception to being characterised as "leaning a little catholic". lol

Another good one is Vincent's Word Studies, and also Robertson's Word Pictures. I like them for the most part.

[Pressing-On]

What about the Biblia Hebraism Stuttgartensia?

[Pressing-On]

Ha! He was a Baptist, took over from Spurgeon. I think he'd take exception to being characterised as "leaning a little catholic". lol

Another good one is Vincent's Word Studies, and also Robertson's Word Pictures. I like them for the most part.

I don't know what gave me that impression of Gill. I check with him last. Lol! I have Vincent's Word Studies.

[Esaias]

What about the Biblically Hebraism Stuttgartensia?

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a Hebrew Masoretic text. I don't know how it stands in relation to the Leningrad text, or to the "official synagogue text" used in Orthodox synagogues. I don't read Hebrew (I know what an aleph looks like, and a shin, and can sometimes remember what a beth and a gimel look like, but as far as reading Hebrew text? Nope, can't do it. lol)

Stephen Avery would probably know a lot more about the various Hebrew texts. I don't know if Scott Pita would, he seems to specialise in the Greek New Testament texts? Brother Benincasa might know more about the Hebrew texts.

[Pressing-On]

The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia is a Hebrew Masoretic text. I don't know how it stands in relation to the Leningrad text, or to the "official synagogue text" used in Orthodox synagogues. I don't read Hebrew (I know what an aleph looks like, and a shin, and can sometimes remember what a beth and a gimel look like, but as far as reading Hebrew text? Nope, can't do it. lol)

Stephen Avery would probably know a lot more about the various Hebrew texts. I don't know if Scott Pita would, he seems to specialise in the Greek New Testament texts? Brother Benincasa might know more about the Hebrew texts.
:thumbsup

Okay, thanks for all the input!!!! :highfive

Gill really does sound like a Catholic sometimes. Lol!

[Scott Pitta]

I worked in a Yiddish neighborhood when I was a kid. But I do not speak any Hebrew.

[peter83]

Seems to be saying that the water, Spirit, and the blood are the witness of God that He has testified of His Son, and that all true Christians have that witness in themselves. Meaning, all true Christians have the water, Spirit, and the blood in their lives. And from other Scriptures, this appears to be referring to water baptism, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (by His blood), and receiving the Holy Spirit.

:thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

I worked in a Yiddish neighborhood when I was a kid. But I do not speak any Hebrew.

Huh?

[houston]

Huh?

Ashkenazi neighborhood

[Steven Avery]

Stephen Avery would probably know a lot more about the various Hebrew texts. A bit. The main point is that there is a solid uniformity in the Masoretic text tradition. Two verses in Joshua and one in Nehum have inclusion/omission variants. Psalm 22:16 has an important variant.

There is no reason to change, emend, the Masoretic Text based on Greek, Latin, Syriac, DSS, emendations of the sopherim, or any other ancient sources, including the infamous rogue Ugaritic Cognates. (A wrestling team at Stanford?)

The pure Reformation Bible, including the majestic Authorized Version, is solidly Masoretic Text based, pretenders need not apply. We always desire the inspired and preserved word of God. Ironically, the often villified Jerome historically made great contributions to understanding the Hebrew as one golden pipe (AV Preface) of Bible transmission.

The learned men of the AV did augment the Hebraics with other language OT editions in decisions on those tricky words like many animals and plants, where often the Hebraics (Aramaic Targumim, Talmud, Midrash, and rabbinics including Kimchi, Rashi and Aben Ezra, and others in the Mi’kraot Gedolot) offer more than one choice.

And the tetragram when pronounced is Jehovah, or in modern Hebrew, Yehovah.

“Yahweh” is not only wrong, you are calling on the devil Jupiter if you call upon that creepy name. Caveat emptor. Bible Truth 101.

That covers most of the real fundamental issues.

[Steven Avery]

Now the strange thing is the grammatical order :
"The spirit the water and the blood also these three in one are"
Some people claim the because the "these" is on masculine does not make sense so the text could also include the "three that bear record in heaves". Amen. An incredible evidence. Eugenius Bulgaris really emphasized the grammar c. 1790, and he was world-class-plus. Showing that the Johannine Greek text must have had the heavenly witnesses included.

There has been a huge agitprop campaign by the corruption version modernists to try to mask and fudge this powerful evidence of heavenly witnesses authenticity.

[Pressing-On]

Amen. An incredible evidence. Eugenius Bulgaris really emphasized the grammar c. 1790, and he was world-class-plus. Showing that the Johannine Greek text must have had the heavenly witnesses included.

There has been a huge agitprop campaign by the corruption version modernists to try to mask and fudge this powerful evidence of heavenly witnesses authenticity.

And who do you identify as the "heavenly witnesses"?

[peter83]

And who do you identify as the "heavenly witnesses"?

or to whom they witness :) somebody needs a witness in heaven?

[Steven Avery]

And who do you identify as the "heavenly witnesses"?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.

[Pressing-On]

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.

Agreed. I thought you were coming from another angle, such as, John Bevere in his book, The Bait of Satan, pg 26 - "Now do you think that when they sold him (Joseph) as a slave, God in heaven looked at the Son and the Holy Spirit and said, "What are We going to do now? Look at what his brothers have done. They have ruined Our plan for Joseph. We had better think of something quick! Do We have an alternate plan?" :doh

[Pressing-On]

Why, the King James, of course.

:thumbsup



I recently heard someone say that they hate reading the KJV. Personally, I think if you are lazy, you would hate reading it. Because you have to study every time you read it is the reason I say that you have to be lazy. JMO.

[peter83]

John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
We know he also send His Spirit ,so there are three witnesses IN the one (Jesus) .They came out of Him (the one) on this earth.

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 witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

He came through water =natural life,birth
through blood (that is the life too but he leaves it here)
He send his Spirit to bear witness in us
We have the testimony of the Water after regeneration
We have the testimony that the Son of God poured Ηis blood, His life for us
And the Spirit gives that information of the sacrifice and the things to come (the glory of the Son)

[houston]

I recently heard someone say that they hate reading the KJV. Personally, I think if you are lazy, you would hate reading it. Because you have to study every time you read it is the reason I say that you have to be lazy. JMO.

You have to study every time you read it?

[Pressing-On]

You have to study every time you read it?

Well, generally, things will pop into your mind (and I think you should be reading enough that it happens every time you pick up your Bible, IMO) that you read in another place, so you go there and put it together. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." II Tim. 2:15