Understanding 1john 5:7&8

[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.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 1 2004, 09:33 AM'] 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 [/quote]
1 Jn 5:6, 7, 8, 9

King James Version (Protestant)

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 agree in 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.

The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (Protestant)

1 Jn 5:6, 7, 8, 9

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. 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.

---------

If you looked up 20 translations, both Catholic and Protestant, you would find that they all vary -- every one of them -- because translating is not an exact process. Translators must choose the words that they think best convey in the target language (in this case, English) the meaning that the writer(s) of the first language intended (in this case, Greek). Word-for-word translations from one language to another are nonsensical. And sometimes there is no equivalent phrase or combination of words that will convey the exact meaning.

All of the existing manuscripts preserve variant readings. No two are exactly the same.

[Quietfire]

Glad you came back to talk, Likos.

Ok, but my point is a simple question...

the Catholic Bible has the verse 7 as (dont mind the large print Im not shouting)

and there are three that give testimony in heaven;T[color=red] THE FATHER, THE SON AND [/color][color=red]THE HOLY GHOST[/color] [color=blue]AND THESE THREE ARE ONE[/color]
its that verse, that exact verse that these persons claim is a forgery, added by the Catholic Church to put some 'meat' on the trinity doctrine with specifically the blue part especially.

MY 1st question was... is that true? I cant believe the Church would 'add' this particular line in the Bible unless they have ALWAYS had this truth. But I have no way of proving it.

I know the Church does not just 'add' stuff at thier own accord. I cant prove it, but I know they dont. I know everything in the Catholic Bible is truth. Dont ask me how I know, I just do. Ive always had a problem with the Protestant Bible because there were books missing from it.
And I am getting off the subject again.............. sorry.

So....minus my dialogue of faith at the bottom...do you understand my first question?

Peace and Love

Edited May 3, 2004 by Quietfire

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 3 2004, 10:14 AM']Glad you came back to talk, Likos.

Ok, but my point is a simple question...

the Catholic Bible has the verse 7 as (dont mind the large print Im not shouting)

and there are three that give testimony in heaven;T[color=red] THE FATHER, THE SON AND [/color][color=red]THE HOLY GHOST[/color] [color=blue]AND THESE THREE ARE ONE[/color]
its that verse, that exact verse that these persons claim is a forgery, added by the Catholic Church to put some 'meat' on the trinity doctrine with specifically the blue part especially.

MY 1st question was... is that true?  I cant believe the Church would 'add' this particular line in the Bible unless they have ALWAYS had this truth.  But I have no way of proving it. 

I know the Church does not just 'add' stuff at thier own accord.  I cant prove it, but I know they dont.  I know everything in the Catholic Bible is truth.  Dont ask me how I know, I just do.  Ive always had a problem with the Protestant Bible because there were books missing from it. 
And I am getting off the subject again.............. sorry.

So....minus my dialogue of faith at the bottom...do you understand my first question?

Peace and Love[/quote]
Hi, Quietfire,

Glad you're hanging in there! Thank you for clarifying your question.

Sorry, but I can't read Greek. And I don't have access to the ancient manuscripts. But I do know that all manuscripts have variances in them. That is one of the problems translators face. A variance in a text would not indicate a 'forgery.' One ancient manuscript may contain certain words and another not contain them. Translators then have to decide which manuscript to follow. And translators, even the most careful ones, make mistakes. There is no such thing as a translation without errors. That's why the Church teaches that [b]only the original biblical texts in the handwriting of the sacred writers are the "inspired Word of God."[/b] Translations and copies -- and translations and copies are all we possess -- are not "inspired." They're not perfect.

Let me emphasize: [b]Deviations occur even among the most reliable of the ancient Greek manuscripts.[/b]

Again, I can't repeat it too often, all the biblical manuscripts in existence are copies -- the original "autographs," as they are called, were lost in antiquity. They either disintegrated (they were written on papyrus, which is extremely fragile and has a very short 'shelf life') or were destroyed by the Romans during the fierce persecutions that the Church endured for the first three centuries of her existence. It was a capital offense (death penalty) for anyone to have a Christian writing in their possession. Catholics were tortured and killed for having them. Copyists were extremely courageous. The persecutions did not end until Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. So a lot of Catholic blood was shed and a lot of Catholic lives were sacrificed protecting the sacred writings that eventually became the New Testament.

The Church would have no reason to forge any part of the writings that were considered so sacred that Catholics were willing to (and did!) die for them.

The Bible is not the source of the doctrine of the Trinity, as I've explained. The teaching of the Apostles is the source. So what would be the point of this so-called "forgery." Did the Church ever say, "Look, it says here in 1 John 7 . . . and that's why you should believe in the Trinity"? The Catholic Church does not "proof-text" the Bible as Protestants do.

Catholic translators are no different than other translators. Every Catholic translation is different. I've checked seven Catholic versions in my collection. I have more, but these will illustrate my point. Five of them -- all newer translations -- render 1 John 5:7 "...the spirit, the water, and the blood...," but all vary in other word choices. The Knox translation (1944) has "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. . ." The Douay Confraternity (1950) has "7 For there are three that bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 and there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one." There is a footnote: "Ver. 7f. According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: 'For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.' The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading." (The Holy See is Rome.)

Both the Knox and the Douay Confraternity were translated into English from the Latin Vulgate. Apparently, that wording came from the Vulgate, which was translated by St. Jerome, in his own handwriting, and published in 405 A.D. I'll have to look up the Vulgate to be sure. I don't have one, but it's available on the Internet.

