Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: The Trinity

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #38
    Dragonslayer Emeritus Senior Member Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Norge
    Posts
    6,877

    Default Re: The Trinity

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr View Post
    Its very easy to say that so and so may have corrupted bits and pieces here and there... but that's only a relevant argument insofar as you can show the verses I am using to be corruptions. Like I said, we have enough historic evidence to know that the Trinitarian faction around the time of the Arian controversy did not substantially alter the Bible. At the end of the day, I am not Erasmus and I'm not bringing up 1 John 5:7.
    Somebody brought up 1 Joh. 5:7 and it is a well known verse to use supporting Trinitarianism.
    Historic? Name one surviving complete copy of the Bible or a NT document from around the time of Arian. Do we even know all the contenders? Besides, this is a debate in its own right - Bible infallibility one which I would love to join.
    But let this be my point; The move from Subordinationism to Trinitarianism is very subtle. There is no need to do substantial editing and since the beginning of the use of the method eclecticism, it shows that there are differences between the fragments existing of the traditional canon (the one we have to day). Either there has been a purposeful editing or the translators weren't so concerned with the preservation of the original text.

    I am not educated in other languages, but the wikipedia page says that "ego eimi" is translated as "I am" in several places throughout the Bible, including the New Testament, citing the example of John 9:8. This part seemed particularly relevant:

    This would appear to suggest that the KJV makes the correct translation.
    I think you missed my point. You compared I AM from the old Testament with the use of I AM in the New Testament saying they are the same. I said - no, they are different. You can't quote OT and its use of I AM and put it next to the use of I AM in the NT - and declare; See, it is the same. That would be completely misguided Bible literalism.

    Wikipedia is not considered to be a good source of reference in any scientific discipline.

    The theme would seem to be one of self-existence or being unbegotten and eternal, which I think the KJV captures nicely.
    Yet Christ is begotten and can therefore not be the one which is discussed here.
    Last edited by Sigurd; 12-19-2014 at 14:18.
    Status Emeritus

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO