The curious case of John 5:4

[GodsGrace]

Yes they know god thus have no excuse.

Agreed.
Every man has had the opportunity to know God.
But does it say from the bible or does it say from the creation?
I think this is an important point.

 

[GodsGrace]

Done with the right attitude, telling the student to depend on God is a way to help him. I don’t think it should be thought of as an “instead of” alternative to restoring his confidence in the reliability of the Bible.

You know M, this is a difficult discussion.
I have confidence in the bible.
It was believed that Jericho was not even a real city....
until it was unearthed, I think, in the 1930's (might be wrong on the date).

Sodom and Gemmorah were real places.
Gehenna is a real place to this day.

I just think that realizing that there could be MISTAKES in the bible should be accepted WITHOUT changing a person's perspective on the creator of the universe.

As to the Muslim....
Muhammad stated in the Qu'ran that Muslims are to accept the OT and the NT....
An 18 Year old cannot be too sure of anything....
But he can be sure that God exists UNLESS he relies on other MEN, that may be atheist or Muslim, or whatever.

 

[Wick Stick]

If I haven't made it clear in my posts on this topic...

I think the problem with the topic question is that we are searching for ways to continue the falsehoods we were taught about the Bible. Rather than dealing with the inflated claims the church makes about the Bible.

Essentially our student was knocked out of his saddle.
Should our solution be to get him back in the saddle and keep him there?

Yes and no.

I said earlier that people tend to go to the extreme positions. If the only two options are (a) the Bible is infallible, or (b) the Bible is bunko, then it's far preferable to believe in infallibility than lose one's faith.

But the best position is in between. There isn't any reason that we can't allow for some textual errors, copyist mistakes, or margin notes getting included in the main text. Those things don't subvert the main message... well, unless you really twist things out of context.

 

[RLT63]

When is the last time you read this passage of scripture?

Some people read the Bible cover to cover and have never read it. If the translation you use is one of the following, you won’t have read it and may not even be aware of it: CJB, DLNT, ERV, GNT, NABRE, NIV, NIVUK, and TLV.

John 5:4 - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

I spoke with a concerned student some years back who encountered this curious case and came to me on the verge of losing his trust in the reliability of Bible. As I recall, the student (who had read only the NIV) had been completely unaware of the “problem” until a Muslim he was evangelizing pointed it out to him.

Would you, the reader, have been able to help the shaken student? If you would, how would you go about it?

I have always maintained that verse 4 should absolutely be included in the passage despite what the "scholars " say. Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4.

 

[RLT63]

I think most people probably do see the verse number skipping from 3 to 5 (in some translations, including NIV) and realize there is an issue with the verse. It is an odd thing for the translators to do.




I agree. I primarily use NASB95. It retains the verse numbering (no skipping from 3 to 5) and places the passage in brackets.



I own many Bibles, including NIV. I don’t have a high opinion of it but many people use it. I try to meet people where they are.

I mentioned a few minutes ago that I was raised KJVO. I have KJV Bibles in my personal library (including the very first Bible I was given as a child, in 1964; it holds great sentimental value) but I seldom use KJV. Many people do and, just as with those who use NIV, I try to meet them where they are.

All translations have strengths and weaknesses. I recommend reading and consulting (comparing and contrasting) many Bible translations.

That is not the only verse that modern versions leave out

 

[St. SteVen]

I have always maintained that verse 4 should absolutely be included in the passage despite what the "scholars " say. Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4.

Perhaps vs 4 was added as a support for verse 7?
(how it ended up there) Not original, but useful.

Question: If it was added later, can we claim inspiration?

[

 

[Lambano]

Perhaps vs 4 was added as a support for verse 7?
(how it ended up there) Not original, but useful.

Question: If it was added later, can we claim inspiration?

[

An inspired copyist?

Only God knows.

 

[RLT63]

Perhaps vs 4 was added as a support for verse 7?
(how it ended up there) Not original, but useful.

Question: If it was added later, can we claim inspiration?

[

I don't know that it was added later but it was removed later

 

[Wick Stick]

I don't know that it was added later but it was removed later

Which was inspired - the adding or the removing? Both? Neither?

 

[RLT63]

Which was inspired - the adding or the removing? Both? Neither?

I don't think it was added.

 

[Matthias]

I have always maintained that verse 4 should absolutely be included in the passage despite what the "scholars " say. Verse 7 makes no sense without verse 4.

I think verse 7 makes sense without verse 4 and verse 4 provides helpful background information. When I preach on this chapter I always include it, sometimes commenting on the textual issue but oftentimes not. What I find interesting is that scribes flagged it long ago as a caution to those who read their copies.

 

[RLT63]

I think verse 7 makes sense without verse 4 and verse 4 provides helpful background information. When I preach on this chapter I always include it, sometimes commenting on the textual issue but oftentimes not. What I find interesting is that scribes flagged it long ago as a caution to those who read their copies.

Jhn 5:7 - The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled,to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Who troubled the water? Why did he want to get into the water when it was troubled?
Without verse 4 we have no idea what the impotent man is talking about.

 

[Matthias]

That's some interesting background information. I had assumed you were his pastor or teacher.

I think your approach for a sexagenarian would necessarily be different than for a teen because the relationship is different. Plus, adults have more developed B.S. detectors.

