Yauwana Janam

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////1யோவான் 5:7யில் (பரலோகத்திலே சாட்சியிடுகிறவர்கள் மூவர், பிதா, வார்த்தை, பரிசுத்தஆவி என்பவர்களே; இம்மூவரும் ஒன்றாயிருக்கிறார்கள், பரலோகத்திலே) என்று பிராக்கட்டுக்களுக்குள் காணப்படும் இந்த வசனம், திரியேகத் தத்துவத்தை ஸ்தாபிக்க    R.C குருவானவரால் வேதாகமத்தில் கி.பி.500க்கு பிறகு தவறாகசேர்க்கப்பட்டுவிட்டது.ஆனால் இந்த வசனம் 

கி.பி.மூன்றாம் நான்காம் நூற்றாண்டில் எழுதப்பட்ட வெகு பூர்வ கிரேக்க வேதாகமங்களில் இல்லாததால் இப்போது அச்சிடப்படும் எல்லா திருத்திய மொழிபெயர்ப்புகளிலும் இந்த வசனம் நீக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

தேவனுடைய வேதாகமத்தில் “ஒன்றும் கூட்டவும், ஒன்றும் குறைக்கவும் வேண்டாம்” என்ற கட்டளைக்கு நேர் விரோதமாய்ச் சேர்க்கப்பட்ட வசனம். நியாயப்படி இப்போது அது நீக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது உபா 4:2, வெளி 22:18-19.

ஒன்றான மெய்த்தேவனாகிய யாவே கடவுள் , அவர் அனுப்பிய அவருடைய நேச குமாரன் இயேசு கிறிஸ்து நமது இரட்சகர்; பரிசுத்த ஆவி, தேவனிடமிருந்து வரும் உன்னத பலன் என்று வேதாகமம் திட்டவட்டமாய் கற்பிக்கிறது./////////////////////////////////////////////

பிதாவும், இயேசுவும் மாறி மாறி  சாட்சி கொடுக்கிறார்கள். 
பரிசுத்த ஆவியாகிய தேவன் எங்கேயாவது சாட்சி கொடுக்கிறாரா? ( யோவா 1:18/


ஐயா cad sahayam அவர்களே..தாங்கள் இந்த வசனத்தை படிக்கவில்லையா ?

1யோவான் 5:7-8
"பரலோகத்திலே சாட்சியிடுகிறவர்கள் மூவர், பிதா / வார்த்தை / பரிசுத்த ஆவி என்பவர்களே, இம்மூவரும் ஒன்றாயிருக்கிறர்கள்"

ANS;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
 
Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

1யோவான் 5:7யில் (பரலோகத்திலே சாட்சியிடுகிறவர்கள் மூவர், பிதா, வார்த்தை, பரிசுத்தஆவி என்பவர்களே; இம்மூவரும் ஒன்றாயிருக்கிறார்கள், பரலோகத்திலே) என்று பிராக்கட்டுக்களுக்குள் காணப்படும் இந்த வசனம், திரியேகத் தத்துவத்தை ஸ்தாபிக்க    R.C குருவானவரால் வேதாகமத்தில் கி.பி.500க்கு பிறகு தவறாகசேர்க்கப்பட்டுவிட்டது.ஆனால் இந்த வசனம்

கி.பி.மூன்றாம் நான்காம் நூற்றாண்டில் எழுதப்பட்ட வெகு பூர்வ கிரேக்க வேதாகமங்களில் இல்லாததால் இப்போது அச்சிடப்படும் எல்லா திருத்திய மொழிபெயர்ப்புகளிலும் இந்த வசனம் நீக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

தேவனுடைய வேதாகமத்தில் “ஒன்றும் கூட்டவும், ஒன்றும் குறைக்கவும் வேண்டாம்” என்ற கட்டளைக்கு நேர் விரோதமாய்ச் சேர்க்கப்பட்ட வசனம். நியாயப்படி இப்போது அது நீக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது உபா 4:2, வெளி 22:18-19.

ஒன்றான மெய்த்தேவனாகிய யாவே கடவுள் , அவர் அனுப்பிய அவருடைய நேச குமாரன் இயேசு கிறிஸ்து நமது இரட்சகர்; பரிசுத்த ஆவி, தேவனிடமிருந்து வரும் உன்னத பலன் என்று வேதாகமம் திட்டவட்டமாய் கற்பிக்கிறது.

Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

 

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD	Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD	Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD	Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD	Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD	Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD	Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD	Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD	Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:       A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"       B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]       C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD	Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD	Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD	The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD	Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD	Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD	miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD	minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD	miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD	Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD	ms 61 has the verse
	Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.

