Understanding 1john 5:7&8

[Quietfire]

Hi Pham,

I just need some clarification on this particular verse in the Catholic Bible vs. the NIV bible.
I will type it as it appears in both with footnotes:

Catholic: The Holy Bible
7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, And these three are one.
8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.

*Ver. 8. [i]The spirit and the water and the blood.[/i] As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the [i]spirit,[/i] which he yielded up, crying out with a loud viice upon the cross: and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity and [i]are one;[/i] that is, all agree in one testimony.

NIV:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood: and the three are in agreement.

*Ver 7,8. Late manuscripts of the Vulgate [i]testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[/i]
*Ver 8. [i]And there are three that testify on earth: the[/i] (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)


Ok ready.
Some claim that the reference in the Catholic Bible (1Jn 5:7) is a documented proven forgery. Probably because of the NIV's statement (*Ver 7,8) to get them going.

And they (the "some claim") were generous in providing me with a link to prove thier claim.
I have not checked this link out, when I clicked on it, it was [i]by them, for them.[/i] And I have a problem with that, since it screams Jehovahs Witness (for lack of a better analogy. my apologies.)

There is obviously a difference between these two (2) translations...why?
If the claim is that its a forgery, before I get my brain into more of a grinder, could someone just show me proof that it isnt?

Thanks and
PEACE

[NeWeStCoNvErT]

OK clarificcation what translation is the catholic bible in?(there are several different translation (RSV bieng the best in my opinion )but neways maybe i can clear this up for you if you get back to me

pax,
Joyce

[Quietfire]

ok, Im here

Maybe its the way of your wording but I am a bit confused...

[quote]OK clarificcation what translation is the catholic bible in?(there are several different translation (RSV bieng the best in my opinion  )but neways maybe i can clear this up for you if you get back to me[/quote]

maybe a rephrase?

[thicke]

My copy of the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition) has the following for 1 John 5:6-8:

[quote]6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the blood.

7 And the Spirit is the witness because the Spirit gives truth.

8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.[/quote]

While at the same time, the RSV (non-Catholic) has the following:

[quote]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 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.[/quote]

The Douay-Rheims has the following:

[quote]6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.

7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water and the blood. And these three are one.[/quote]

The Vulgate has the following:

[quote]6 Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus : non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Christus est veritas.

7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.

8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.[/quote]

Then, the King James (definitely not Catholic) has the following:

[quote]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.
[/quote]

It looks to me that there is a discrepancy in the verse numbering, not in the translation, as all of these translations still get the same message across...

Which Catholic translation are you using (i.e. RSV-CE, NAB, Douay-Rhiems, etc.)?

[Quietfire]

Catholic Bible - 1943- Translated from the latin vulgate and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other edition in divers languages (the old testament was first published by the english college at douay, a.d. 1609 and the new testament was first published by the english college at rheims, ad 1582.) with notes by bishop challoner and the encyclical letter "the study of the holy scriptures" by Pope leo XIII and a preface by Rev. william H Mcclellan, S.J. -woodstock college, Md. Also an appendix containing an historical chronological index, a table of references, maps and other helpful matters. the douay bible house, new york 1943.



(thank goodnes for cutting and pasting!)

P.S. on the cover it does say "The Holy Bible" and below reads "Douay"


hope that helps.

[thicke]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 1 2004, 11:35 AM'] Catholic Bible - 1943- Translated from the latin vulgate and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other edition in divers languages (the old testament was first published by the english college at douay, a.d. 1609 and the new testament was first published by the english college at rheims, ad 1582.) with notes by bishop challoner and the encyclical letter "the study of the holy scriptures" by Pope leo XIII and a preface by Rev. william H Mcclellan, S.J. -woodstock college, Md. Also an appendix containing an historical chronological index, a table of references, maps and other helpful matters. the douay bible house, new york 1943.



(thank goodnes for cutting and pasting!)

P.S. on the cover it does say "The Holy Bible" and below reads "Douay"


hope that helps. [/quote]
I'm not sure if that one is Douay-Rheims or Douay-Challoner. Anybody else know?

Quietfire, did I gave you an adequate answer to your question?

[Philippe]

wata about the NAB Bible ? thats what i have

[Quietfire]

I understand.

