Featured 1 John 5:7,8

Think that one raised and versed up on Kjv can keep that in their Bible, along with mark's longer Gospel ending, but also they should read up and become versed into just why modern versions do not accept them as being originally written in the text!

not to be just a "Kjv has it, so must be true!"

 

It is not exactly correct to say that there are no Greek manuscripts which contain "the Johannine Comma" (1 John 5:7).

There are several late Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma.

They are all later than the 10th century - five are contained within the text of the manuscript, six are in the margin:

Admittedly, the extant Greek manuscript evidence for the Comma is weak.
Only 11 "late" Greek manuscripts contain the Comma, with six of them having it in the margin by an even later hand:

Mss Date
629 (14th century)
61 (16th century)
918 (16th century)
2473 (17th century)
2318 (18th century)
221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)
635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)
429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)
636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)
177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-fa...oly-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Extant-manuscripts

There are both Greek and Latin father who quote the Comma as scripture.

There are several other appearances in the old Itala manuscripts (about 10) as well as the Latin Vulgate of the Comma.

There are other evidences for the Comma, see the site above.


HankD

 

Think though the majority of the evidence favors it as being a late addition into the text, so while it does teach a biblical truth, was not part of the original text itself!

 

Maybe, but I don't think the jury has all the evidence yet.

HankD

 

The good news though is that even if we excuse that out of the original text, there are MANY passages that all agree on to support the trinity!

 

Yes, that's true but it's a composite doctrine.

There isn't one verse or even a few verses in one general area to define the Trinity. It took the church about three hundred years to define the Trinity.

Athanasius is the champion of the doctrine of the Trinity (IMO).

HankD

 

The doctrine of there being a Godhead of three though was defined right in the texts, but it is true that there was no "official" ratification of that until later on !

Just trying to prevent some from saying that not even in the Bible, just "manmade" dogma!

 

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.



Cyprian - 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Stephanus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry.

It is true that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts that exist today. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion.

Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the constantly changing UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican Critical Greek text which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places.

Westcott and Hort, the very men who introduced the Critical Text methods found in the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, themselves said: "A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity (few number), appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them" (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45

It should also be noted that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today that were written within the first 700 years of Christianity.

 

JOHN WESLEY commented on 1 John 5:7 saying: " I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one."


"As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: -- ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world."



JOHN CALVIN - "There are three than bear record in heaven" The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."

MATTHEW HENRY on 1 John 5:7 - "We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading."


"The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle...Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost...If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And THEREFORE CYPRIAN'S WORDS SEEM STILL TO BE A FIRM TESTIMONY TO V. 7."


"It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book." "I think, in the book of God,... THE TEXT IS WORTHY OF ALL ACCEPTATION."

JOHN GILL commenting on 1 John 5:7 - "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerome, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."


"And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition the compilers of which made use of various copies; and OUT OF SIXTEEN ANCIENT COPIES OF ROBERT STEPHEN'S, NINE OF THEM HAD IT." " (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible).

These manuscripts underlying the Complutensian Polyglot and the 16 "ancient" copies of Stephanus no longer exist."


Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers Mr. Gill continues: "And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."

 

I am impressed at your depth of study. Since you did not source any material Jordan I assume this is all your own work?

 

Do you have anyone reliable from the last 50 years who have seen the MSs data that has been gathered??? Otherwise, I don't care what these guys said. And I noticed that you don't have anything from the Council of Nicea where it would be relevant and helpful. Oh wait... why is that?

 

You're seeking Rome's approval?

Are you praying to Mary?

 

Sorry, Information Courtesy of William Kinney.

here is the source page:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm

 

New Data from the last 50 years doesn't change the early church fathers who quoted the verse, Nor does it take away from the existing manuscript evidence.

Who do you consider reliable? Only those who are anti King James?

 

Thought it looked familiar . He used to be a member here.

 

New data changes a lot!!!

Please provide the Ms evidence that you find so convincing.

Please provide the early church fathers quotations.

 

This oft repeated charge is patently false. No reasonable believer is 'anti King James.' There are vast numbers who believe however that God's word for English speakers is not bound by one 17th century translation.

As far as sources, would you consider non-KJVO sources as reliable?

 

Think basic problem is that some in the KJVO camp really insist that it does not matter IF was in the original texts as written, but is canonized by being found as is in the Kjv version!