But -- as you can imagine -- major advances in the study of the ancient biblical manuscripts and languages have been made since A.D. 405. Many advances have been made just since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-56). For anyone to accuse St. Jerome of forgery is preposterous. He is a highly respected scholar of biblical writings in both Hebrew and Greek.

Are you aware that one of the manuscripts that modern scholars rely upon was just discovered in 1844? And producing copies prior to the invention of the printing press in 1450 was a laborious and costly process. Moreover, few people could read.

Whomever you are in contact with is confused and they're trying to confuse you as well. Anti-Catholics will grasp at anything they possibly can to beat up the Church. This is just another pathetic attempt.

Ask yourself why a scholar like Scott Hahn, formerly a Presbyterian theologian and biblical expert, and literally hundreds of other Protestant ministers and scholars, would become Catholics if they thought the Church had committed forgery. It's a ridiculous charge.

The Bible did not fall out of the sky. It was written by men. Then it was copied by men. Translation is a complex and difficult endeavor. There are no "perfect" or "pure" manuscripts.

Above all, the New Testament is not the source of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. So any suggestion of "forgery" is based on ignorance. The NT [b][i]confirms[/b][/i] the doctrines of the Church, but -- once more -- they came from the lips of the Apostles. The Catholic Faith was "once for all handed down" by the Apostles (Jude 3).

The Apostles are [i]not[/i] the authors of most of the New Testament.

There are those who say the NIV translation is slanted and does not follow the wording of the ancient manuscripts. Every translation has its critics.

The important thing you must understand is that the Catholic Church does not base her teachings on the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament is based on the teaching of the Church.

It's not a hard question, like which came first, the chicken or the egg? The Church came first. The Church wrote the New Testament.

My Faith is in the Church AND the Bible, because it was the Church founded by Christ that wrote the NT and tells me I should believe it. Like St. Augustine, "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church" (Letter to Mani).

Jesus left us a Church, not a Book.

Thanks for "listening."

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[Quietfire]

rephrase?

'they' claim that verse 7 (in the Catholic Bible)is a documented proven forgery. That it was added by the Catholic Church to 'back up' their 'claim' of the Trinity.

I claim otherwise, but unfortunately I have no proof but my faith.
Is there physical proof that verse 7 has always been verse 7, even 1000, 1500, 2000 years ago?

[Quietfire]

BUMP

[Quietfire]

Never mind..
I never even realized Likos answered me.

Boy do I feel stupid.

Unless someone else can add to this, then I suppose the subject is closed.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='May 3 2004, 06:08 PM'] Never mind..
I never even realized Likos answered me.

Boy do I feel stupid.

Unless someone else can add to this, then I suppose the subject is closed. [/quote]
Hi, quietfire,

Did I sufficiently answer your Q?

Do 'they' ever say when this alleged 'forgery' occurred? Where? How? Which manuscript was being translated? Who did it? It isn't up the Church to prove that she [b]didn't[/b] commit forgery. The burden of proof is on the accusers. Unless they have some evidence to back up their claim, any judge would throw the case out of court.

What other 'forgeries' do 'they' accuse the Church of perpetrating in the Bible? What 'proof' do they have to offer?

Let me know anytime if I may be of help to you.

JMJ Likos (Jay)

[Katholikos]

Oh, you asked if verse 7 has always been verse 7, even thousands of years ago.

No, it wasn't always verse 7. Cardinal Stephen Langton divided the New Testament into chapters for the first time in 1227. Robert Stephanus, a French printer, divided the chapters into verses in 1551. So the divisions were unknown before then.

People memorized whole passages and sometimes whole books.

The Scriptures were read to the people at the Divine Liturgy (Mass) beginning in the first century, just as they are now.

God bless and Mary keep, Likos

[Anna]

Who are the "they" that are launching these accusations of forgery?
You say that they claim they can prove it, but their "proof" is in a locked website somewhere that only "they" seem to be able to access...
Hey, if they've got the Truth, and the Catholic Church is promoting a 2,000 year old lie, why not shout it from the rooftops? ay?
These folks, whoever they are, don't have history on their side, and don't know much about God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Even the Early Church Fathers wrote about the Trinity. Were all those writings forgeries also????

You're on the right track, Quietfire. But don't be surprised when others try to deceive you away from it.

Gotta run...

Pax Christi. <><

[Quietfire]

Anna,
I knew I was on the right track when I read a book by a Catholic about the Apocalypse. Since I never believed any of that junk thats floating around out there, I found this book by mistake. It sat in my library for a while before I picked it up to read one day while doing research on Jehovah's Witnesses.
While cross referencing information between this simple little book and all the info provided by the J.W's, I was able to prove all thier theories as incorrect and misleading. The book is out of print, but I happened to buy it from a little book shop that must have had it on the shelf for years. They practically gave it to me since it was so old. Best book I ever bought, and now I have the whole series.

Naw, I was just wondering if that particular verse in red and blue has always,always been in the bible? It is probably very difficult to find that out one way or another, not because of the addition of verse numberings, but probably because of translations.
Although I am sure somebody out there knows for sure if it has always been there in that exact wording. I only asked because to me it supports the trinity.
I did have one more question though, and that is what would be the best (like the super duper best) Catholic Bible I can get my hands on. Dont tell me its at the Vatican, cause I can probably get my hands on that!!!!!!
But seriously, I figure if I am gonna study the Bible, then it would make sense logically to use a complete Bible. I already own 5 Protestant bibles, and one 1943 Catholic Bible. I would like something post Vatican II, unless there is no difference.

Either way, I still want something newer, but have no idea what to look for.
Any ideas?