I have been told many times that I tend to miss the point when I attempt to explain or ask a question.

so I will make it as simple as I can.

these are NOT my words.......
[quote]This is a documented proven forgery >>> 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.[/quote]

they are saying that what is in that verse is a forgery and there is proof of it. They gave me a website( and the rest is in my original statement at the top of the page)

PEACE

Edited May 1, 2004 by Quietfire

[Quietfire]

BUMP

[thicke]

Oh got 'cha, sorry, I was so worried about parts mis arranged in the verse numbering I missed that Trinitarian formula was gone from some translations.

I'm stumped, anyone else know?

[thicke]

I did find this:

[url="http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/1john5_7.html"]http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/1john5_7.html[/url]

It is Protestant and slanted to the KJV.

If someone is trying to disprove the Trinity to you, I would suggest studding the following links:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp[/url]

And oh course since it sounds like you deal with Jehovah's Wittinesses a lot, take a look at these:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp[/url]

Just below astrology and reincarnation under non-Christian groups is a list of links for JW's.

[Katholikos]

Quietfire,

One of the realtively unknown facts of Christianity (to average Christians) is that there are no originals of the biblical writings. None. Zero. Zip. All we have are copies. The earliest copies in the original biblical language of the New Testament (Greek) date from the fourth century. There are translations into Syriac, Old Latin, and Coptic from the second century. And lots of fragments, but these are also copies.

The original "autographs" were written by Catholics, to Catholics, and for Catholics. All of the existing copies were made by Catholics. There are variations in all the texts. Why any Protestant accepts these writings as the Word of God since they written and then copied by Catholics is beyond my understanding. If they don't trust the Church, why do they trust what she wrote?

I think some "expert" is blowing smoke in your face when they speak about "forgeries."

The first "forgery" known to have been committed in Scripture was when Martin Luther added the word "only" to Romans 3:28.

Variations in the biblical text were a natural occurrence in the copying process. The originals disagree in the details also.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[Quietfire]

[quote]undefinedThis is a documented proven forgery >>> 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.[/quote]

[quote]undefinedI think some "expert" is blowing smoke in your face when they speak about "forgeries."[/quote]


I think thier 'claim' is that this is nowhere written. That it was added by the church. Therefore it would be a 'forgery'.

The debate was over the trinity. I will honestly admit that I dont understand it all myself, but I also admit that that doesnt mean I should dismiss it either.

I guess the hardest part is the Holy Ghost, or Spirit. I see the point about the Father and Son for the most part. As stupid as this may sound hear me out...
God the Father showed himself to Moses, even if it was his back with his hand covering Moses' eyes to block the view of Our Fathers face (lest he die) It was still 'evidence', at least to me. No need to go farther.
Jesus was of the flesh, spoke TO his Father, couldnt be talking to himself with that understanding, they are one....God the Son.

Still kindof stumped on the Holy Spirit.
HE descended as or like a dove, Jesus stated he will send another (would that imply a separate person?) It just confuses me a bit.

I guess because the bible 'shows' me the physical of God and Jesus, its easier for my mind to grasp it. Like I 'saw' the person of God and the person of Jesus.

I just need to 'see' the person of the Holy Spirit, and can HE move of his own accord or is he subordinate of the Father and Son.

Peace..
qf

[Quietfire]

oh, and the copy of my bible shows that passage but is it in any newer catholic bibles.

I think mine is outdated...its pre Vatican II

I guess I need a new one. But which one or two or three. I like to cross reference with different ones. But I would rather have the ABSOLUTE BEST NUMBER ONE CATHOLIC HOLY BIBLE first, then get others.

thanks,
peace.
qf

[Katholikos]

The Christian belief in the Trinity is not based on any one text in the Bible. The Trinity was defined at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Read the Nicene Creed.

This is the defining doctrine for Christianity. Those who do not believe in the Trinity are not Christian.

True, original Christian doctrine was not based on reading the NT but on the teaching of the Apostles. The NT confirms our beliefs, but it is not their source.

The NT is not a textbook in Christianity. It can't be read that way.

How much training have you had in the biblical languages? In history? In the culture(s) of the ancient Holy Land? In exegetics? Would you try to interpret a text in astrophysics or astronomy without any training? These are questions for you to consider, not answer. Sounds like you're playing with fire, quietfire.

Understanding the Bible requires a teacher with the authority to teach -- the Catholic Church is the only authority. She wrote the NT and is its only rightful interpreter.

JMJ Likos

[Katholikos]

Hi,

I looked that text up in my NAB (New American Bible). That's a Catholic Bible (1986).

Here 'tis: "[b]7[/b] So there are three that testify, [b]8[/b] the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord."

Here's the footnote: "5:6-12 Water and blood refers to Christ's baptism (Mt 3:16-18) and to the shedding of his blood on the cross (Jn 19:34). The Spirit was present at the baptism (Mt 3:16, Mk 1:10, Lk 3:22, Jn 1:32-34). The testimony to Christ as the Son of God is confirmed by divine witness 7-9)."

This is not a verse that the Church uses to refers to the Trinity. In fact, I don't know of any the Church uses. The Trinity can't be "proven" by the NT. It's alluded to, but not explicitly. Nothing in the NT says "God the Son is consubstantial (one in being) with the Father."

This is hard to understand if you're a Protestant or have been influenced by Protestant teaching. But the Church was founded by Christ and was taught by the Apostles before, during, and after the time the NT was written. The NT incorporates what the Church was teaching. It was written by believers to believers. That's why some doctrines are not plain (for example, the Trinity) and some things are hard to understand -- Christians had already been taught what to believe. The Church didn't read the NT and then decide what to teach -- she knew what to teach because the Apostles were her leaders and teachers. The Church selected 27 writings out of about 200 she had produced in the early centuries of Christianity, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. The Church also canonized the OT Scriptures she had inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She put the collection together and called it "ta Biblia" -- the Bible. She was almost 400 years old when she did that!

These people who are trying to deceive you eat bull-oney for breakfast.

JMJ Likos

[Quietfire]

Likos,
True, I have had none of the training that you mentioned. But there is one small thing to consider here, I am not denying the trinity. I also understand that the belief in the trinity is not based in any one text in the bible. Everything you stated, I understand and I agree with.

So what is the problem? I seem to get the impression that you are ticked that either I dont get it, require enlightenment on it or that I asked in the first place. I am being honest here.

I have had no training because I was never raised catholic...only baptised.
I asked for patience in my understanding and acceptance of the Father and Son aspect of the Trinity, as that I understood. I realize it was rather rudimentary or embryonic in its explaination, but like I said in my earlier statement, I tend to miss the point when I attempt to explain or ask a question.
Which brings me back right were I was before your answer, if thats what it was, since my last two postings dont seem to match (as questions) what your answer is.
Did you read the entire thread?
Or just my last two posts?

I have asked several questions here to help me understand my baptised faith more clearly, both as quietfire and as a guest. Most here now know that I was only baptised as an infant in the Church, and as an adult, I am trying to understand Catholicism. I thought my 'signature' made it easier for all to understand, I guess I was wrong.

I honestly believe your response was both premature and indignant.

Quietfire.

[Quietfire]

Likos,
You still eluded my original questions.

P.S. I have had no protestant training either.

[Katholikos]

Quietfire,

Have I completely misunderstood?

Please explain it to me in words of one syllable.

I read every one of your posts before I wrote a word. I was under the impression that someone had told you that these verses were a "forgery" perpetrated by the Catholic Church to somehow prove or reinforce the doctrine of the Trinity?
And that if it weren't for this "forgery," somehow the Trinity would be proven to be a false doctrine.

My posts were meant to suggest to you that whoever it is that is claiming the Church perpetrated a forgery is feeding you bull-oney.

If that's not the import of your posts, I apologize.

I gave you a little Bible history that I assume you didn't know. I'm aware of your background. I was not in anyway criticizing you. I'm sorry if my comments came across that way. The criticism in my posts is aimed at the false teachers I thought you were reading or associating with.

I'm truly sorry if I offended you. It was unintentional.

JMJ Likos

[Quietfire]

Oh, ok. No harm. Besides, I cant stay mad at you. 1st- what would I do anyway, spank my computer?! and 2nd- I need to learn.

I am sorry too. I was hurt because I had thought that everyone understood me, and instead of just humbly and graciously exlaining it again, I bit your head off. Please forgive me?

Ok, just read the very first post. Not the whole thread.
The verse with the Father,Son ....

does not appear in the 'non-catholic' bible. that I know.
It was most likely removed...right?

BUT my question is rather, Has that verse always...like ALWAYS been in the Catholic bible? From manuscripts and on?

I mean I know the bible in 'print' hasnt been around all 2000 years, and that alot of stuff is gone,
I got all of that.

But I cannot believe someone just 'added' it.
does that help?
after this then maybe we can move on to the rest of the thread.

Peace.