 

Erasmus and the Textus Receptus

The central figure in the sixteenth-century history of the Comma Johanneum is the humanist Erasmus. Erasmus had been working for years on two projects: a collation of Greek texts and a fresh Latin New Testament. In 1512, he began his work on a fresh Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts he could find to create a critical edition. Then he polished the Latin. He declared, "It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin."^[9] In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text:

"My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."^[10]

While his intentions for publishing a fresh Latin translation are clear, it is less clear why he included the Greek text. Though some speculate that he intended on producing a critical Greek text or that he wanted to beat the Complutensian Polyglot into print, there is no evidence to support this. Rather his motivation seems to be simpler: he included the Greek text to prove the superiority of his Latin version. He wrote, "There remains the New Testament translated by me, with the Greek facing, and notes on it by me."^[11] He further demonstrated the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work:

"But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."^[12]

Erasmus's new work was published by Froben of Basel in 1516 and thence became the first published Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Rot. Recognitum et Emendatum. The second edition used the more familiar term Testamentum instead of Instrumentum, and eventually became a major source for Luther's Germantranslation.

In his haste, Erasmus made a considerable number of translation mistakes. He was unable to find a manuscript containing the entire Greek New Testament, so he compiled several different sources. After comparing what writings he could find, Erasmus wrote corrections between the lines and sent the documents to Froben. Erasmus said the resulting work was "thrown headlong rather than edited" ("prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum").^[13] He fixed many but not all of the resulting mistakes in the second edition, published in 1519.^[8] The Comma does not appear until the third edition, published in 1522.^[14]

Its absence from the first two editions has traditionally been explained as the result of the animosity this provoked among churchmen and scholars, led by Lopez de Zúñiga, one of the Complutensian editors. Erasmus is said to have replied to these critics that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find, but that he would add it to future editions if it appeared in a single Greek manuscript.^[8] Such a manuscript was subsequently concocted by a Franciscan, and Erasmus, true to his word, added the Comma to his 1522 edition, but with a lengthy footnote setting out his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly to confute him. This third edition became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries.^[8]

The story of Erasmus' promise has been accepted as fact by scholars, repeated by even so eminent an authority as Bruce M. Metzger.^[15] Nevertheless, it can be traced back no further than the first decades of the 19th century, and a 1980 paper by Professor H.J. De Jonge concludes that no such promise was ever made by Erasmus, and that he never suspected the fraudulent Codex Britannicus (MM 61, the text prepared by the Franciscan) of having been written with the express purpose of forcing him to include the Comma. Rather, Erasmus included the Comma because he wished to avoid any suspicion of personal unorthodoxy which might undermine the acceptance of his translation:

"For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John."^[16]

The term Textus Receptus commonly refers to one of Erasmus's later editions or one of the works derived from them. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, a Protestant reference published in 1914, comments:

The textus receptus, slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places its reading is supported by the authority of no known Greek manuscript.^[13]

Isaac Newton (1643–1727), best known today for his many contributions to mathematics and physics, also wrote extensively on Biblical matters. In a 1690 treatise entitled An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, he summed up the history of the comma and his own belief that it was introduced, intentionally or by accident, into a Latin text during the fourth or fifth century, a time when he believed the Church to be ripe with corruption:^[17]

In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.^[18]

[edit]Modern views

Nearly all modern major Christian denominations are Trinitarian, with their beliefs reflected in three ancient creeds: The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. Mainstream Christianity therefore accepts the underlying theology of the Johannine Comma, whether or not they hold it to be a part of the First Epistle of John.

The history of the comma in the centuries following the Textus Receptus has been one of initial acceptance followed by near-total rejection. This history is summed up in the Introduction to the 1808 New Testament in an improved version, upon the basis ofArchbishop Newcome's new translation, which did not contain the Comma Johanneum, where the editors explained their reasons for rejecting the Textus Receptus as follows: "1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged. 7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version. In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority, is not known."^[19] The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an edition of the King James Version published in 1873, and edited by noted textual scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, one of the translators of the English Revised Version, set the Comma in italics to reflect its disputed authenticity, though not all later editions retain this formatting. Modern Bible translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV and others tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.^[20]

The Roman Catholic Church was slower to reject the comma. The Council of Trent in 1546 defined the Biblical canon as "the entire books with all their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate," meaning that the comma was included. Yet although the revised Vulgate contained the Comma, the earliest known copies did not, leaving the status of the Comma Johanneum unclear.^[4] On 13 January 1897, during a period of reaction in the Church, the Holy Office decreed that Catholic theologians could not "with safety" deny or call into doubt the Comma's authenticity. Pope Leo XIII approved this decision two days later, though his approval was not in forma specifica^[4]—that is, Leo XIII did not invest his full papal authority in the matter, leaving the decree with the ordinary authority possessed by the Holy Office. Three decades later, on 2 June 1927, the more liberal Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma Johanneum was open to dispute. The updated Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), published in 1979 following Second Vatican Council, does not include the Comma,^[21] nor does the English-language New American Bible.

In more recent years, the Comma has become relevant to the King-James-Only Movement, a largely Protestant development most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist churches. Proponents view the Comma as an important Trinitarian text and assert that those who doubt its authenticity are threatening the biblical basis for Trinitarian belief.^[22]

[edit]

-- Edited by cad sahayam on Thursday 17th of March 2011 06:19:46 AM

cad sahayam wrote:

---

பரிசுத்த ஆவியாகிய தேவன் எங்கேயாவது சாட்சி கொடுக்கிறாரா? ( யோவா 1:18

ஐயா cad sahayam அவர்களே.

பரிசுத்த ஆவியானவரும் தேவனே என்று தாங்களே எழுதி விட்டீர்களே..
தேவன் - பிதாவாகவும்
குமாரனாகவும்
பரிசுத்த ஆவியானவராகவும். இருக்கிறர்

ஐயா உயிரில்லாத பொருட்களை எவரும் , அவர்.இவர் என்று அழைப்பதில்லை...!

"பலத்தினாலும் அல்ல, பராக்கிரமத்தினாலும் அல்ல,என்னுடைய ஆவியினாலேயே ஆகும்" சகரியா 4:6.

"பரிசுத்தஆவியினிடத்தில்  பொய்சொல்லும்படி....................
 
நீ மனுசரிடத்தில் அல்ல, தேவனிடத்தில ்பொய்சொன்னாய்..........                                   அப்போ 5:4-5... 5:4-5...

ஐயா இதைதாங்கள் கவனிக்கவில்லையா......?......?

 

-- Edited by suncauvery on Wednesday 16th of March 2011 05:50:57 AM

-- Edited by suncauvery on Wednesday 16th of March 2011 05:52:48 AM

எவ்வளவு வசன ஆதாரங்கள் காட்டினாலும் இவர்களுக்கு புரியாது. ரசலின் போதனைகளைப் பின்பவற்றுபவர்கள் தானே!. ரசல் ஏரியஸ் எனும் வேதப்புரட்டனின் கருத்துக்களையும் 7ம் நாள் அட்வாந்து சபையின் போதனைகளையும் Copy அடித்தார். இவர்கள் ரசலின் போதனைகளை Copy அடிக்கிறார்கள். ஏனென்றால் இவர்களுக்கு வசனம் முக்கியமில்லை

மேலும்
நமக்கோ தேவன் அவைகளைத் தமது ஆவியினாலே வெளிப்படுத்தினார்; அந்த ஆவியானவர் எல்லாவற்றையும், தேவனுடைய ஆழங்களையும், ஆராய்ந்திருக்கிறார். (1Cor 2:10)

சக்தி ஒன்றுக்கு தேவனுடைய ஆழங்கைளை ஆராயும் வல்லமையிருக்குமா?


சத்தியஆவியாகிய அவர் வரும்போது, சகல சத்தியத்திற்குள்ளும் உங்களை நடத்துவார்; அவர் தம்முடைய சுயமாய்ப் பேசாமல், தாம் கேள்விப்பட்டவைகள் யாவையுஞ்சொல்லி, வரப்போகிற காரியங்களை உங்களுக்கு அறிவிப்பார்.(John 16:13)

சக்தியால் இவ்விதமெல்லாம் செய்ய முடியுமா?


அறிவுக்கெட்டாத அந்த அன்பை அறிந்துகொள்ள வல்லவர்களாகவும், தேவனுடைய சகல பரிபூரணத்தாலும் நிறையப்படவும், அவர் தமது மகிமையினுடைய ஐசுவரியத்தின்படியே, உங்களுக்கு அநுக்கிரகம் பண்ணவேண்டுமென்று வேண்டிக்கொள்ளுகிறேன்.(Eph 3:19)

and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. (Eph 3:19)

ஆங்கிலத்தில் பார்தோமென்றால் filled up to என்று வருகிறது. எனவே தேவன் ஆள்தத்துவமற்றவர் என்று கூறமுடியுமா?