Changes to John 3:16

[lattelady]

Recently on one of the threads I saw John 3:16 quoted, and it had been changed from its original wording. The additional wording even changed the meaning of the verse. I THOUGHT, though I could be mistaken, that it had Ezra Taft Benson's name beside the quote; but I was curious if this change was perhaps from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, or if this was a change to the verse that E.T. Benson (again, I believe his was the name beside it) decided to make himself. That is a verse that I memorized at a young age, a verse that helped me understand the plan of salvation; so I recognized the change immediately and wondered why it had been made.

[pam]

Hard to know what to compare to without seeing what you are talking about. Just curious..what version of the Bible do you use?

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is the King James translation (which the LDS would use). If the Joseph Smith translation differed materially there would be a footnote stating as much in the on-line version I linked to; but there is none.

[lattelady]

Hi Pam. I grew up being taught from and using the King James Version. I still use it, but also use the New International Version and sometimes New American Standard. The original verse says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

The one I saw recently, and I'm not sure where to find it again--but I'll try, said (and this is not exact, but VERY close), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him and keeps all His laws and commandments, should not perish but have everlasting life."

[Just_A_Guy]

The one I saw recently, and I'm not sure where to find it again--but I'll try, said (and this is not exact, but VERY close), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him and keeps all His laws and commandments, should not perish but have everlasting life."

President Benson may have worked that into one of his sermons to clarify or make a point. But that's not in our Bible.

[pam]

Well I grew up learning the same one you did. I've never seen the other one. I'd be curious in finding it.

[lattelady]

I've been looking through threads and haven't found it yet, but if anyone else remembers seeing it--or if you happened to be the one who posted it--could you let me know where it is from? Thankyou!

[Hemidakota]

Curious also...since I cannot find anything spoken directly with this verse.

[Hemidakota]

Let me correct myself: John 3:16; Ezra Taft Benson, page 3; see "Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh"

[lattelady]

Hemidakota, I can't find it--where exactly do I go? Sorry, I'm a little slow. :) But I want to find it--I hope people don't think I've just made this up --I really did see it, but I should've written it down at the time.

[prisonchaplain]

It sounds to me like someone conflated John 3:16 with the LDS teaching that true conversion includes accepting what God's done and then doing "all that you can." I doubt it was an intentional reworking of the scripture, but more a matter of combining two teachings.

[ozzy]

I agree with prisonchaplain. It sounds as though the person who rephrased John 3:16 was using it in a teaching and combined it somewhat with James 2:17-20, which speak of faith requiring works.

[Snow]

Hemidakota, I can't find it--where exactly do I go? Sorry, I'm a little slow. :) But I want to find it--I hope people don't think I've just made this up --I really did see it, but I should've written it down at the time.

Was it before or after you saw the Loch Ness Monster on a double-date with Elvis and the Gabor twins?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Snow

[Traveler]

Hi Pam. I grew up being taught from and using the King James Version. I still use it, but also use the New International Version and sometimes New American Standard. The original verse says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

The one I saw recently, and I'm not sure where to find it again--but I'll try, said (and this is not exact, but VERY close), "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him and keeps all His laws and commandments, should not perish but have everlasting life."

Is there a difference between believing in the Son Jesus Christ and keeping all His laws and commandments?

How can you believe in someone you do not even know (see 1John 2:3-4)

"3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

What is the point of your question?

The Traveler

[lattelady]

Traveler, the point of my question is: upon seeing the wording of the verse changed, I was bothered. Much the same way, I suppose, as you are bothered with the use of God's name in a way that feels flippant to you. (which is why you treat it with great care, even in the writing of it). I have yet to locate the post where I saw it worded differently, but I know I saw it. I'm sorry I can't yet produce it. I'll do my best to find it. I am bothered by scripture being changed or manipulated. John 3:16 is a verse that is particularly precious to me. To find its wording changed was actually offensive to me. The point of my question, then, was: why would someone feel it is alright to add to scripture?

[Snow]

Traveler, the point of my question is: upon seeing the wording of the verse changed, I was bothered. Much the same way, I suppose, as you are bothered with the use of God's name in a way that feels flippant to you. (which is why you treat it with great care, even in the writing of it). I have yet to locate the post where I saw it worded differently, but I know I saw it. I'm sorry I can't yet produce it. I'll do my best to find it. I am bothered by scripture being changed or manipulated. John 3:16 is a verse that is particularly precious to me. To find its wording changed was actually offensive to me. The point of my question, then, was: why would someone feel it is alright to add to scripture?

