So before nw i was indifferent about trinity bt after reading the bible verse below, i have now realised that believing in trinity depends on the version you read. The translator(s) of KJV obviously believed in trinity, hence, verses are translated to confirm trinity.

The translator(s) of the NIV obviously didnt believe in trinity, hence, verses confirming trinity from the KJV say otherwise.

The NLT like NIV is also against trinity.


BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE FROM 1 John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one."(KJV)


"For there three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement"(NIV)


"For there are three that testify: the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree"


It is obvious the these versions preach different things.
Can it then be said that there isnt any proof or disproof of TRINITY until a standard version is established?

Bible translation doesn't matter but its the understanding of the reader that matters cos if people use your own understanding of the trinity then they would believe only on KJV bible and despise the others which is not possible so when reading the bible don't just read it for reading sake rather let the spirit of God give you the wisdom to understand what you read

Samchelsea: Bible translation doesn't matter but its the understanding of the reader that matters cos if people use your own understanding of the trinity then they would believe only on KJV bible and despise the others which is not possible so when reading the bible don't just read it for reading sake rather let the spirit of God give you the wisdom to understand what you read

REALLY? The translation doesnt matter? Look at the different versions and tell me how they relate.

Bélla3: So before nw i was indifferent about trinity bt after reading the bible verse below, i have now realised that believing in trinity depends on the version you read. The translator(s) of KJV obviously believed in trinity, hence, verses are translated to confirm trinity.

The translator(s) of the NIV obviously didnt believe in trinity, hence, verses confirming trinity from the KJV say otherwise.

The NLT like NIV is also against trinity.


BELOW IS AN EXAMPLE FROM 1 John 5:7:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one."(KJV)


"For there three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement"(NIV)


"For there are three that testify: the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree"


It is obvious the these versions preach different things.
Can it then be said that there isnt any proof or disproof of TRINITY until a standard version is established?

Mind you the NIV was translators are trinitarians...........also the verse 7 you see in the KJV was excerpted from the latin vulgate which was never found in the older manuscripts but was added later.......so all the NIV translators did was restore the original way verse 7 should be rendered from the older and original manuscript.......

Once again the trinity is a HOAX...........

ijawkid:

Mind you the NIV was translators are trinitarians...........also the verse 7 you see in the KJV was excerpted from the latin vulgate which was never found in the older manuscripts but was added later.......so all the NIV translators did was restore the original way verse 7 should be rendered from the older and original manuscript.......

Once again the trinity is a HOAX...........

The kjv proved/proves trinity nt just in that verse.

Bélla3: The kjv proved/proves trinity nt just in that verse.

Where again??.........but at least you do knw the kjvs verse 7 of 1 john 5 is spurious....

ijawkid:

Where again??.........but at least you do knw the kjvs verse 7 of 1 john 5 is spurious....

i disagree. I wan go sleep, wil be back tomorrow for more points.

ijawkid:

Where again??.........but at least you do knw the kjvs verse 7 of 1 john 5 is spurious....

i disagree. I wan go sleep, wil be back tomorrow for more verses.

Oh yes , the KJV bible , lol , the only one that 6.3 billion people should read , even though they cannot understand it's medieval language , and catholic bias , in the mistranslation of certain key words.

But then again what is NEW.

God is ONE , not 3.

frosbel: Oh yes , the KJV bible , lol , the only one that 6.3 billion people should read , even though they cannot understand it's medieval language , and catholic bias , in the mistranslation of certain key words.

But then again what is NEW.

God is ONE , not 3.

You're saying the kjv is wrong?

Baptism anyone?
The proper form of baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus designated in Matt. 28:19. And not in the name of God! So will that prove the importance of the Trinity?

frosbel:

God is ONE , not 3.

I'm Goshen360 and I APPROVE/ENDORSE this message of the kingdom!.........

Bélla3: You're saying the kjv is wrong?

No , I have 2 KJV bibles.

I am saying , that we should not prevent others , especially the younger ones to read other bible versions that are in many cases more accurate in translation, but more importantly , are written in a version of English that the average MAN can understand and apply to his/her life.

My little boys do not understand the KJV and by default I use the NIV or NLT , which they are more comfortable with.

To suggest that in the 21st century , we should all read 16th century English , is rather strange if you ask me.

Goshen360:

I'm Goshen360 and I APPROVE/ENDORSE this message of the kingdom!.........

BUT YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE ARGUMENT. The bible versions preach different things.

man@work:
Baptism anyone?
The proper form of baptism is in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Jesus designated in Matt. 28:19. And not in the name of God! So will that prove the importance of the Trinity?

That you have to see the P.A, sign some documents before finaly having a discussion with the manager doesnt make the P.A and the manager equal.

Bélla3: BUT YOU TOTALLY MISSED THE ARGUMENT. The bible versions preach different things.

No mind me my sister. I'm not arguing here. I only endorsed what Frosbel said. I understand you though.

frosbel:

No , I have 2 KJV bibles.

I am saying , that we should not prevent others , especially the younger ones to read other bible versions that are in many cases more accurate in translation, but more importantly , are written in a version of English that the average MAN can understand and apply to his/her life.

My little boys do not understand the KJV and by default I use the NIV or NLT , which they are more comfortable with.

To suggest that in the 21st century , we should all read 16th century English , is rather strange if you ask me.

yea, but the message in 1 jn 5:7 is clear from the Kjv, THE FATHER , THE SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT all one.

Goshen360:

No mind me my sister. I'm not arguing here. I only endorsed what Frosbel said. I understand you though.

. Ah okay. Bt dnt you think its part of what is creating the 'division?'

Bélla3: yea, but the message in 1 jn 5:7 is clear from the Kjv, THE FATHER , THE SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT all one.

as mentioned by Ijawkid, it is a rather dubious insertion onto scripture.

Here is the verse in question. This verse is well known as not being part of the original transcripts of the Bible.

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

Notice the Bible Commentaries:

1 John 5:7-8

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era. 8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live.
(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary)

http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/Feature_pages/feature_page_trinity001.shtml

Bella! Bella!! Bella!!!

How many times I call you? Abeg go sleep o. If you start Trinity argument, day go break for ya head and before you know it, you no go sleep o..... I don talk my own sha. Hope you are enjoying the Grace of God. Take care my sister. I'm out of here.

frosbel:

as mentioned by Ijawkid, it is a rather dubious insertion onto scripture.

AH! Now am all the more confused!

Goshen360: Bella! Bella!! Bella!!!

How many times I call you? Abeg go sleep o. If you start Trinity argument, day go break for ya head and before you know it, you no go sleep o..... I don talk my own sha. Hope you are enjoying the Grace of God. Take care my sister. I'm out of here.

Na three times you call me.
Btw Thanks

Bélla3: AH! Now am all the more confused!

in which case you need to read the bible.

As for me, I follow Goshen out of this Trinity debate to avoid another circular argument

frosbel:

in which case you need to read the bible.

As for me, I follow Goshen out of this Trinity debate to avoid another circular argument

I KNOW WHAT YOU AND GOSHEN ARE AVOIDING- the spagetti monster worshippers

Bélla3: That you have to see the P.A, sign some documents before finaly having a discussion with the manager doesnt make the P.A and the manager equal.

And who's is the P.A
This is not a case of P.a and d manager.....

dagr8:
And who's is the P.A
This is not a case of P.a and d manager.....

REALLY? It isnt?

Bélla3: REALLY? It isnt?

Yes is not