Those who deny the Lord Jesus is God (=YHWH) are not saved (2 Corinthians 11:4)

You’re reading Jesus into the text, not out of the text. That, again, is what Dr. Brown called “a patent misreading of scripture.”
Here's a picture I created using a drawing program called Visio, a few years back, to bring and capture the essence of the Prologue of John 1 into perspective and with some historical context. It is a work in progress and can be improved by other sets of eyes, most definitely. There is no pride of authorship when it comes to having the benefit of understanding or attempting to understand the divine WORDs of God our Father.

1695217832365.png
 
BDAG (3rd Edition): John 1:1abc, 14...It is the distinctive teaching of the Fourth Gospel that this divine 'Word' took on human form in a historical person, that is, Jesus (logos, page 601).
Yes BDAG refutes the unitarian position of an impersonal word. Thanks!
 
Paul received the Gospel of the Grace of God, directly from Jesus.
Paul told us that he received it from no man, but from Jesus Himself.

The Gospel is the "preaching of the Cross"....."is the power of God unto Salvation""".

The Gospel is not..."believe that Jesus is God, and you shall be saved".


Jesus is God....Yes, "God manifested in the flesh", but the Gospel is not that specific teaching.

The Gospel : is that God became one of us to offer the BELIEVER eternal restoration back into Himself, spiritually, as born again....= "Grace through Faith".

That's the "Gospel of the Grace of God".
There are many gospels in Scripture.
If "received the 'gospel of grace' from no man" is a reference to Galatians 1:11 all Paul is describing is the Old Testament Scripture.
Being a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin Saul/Paul had access to the First Covenant Scriptures. Reading and studying those Scriptures whether Saul understood this or not he was planting the Seed of the Word of God in his mind (I don't like 'heart' because the 'heart' doesn't think and is actually a reference to OT understanding of the 'whole being' of a person) lay dormant as all he knew was the letter of the Law. But once the Holy Spirit entered his life, he saw the Scripture in a new, understanding light (spirit of the Law) and was able to think through those same Scriptures to come to the knowledge of the truth and later write his theology in his letters to his brethren that were saved at the various churches he wrote to, mainly, Jewish Christians.
The two witnesses of Revelation 11 will do the same thing and use the OT to reach the twelve tribes and then all Israel will be saved. He doesn't say, "all Israel will come to accept Jesus," but merely that "all Israel shall be saved." And this salvation promised to them of God is covenant related.
 
“Why does Grammar of Grace use the Geneva Bible for its Bible translation? It’s really obscure! Well … actually, the Geneva Bible used not to be obscure. It’s true that most of today’s Christians haven’t heard of it, but it turned the world upside down in its day. Even secular historians count it as one of the most important documents in English history, because everybody was reading it.

The choice of Bible translation for Grammar of Grace received a lot of consideration. But in the end, the answer was never was really in doubt; again and again, the Geneva Bible was the clear winner.

Why? Well, there were two main reasons - accuracy and language. …”


I love irony. This article was just too good to pass up.

Grammar and Grace -> Geneva Bible, because of accuracy and language.

Grammar and Grace certainly doesn’t believe the trinitarian translators of the Bible were grammar illiterates.

And for those wondering - yes, Grammar and Grace is a trinitarian organization.

One of the trinitarians here might want to warn them that the translation they adopted as their official Bible was translated by trinitarians who were not only grammar illiterates, but who also believed God is an “it”.

@snynergy? @civic? You both strike me as men of conscience who would hate to see trinitarians going down a wrong path. Would you consider reaching out to them?
 
Kirk Cameron has something that he says we need to read.


I remember seeing commercials like this on television a few years ago. (I seldom watch television today.)

Mr. Cameron is a very popular and influential Christian.

Would he be urging people to purchase and read the Geneva Bible if he thought it was written by trinitarians who were grammar illiterates and believed God as an “it”? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it.

Men of conscience - @civic, @synergy - would you consider reaching out to Kirk Cameron? You would be doing him, and those whom he influences, a good service if you did. (If you’re right).
 
where did I call any trinitarian theologian, grammarian, bible translator illiterate ?

I called the translators of the NWT illiterate since none of them had linguistic degrees in Hebrew of Greek.
 
“The Geneva Bible is a very important English translation and was the primary Bible used by many early settlers in America. In recent years, it has gained in popularity again, both because it is an excellent translation and because of its well-written study notes.”


The Geneva Bible has gained in popularity and is an excellent translation?

Shouldn’t they be warned @civic? @synergy?
 
where did I call any trinitarian theologian, grammarian, bible translator illiterate ?

I called the translators of the NWT illiterate since none of them had linguistic degrees in Hebrew of Greek.

I thought you had agreed with @synergy that they were. My apologies if, in fact, you actually disagree with him.

Nevertheless, aren’t you concerned about the growing popularity of the The Geneva Bible? Aren’t you alarmed by trinitarian organization praising it for it’s accuracy? If you’re right, wouldn’t it be a good thing to warn them about the Geneva Bible?
 
yes better accept the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 in the geneva, tyndale and KJV

There is no Trinity in 1 John 5:7 in those translations. You’re connecting the dots in them to assert that there is. Then there is the whole matter about whether or not it is even genuine to begin with. As I said, I agree with Metzger and others who say that it is spurious.

Whether it is or it isn’t spurious, the verse doesn’t say the three are the Trinity.

after-all they are infallible translations ...........................

next...........

Neither one of us believes that.
 
Nevertheless, aren’t you concerned about the growing popularity of the The Geneva Bible? Aren’t you alarmed by trinitarian organization praising it for it’s accuracy? If you’re right, wouldn’t it be a good thing to warn them about the Geneva Bible?

I'm concerned not because of bad grammar but because of antiquated English, which impedes comprehension.

It's interesting how one translation I have great respect for handles the pronouns (Rotherham's):

John 1:1 Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
2 The same, was originally, with God.
3 All things, through him, came into existence, and, without him, came into existence, not even one thing: that which hath come into existence,
4 in him, was, life, and, the life, was, the light of men.--
5 And, the light, in the darkness, shineth; and, the darkness, thereof, laid not hold.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:1-14 ROT)
 
1 John 5:7 has come up several times and I’ve often replied by saying that I agree with Metzger. So what does Dr. Metzger say about it?

”That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain, in the light of the following considerations. …”

 
I'm concerned not because of bad grammar but because of antiquated English, which impedes comprehension.

It's interesting how one translation I have great respect for handles the pronouns (Rotherham's):

John 1:1 Originally, was, the Word, and, the Word, was, with God; and, the Word, was, God.
2 The same, was originally, with God.
3 All things, through him, came into existence, and, without him, came into existence, not even one thing: that which hath come into existence,
4 in him, was, life, and, the life, was, the light of men.--
5 And, the light, in the darkness, shineth; and, the darkness, thereof, laid not hold.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:1-14 ROT)

I should have included you in my list of men of conscience. Would you consider reaching out to the various trinitarian groups who are heaping praise on the Geneva Bible?

Your concern about antiquated English has been addressed by the publisher. You can read about the modern language edition at the link.


Would you consider writing to the publisher about it? I’ve written to various publishers and they’ve all been very good about responding to my comments and questions.

Would you @civic? How about you @synergy? The more people the publisher hears from, the better.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of 1 John 5:6-8..I had some notes already are the subject....like @civic ... I came somewhat prepared...(y)

Verses 7 and 8 were deliberately altered to promote the Trinity concept during the 16th century. They added in some comments for actual scripture. The closest correct English translation of these verses are “For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

From the precious verse 6, the meaning of course was to show that Jesus was born by the Spirit, and possessed this spirit of truth of the Father Water from his side and shed blood from, on the cross. These all three establish Jesus’ presence while he was on earth.

What the forgers did was to confuse the reader by adding in the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,”

They wanted to reinforce the false model of their three personalities of God: The Father, the Word, as the Son.

No early and genuine Greek manuscript of scripture before the 14th Century had the heavenly three witnesses in them. In fact, the same can be said for the Latin early text. These forgers only served the interests of the Pope, Roman Catholics and King James of England.

Sources: (Wilson 1865) (The Jerusalem Bible, New Testament 1966) (Wheless 1930) (Erasmus c. 1516) (New International Version (NIV) 1967)

Other sources (Dr. Daniel Wallace):

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin)…

It began with Desiderius Erasmus and his “Novum Instrumentum omne” which was the first New Testament in Greek to be published. This Greek text is also referred to as the Textus Receptus. Erasmus did not include the infamous Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5:7-8 in either his 1516 or 1519 editions of his Greek New Testament with very good reason. But it made its way into his third edition in 1522 because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared in 1516, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma Trinitarian formula because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced called the Codex 61, that was written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520, he reluctantly agreed to include it in his subsequent editions. Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns. He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Thus it passed into the Stephanus Greek New Testament in 1551 (first New Testament in verses), which came to be called the Textus Receptus, and became the basis for the Geneva Bible New Testament in 1557 and the Authorized King James Version in 1611.

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? (Wallace DB. The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8. http://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-5:7-8)

Catholic scholars realize that the texts that Jerome used to originally put together the Latin Vulgate Bible (the basic Bible for Catholics) did not have the late addition (which, of course, it could not originally have had as that addition came about many centuries after Jerome did his translation).

Basically, what seems to have happened is that a monk put a personal note related to his interpretation of the ‘three’ mentioned in the first part of 1 John 5:7. One or more scribal monks after him, inserted his note actually in the text. God did NOT inspire it.

Scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gave the following explanation in his “Emphatic Diaglott.” Mr. Wilson says, “This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of the early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious.
 
So my point in bringing up 1 John 5:7 is all of them kjv,geneva anf tyndale all made mistakes/errors in their translations. So why should I believe them in John 1:2-3 ?

That is my point. They were wrong in both passages. :)
 
So my point in bringing up 1 John 5:7 is all of them kjv,geneva anf tyndale all made mistakes/errors in their translations. So why should I believe them in John 1:2-3 ?

That is my point. They were wrong in both passages. :)

There’s a glaring problem with the point you’re trying to make: There is a manuscript issue in regard to 1 John 5:7. There is no manuscript issue in regard to John 1:2-3.

Since you‘re acknowledging that there is a problem with 1 John 5:7, why did you ask me to believe the spurious verse?
 
Back
Top Bottom