Contradictions in 1 John or too many bible translations??

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

This may be a little disjointed but there are some verses in 1 John that seem to contradict other verses in 1 John.

Please help me sort through them:

1 John 1

3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

1 John 2
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
24Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.1 John 3

.....Okay. doing good so far. It all seems pretty clear but then:

16Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

..... then a little further down:

23And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

1 John 4

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

.... and then the big one:

1 John 5
6This 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.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Does the above verse mean they are all of one accord, all part of the same family, all Gods or all a part of the one true God? When churches spend more time praising Jesus, are they worshipping God or Jesus? There is but one God....

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Again, are they all part of the same family, all part of the same body/spirit or does this just mean they are all in agreement with one another?

Luv Question

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 152

"Jesus is the Christ" simply means Jesus is annointed.
As for I John chapter five, at the end of the sentence one word was left out of the King James version.Thus there are three that testify, the Spirit and the wter and the blood-and these three are of one accord.
For some reason the word accord was left out and is included in the newer versions of the Bible. This makes more sense to me since Yeshua was Hebrew and the 12 Apostles were Hebrews how could anyone believe they would, as Jews, believe that three could be one. They certainly did not because they believe in one God. The God of Abraham, Issaic and Jacob. The one God of Israel. When people understand this, perhaps they will stop accepting the idea of a triune God.

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

That helps. I think I need to do a little side-by-side comparison of a few bibles.

In fact, I'm going to pull up the NWT and post that translation here (as I know JW's do not believe in the Trinity).

Luv

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

As promised, I pulled the NWT and a few others and did side-by-side comparisons of 1 John 5:5-8. What I found is, to me, pretty shocking. There are great variances of these verses not only as far as the words go but as far as meaning, interpretation of the verses I chose to compare. See for yourselves:

New World Translation:
1 John 5: 5 Who is the one that conquers the world but he who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is he that came by means of water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the spirit is that which is bearing witness, because the spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.

Young’s Literal Translation:
5who is he who is overcoming the world, if not he who is believing that Jesus is the Son of God?
6This one is he who did come through water and blood -- Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; and the Spirit it is that is testifying, because the Spirit is the truth,
7because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; 8and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one.

The Message Bible:
4-5Every God-begotten person conquers the world's ways. The conquering power that brings the world to its knees is our faith. The person who wins out over the world's ways is simply the one who believes Jesus is the Son of God.
6-8Jesus—the Divine Christ! He experienced a life-giving birth and a death-killing death. Not only birth from the womb, but baptismal birth of his ministry and sacrificial death. And all the while the Spirit is confirming the truth, the reality of God's presence at Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, bringing those occasions alive for us. A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.

American Standard Version:
5 And 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 with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

Contemporary English Version:
5 No one can defeat the world without having faith in Jesus as the Son of God. 6 Water and blood came out from the side of Jesus Christ. It wasn't just water, but water and blood. [a] The Spirit tells about this, because the Spirit is truthful. 7In fact, there are three who tell about it. 8 They are the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and they all agree.

And finally….

The Greek Interlinear Translation:
5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement..

Based on all of this, I still do not believe in the Trinity because some of the translations are so completely different than others. I would trust the Greek Interlinear before I would trust even the KJV. The NWT seems to be the closest as far as translation goes to the Greek Interlinear.

Though the original question posed in this thread remains, this bit of research brings up a more serious question:

Why are there so many versions with such varying messages? Which bible is the most trustworthy, true-to-form bible?

Luv

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

This has turned in to a 2-part question:

1) Does 1 John support the Trinity? (Main question)
2) Why do the different versions of the bible vary so much in regard to wording & meaning? (Sub-question that arose when I started researching the main question).

Why are there so many different bible translations? The KJV makes 1 John seem as though there are contradictions while the NWT & the Greek interlinear do not.

Please refer to previous post for a more thorough explanation.

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 152

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has turned in to a 2-part question:

1) Does 1 John support the Trinity? (Main question)

It is thought that John was a cousin of Yeshua. Yeshua was born to a Hebrew women named Mary and since the faith is passed down from the mother, Yeshua would have also been a Hebrew. Therefore, would Yeshua, or John or any Hebrew have supported a trinity? I don't think so, do you?

As for the second part of your question, I don't know why there has to be so many translations, why are there so many denominations today of Christianity? Maybe because the faith has been passed down differently then it was taught in the first place by Yeshua? It certainly does not agree with what was believed by early believers thats for sure, and it does not agree with the Bible. Which translation, the first translation, the Aramaic Bible or Pershitta.

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 152

double post

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

Pete · Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject:

None of John's epistles support the Trinity concept; nor does the Gospel of John; nor do any of the Gospels; nor any of the Epistles; nor any verse in the New Testament; nor anything in the Old Testament; nor any verse in the entire Bible.