Now that makes me curious... are you likewise bothered by falsified scripture, ie, the long ending of Mark, the story of the woman taken in adultery or the fraudulent Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 re the Trinity) all of which are late falsifications to scripture?

... and the post you say you saw - was it a deliberate falsification of the scripture (like the above examples) meant to make you think that it was real - or was it simply a play on scriptural words to make a point?

[lattelady]

I'm not sure if I can take the time to answer you--I just heard the Loch Ness Monster rummaging around in our dumpster and I may need to call animal control...

[Traveler]

Traveler, the point of my question is: upon seeing the wording of the verse changed, I was bothered. Much the same way, I suppose, as you are bothered with the use of God's name in a way that feels flippant to you. (which is why you treat it with great care, even in the writing of it). I have yet to locate the post where I saw it worded differently, but I know I saw it. I'm sorry I can't yet produce it. I'll do my best to find it. I am bothered by scripture being changed or manipulated. John 3:16 is a verse that is particularly precious to me. To find its wording changed was actually offensive to me. The point of my question, then, was: why would someone feel it is alright to add to scripture?

Thank you for your kind response. I would suggest that it would be for the same reason that someone would justify translating the scriptures into an English version so you could learn of ancient revelation. The extra words clarifies the understanding to someone in our modern society that otherwise could not comprehend the texts in their original. My point is that adding the words in no way changes the meaning and the message that was preserved in the scriptures for our day.

My question still stands – how can someone believe in somebody that they do not even know? The extra words makes the understanding of the scripture so very clear that attempts to play with words to teach false doctrine becomes more difficult. Do you agree?

The Traveler

[lattelady]

Traveler, respectfully, I would have to disagree. The words I saw added "that whosoever believeth in Him AND KEEPS HIS COMMANDMENTS..." change the core teaching of that verse.

[Snow]

Traveler, respectfully, I would have to disagree. The words I saw added "that whosoever believeth in Him AND KEEPS HIS COMMANDMENTS..." change the core teaching of that verse.

At present, it seems like you are confused - perhaps you are thinking about 1 John: 2:3 And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 2:5 but whoso keepeth his word, in him verily hath the love of God been perfected.

But I am still curious... are you likewise bothered by falsified scripture, ie, the long ending of Mark, the story of the woman taken in adultery or the fraudulent Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8 re the Trinity) all of which are late falsifications to scripture?

[pam]

Lattelady..until you can show us where you saw this..this conversation seems rather moot. You are trying to debate something that no one else seems to have saw. We can only speculate why someone added a few words to scripture without having the actual statement to read. I think when you ask questions about why does something say something...have that link ready to go. All this I read somewhere, I can't remember where...it's hard to have a conversation when we have no idea what it is you are questioning.

[john doe]

Yeah, but it's a good tactic to put you on the defensive isn't it?

[lattelady]

I understand. I wish I could find it--I've tried hard for several days. I understand why it would make the conversation moot at this point.

[Traveler]

Traveler, respectfully, I would have to disagree. The words I saw added "that whosoever believeth in Him AND KEEPS HIS COMMANDMENTS..." change the core teaching of that verse.

Interesting disagreement. I would like to pursue your thinking on this matter because in Luke chapter 4 it appears to me that Satan is able to twist any individual verse of scripture to justify whatever understanding pleases him and any one he can deceive.

As Christians today we are at a great disadvantage with resolving doctrinal issues because we are so far removed from the time, language and culture of the scriptures. Anyone that can speak more than one language understands the great difficulty of translations.

Now, you have left me with a dilemma in that it appears your understanding is narrow and inconstant. So I ask again – Is it possible for anyone to believe in someone that they do not know? How is it that you will not accept the notion that we must know a person before being able to believe in them as a “core” element of really being able to understand the scripture of John 3:16? Has it not even occurred to you that the clarifying scripture I offered is 1John 2:3-4 are likely ideas expressed from the same person?

Right now this point is critical between you and I because I am not sure I do indeed understand you – and so I ask in hope that I may understand your motives – Is it possible to believe in a person that you really do not know at all?

The Traveler

[Vort]

Was it before or after you saw the Loch Ness Monster on a double-date with Elvis and the Gabor twins?

I thought there were three Gabors, not two.