We had professors with diverse theological backgrounds. (They weren’t all from the same denomination. I was the same age or older than a number of them.) I listened to their lectures and, for the most part, found them to be reasonable. But I also watched as young students swallowed everything that was taught without thinking critically about what they were hearing.

I didn’t have much time to spend discussing what was being taught outside of class with other students. What little time I did have for discussions with them was largely an exercise akin to talking to parrots.

That changed when I became an adjunct professor after graduating and encouraged my students to ask questions about what I was teaching / what others were teaching in the classroom. Some colleges (administrators, professors and students) where I taught were okay with that and some weren’t.

I could give deliver lectures but I preferred not to. That carried over to when I became a pastor a few years later and turned to dialogue preaching; a style of preaching which my small congregation loved and my college professors who taught preaching disliked and wouldn’t allow in their classrooms.

 

[Matthias]

Jhn 5:7 - The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled,to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
Who troubled the water? Why did he want to get into the water when it was troubled?
Without verse 4 we have no idea what the impotent man is talking about.

Does it matter?

Would those who were there at the time when it happened know or not know what the man was talking about?

I think it was added later for the benefit of those who weren’t there at the time that it happened so that they / we would understand what the man was talking about.

 

[RLT63]

Does it matter?

Would those who were there at the time when it happened know or not know what the man was talking about?

I think it was added later for the benefit of those who weren’t there at the time that it happened so that they / we would understand what the man was talking about.

Where did the idea come from?

 

[Matthias]

Where did the idea come from?

The idea to clarify? From a scribe copying what he was given.

An interesting suggestion put forth by some: it may have come later by John himself.

 

[Aunty Jane]

I mentioned a few minutes ago that I was raised KJVO. I have KJV Bibles in my personal library (including the very first Bible I was given as a child, in 1964; it holds great sentimental value) but I seldom use KJV.

This is true in my own case as well….my little KJV with its many pictures of the Bible characters and scenes was a gift from my grandmother when I was 10 years old…it holds great sentimental value, as I have had it for 65 years but am not attached to its renderings now that I have done my own research. Original language word studies as well as research into omitted verses have answered a lot of questions for me.
But you must be open minded and prepared to drop long held notions about things learned in translations that were never written in the original manuscripts.

Many people do and, just as with those who use NIV, I try to meet them where they are.

Yes, I too encounter those who have their favorite versions from which they never stray, but the one thing I love to do (personally) is first of all see what the original language says in an Interlinear, and then see how that original language is translated in many different versions. It is a real eye opener at times when you see deliberate attempts to translate in a biased way to promote church doctrine, rather than solidly based Bible truth. Many NT translations for example loose their Jewish understanding and have Christendom’s version of things inferred, if not plainly stated. Any who are not open minded Bible students would never see it.

All translations have strengths and weaknesses. I recommend reading and consulting (comparing and contrasting) many Bible translations.

I do too…..broadening the scope of your study of the Bible allows for the kinds of issues related to the OP to be addressed academically, rather than by emotion tied to a particular translation.

It is the original Bible that was inspired of God…translations are the work of men. And if they come from a particular doctrinal mindset, then their rendering will focus on that rather than to translate in accord with what the writer intended to teach his audience.

The case in point with John 5:4 was an addition to explain why the people had waited for the waters to be stirred up, supposedly by the angel.
Is this the way Jesus demonstrated his healing? Did he send an angel to stir up water in a pool so that only the first one in got better? No one walked away from Jesus unhealed….he had a 100% success rate.

So from my perspective the missing verse was simply added later to explain why the stirring up of the water was so important, and why the man continually missed out on getting well….UNTIL he encountered Jesus who demonstrated that the healing in the pool was not anything to do with God, but was perhaps a satanic trick to draw desperate people to put their faith in the wrong kind of healing. A bit like the Catholic church does with Lourdes. How many leave with the same problems that they came with…hopes dashed. Jesus never operated like that.

Jesus showed them that the healing that came from God was not selective, but any who came to him in faith, even if they had little at the start, certainly had much after the fact. No one returned home disappointed because they weren’t the first one in the pool.

That is how I would approach the subject…..I’m sorry if this has already been addressed…I haven’t read the whole thread…came in late.
It’s a great topic though.

 

[St. SteVen]

I don't know that it was added later but it was removed later

NIV Note:

1. John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.

NET Note:

• John 5:3 tc The majority of later mss (C3 Θ Ψ 078 ƒ1,13 M) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (Ac D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (P66,75 א B C* T co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[

 

[RLT63]

NIV Note:

1. John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed—and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.

NET Note:

• John 5:3 tc The majority of later mss (C3 Θ Ψ 078 ƒ1,13 M) add the following to 5:3: “waiting for the moving of the water. 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered.” Other mss include only v. 3b (Ac D 33 lat) or v. 4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. 3b-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (P66,75 א B C* T co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the mss that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

[

I love the NET but in this case I think Verse 4 is needed

 

[St. SteVen]

I love the NET but in this case I think Verse 4 is needed

I agree, but the question is about what that means to the veracity of our Bible.
We have been told that the Bible is God-breathed and every word is inspired.
If that's true, why would some Bibles include John 5:4 and some Bible remove it?
There's a human element that needs to be acknowledged here.

[