Jesus never taught it and the original apostles never taught it. Jesus acknowledged his Father only, and himself, as the Son of the Father.

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

Pete; I'm with you on this one.

The reason I brought this up is that I have been a pretty staunch KJV reader.

There are two translations that I quoted from that, in word, support the Trinity: The KJV (surprisingly) and Youngs Literal Translation.

The problem I had with the KJV is that A) it seemed to support the trinity in places in 1 John and B) it seemed to contradict that support in other places.

I started this thread out thinking "What if I'm wrong? What if my take on the trinity has been incorrect all these years?" Then I started reading the many different versions of the bible (which we were warned not to take away from or add to) and I realized that there have been things taken away from or added to some versions.

I'm not sure which is my main question at this point: 1 John supporting the trinity or the discrepancies in the verses I quoted in 1 John from translation-to-translation.

It seems a lot is gettting lost in the translation.

Which one in your humble opinion is the closest to the original and therefore the most trustworthy?

Thanks,

Luv Smile

Pete · Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject:

Actually Luvn, Now that you made me think about it, I use the KJV as my primary reference. Not because it is the most accurate, but because so much resource material is geared to it.

The King James only mob contends that KJV is the most accurate, or even infallible, but it has a lot of problems because it was translated by Trinitarians, with tight conditions laid on them, so they arbitrarilly used every devise to translate it in their direction down to the placement of a comma.

In any event, it is possible to clear most of the problems up with a little research. For instance, many Greek words have more than one meanig, and Trins will take the one that more closely fits their preconceived notions, rather than context. John 14 is a good example.

I do have a bunch of other translations and ancilary material from different sources, so it does take a little work to arrive at a lot of answers when wading through a bunch of prejudiced material.

As far as 1 Jn 5:7 is concerned, it conflicts totally with 1 Jn 2:22-24, and 2 Jn 9-11, which acknowledge the Father and the Son only. No mention, or idea of a coequal Trinity, and this is the doctrine of Christ, himself.

There are all sorts of ideas being claimed as Christian. One just has to hold them all as suspect unless proven by chapter and verse. Unfortunately, most folks are unwilling to make the effort, but simply rely on church authority - whatever church that may be.

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 152

Hi guys. This is normal when you really think about it. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. In Paul's day a gentile, (to a Hebrew is anyone not Hebrew), would have been a Pagan, most of the countries surrounding Israel were Pagan. Most of the letters Paul wrote were to churches of Pagan origin outside of Israel. So it doesn't take to much to understand where we get a trinity from. Pagans believed in trinities long before Yeshua was born. So if you go back and check the history of the church you would see that in 325AD Constantine got a group of heads of churches to Nicea for a big meeting. Constantine himself was a Pagan and many who attended the meeting came from churches of Pagan origin started by Paul. Out of this meeting came the Catholic church which was the only church until the reformation. After the reformation Protestants retained the trinity. I know many diehard trinity believers don't agree I didn't want to either, but there is a lot of historical proof to show this to be true.
I personally believe our faith should be the same as Yeshua's. He was an Israelite who believed in the Hebrew God, not the many Pagan gods. If the man who gave His life for us was an Israelite (Jew) what are we doing?

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

Pete and Rocket;

Thank you both for your responses.

I have been comparing different bible versions on different subjects for quite a while. It did not occur to me, honestly, to compare many things in the KJV as I always felt it was one of the more accurate bibles. Thanks for the brief history info on the KJV, Pete.

Rocket, I am a little confused by your statement about Paul. Are you suggesting that Paul was a Pagan? Paul was a Christian. He was a believer in and a follower of Jesus. Could you please clarify what you are saying here about Paul?

I'm starting to believe that the NWT which so many criticize is one of the most accurate translations of the bible judging by how close the translation seems to be to the Greek & Hebrew interlinear bible.

Thanks,

Luv

Rocket · House Cat Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 152

No I am not suggesting that Paul was a Pagan. He founded the churches he wrote the epistles to namely Rome, Corinth, Galatia,Ephesis, Thessalonica etc. These churches were located in cities outside of Jerusalem and in countries predominately Pagan. For example, in the Introduction to the Epistle of Paul to Corinthians it is written," St Paul established a Christian community in Corinth about the year 50, on his second missinary journey. According to his own testimony in this epistle, (written c56), he began his work in Corinth in 'fear and trepidation' because of the city''s extreme moral depravity and its pagan cult, which included the practice of religious prostitution.
If you look at a map of the Holy Land you would find the location of these cities. If you know anything of Ancient history, most of these countries certainly weren't of Hebrew origin and most were Pagan, meaning they believed in many God's.

luvnlife · Lion King Joined: 22 Feb 2007 Posts: 1133 Location: US

Thanks for clarifying, Rocket. The way it was worded made it sound as though you were insinuating Paul was a Pagan.

Rocket: