The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

[SavedByGrace]

Still seems that the bulk of the external evidence would see that passage as not being found in the originals!

The same can be said for reading in colossians 2.2 in translations after the KJV. 2 manuscripts and 2 Latin Church fathers

 

[Conan]

Both Tertullian and Cyprian, read and wrote in Greek and Latin, and used the Greek New Testament, where Tertullian translated himself the Greek to Latin. Both refer to the words in 1 John 5:7, as I have shown in the OP, both show that this reading was in the GREEK in the 2nd century!

They were Latin speaking Christians. They are preserved in Latin only, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the reading in Greek. Even Cyprians supposed quote is rejected as a quote by many scholars as an interpretación. But even if it is a genuine quote it is in Latin, not Greek. This proves the reading did not exist in Greek, because no Greek Father quotes the spurious words in Greek, proving it was a Latin addition to the Word of God in Latin. The Old Latin has a reputation for wild readings. No othe ancient Bible has the spurious words. Not the oldest Latin, not the Syraic, not the coptic, not the Georgian, not the Gothic, nor any other. I wonder why that is? There is not one shred of evidence that it existed but in the Latin, and not all of the Latin. Had other Bibles been translated from the Latin they would have the extra words as well, but they do not. Only the Wycliffe was translated from Latin in the late 1400's. All the others are from the Original Greek.

 

[Conan]

What is "textual evidence" to you? just the Greek manuscripts that any Tom, Dick and Harry can produce?

What untrue witness to the Word of God. What disrespectful attitude to Gods Word. First off, not just anyone could copy the word of God. Anyone that knows anything about ancient manuscripts knows that most of the ancient world only about 10% of the people could read and write. So it is impossible that any Tom, dick and Harry could produce a Greek manuscript. They were trained scribes that passed on the word of God in the original Greek language to us. Without Greek manuscripts we don't have the word of God. God used Greek manuscripts to give us the word of God. The English Reformation happened because of the bible translated into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. Not the Latin of the Roman Catholic Church. It took great expense to copy a Greek manuscript. Writting material was very expensive it took a lot of effort mainly done by scribes and monks. Anyone that knows anything about textual criticism knows of the great difficulty in producing handwritten copies of the Word of God. What a great debt that we owe these Christian scribes to pass on the word of God to us.

 

[Conan]

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Why didn’t Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this? I believe that he was so strongly theologically motivated to keep the “received text” here that he either did not see any other grammatical options, or that he deliberately ignored them. This then set the tone for the 19th-century apologists who similarly desired to protect the text.

In conclusion: the fact ought to be accepted that masculine adjectives/pronouns/participles can and do modify neuter substantives, in plain contradiction to Eugenius' claim

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar


Eugenius is apparently the source of much of the grammatical speculation [spread by writers such as Robert Dabney and Thomas Holland – JSJ] about First John 5:7-8 that has circulated. In what follows, I shall suggest that there is a fairly simple alternative. As before, Greek quotations from New Testament texts are taken from the Textus Receptus to forestall the objection that there is some sort of text-critical difficulty that, in the mind of the King-James-Onlyist, will invalidate the argument; likewise English quotations from the New Testament will be taken from the KJV. After that, I will present a more detailed response to Eugenius’ argument.
Have a look at First John 5:8:

και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. – “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Now, a bit of a grammar lesson, to help folks better understand the argument. “That bear witness” in English is actually a relative clause, but in Greek it’s a participle. A part of what? A participle. Participle comes from the Latin “to have a share in” and what participles do is share in the qualities of both an adjective and a verb – they are verbal adjectives. Another thing that adjectives get to do from time to time is to pretend to be nouns. We do this with proverbial statements in English, “The good die young” or “The poor shall always be with you.” The latter example shows that Greek does it too, since it’s a quotation from the New Testament. In Greek (and Latin) it’s done much more frequently, and not just with proverbial statements.
Greek does this most often by planting a definite article in front of the adjective or participle. That’s the syntax of “there are three that bear witness.” It is a substantive participle, standing in where one might expect a noun instead. Had the author written οἱ μαρτύρες, “witnesses,” it would mean essentially the same thing, the difference being that the participle describes the referent in terms of the action inherent in the verb. Greek does this all the time, such as at John 3:16, “everyone who believes” is actually a substantive phrase parallel to “three who bear witness.”

Now, why is this important? It means that the substantive functions more like a noun than like an adjective. That means it does not modify another noun (or nouns) in the sentence, but gets its number and gender from its understood antecedent, and its case from how it is used in the sentence. There is therefore no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence. Here, the author is clearly thinking of “witnesses, those who give witness.”
Notice also that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” all have the definite article. This not only suggests that they are discrete elements, but that they are to be associated with the subject and with each other without being the same as each other. They are three different types of witnesses. Instead of the participle modifying them, they stand in apposition with the substantive participle. They are the particular examples of the witnesses. Since the substantive is acting as a noun, there is no need for “grammatical concord” between the substantive participle and the nouns which stand in apposition to it. It does not matter that “those who give witness” is masculine and that the three nouns are neuter.
Are there other examples of this? Actually there are many throughout Greek literature, but two stand out in the New Testament:

See the full article at The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

 

[SavedByGrace]

What untrue witness to the Word of God. What disrespectful attitude to Gods Word. First off, not just anyone could copy the word of God. Anyone that knows anything about ancient manuscripts knows that most of the ancient world only about 10% of the people could read and write. So it is impossible that any Tom, dick and Harry could produce a Greek manuscript. They were trained scribes that passed on the word of God in the original Greek language to us. Without Greek manuscripts we don't have the word of God. God used Greek manuscripts to give us the word of God. The English Reformation happened because of the bible translated into English from the original Hebrew and Greek. Not the Latin of the Roman Catholic Church. It took great expense to copy a Greek manuscript. Writting material was very expensive it took a lot of effort mainly done by scribes and monks. Anyone that knows anything about textual criticism knows of the great difficulty in producing handwritten copies of the Word of God. What a great debt that we owe these Christian scribes to pass on the word of God to us.

Well, here is a small education for you and others, who would really want to know some facts on textual studies

1. “On the one hand there is the statement of Eusebius (Vit. Constant, iv. 36) that the Emperor Constantine about the year 331 ordered fifty copies of the Scriptures on vellum for the churches in his new capital ; on the other, there is the statement of Jerome that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius (arc, 350)” (Sir Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament pp.47-48)

Firstly, both these men were very strong followers of the arch heretic, Arius. Secondly, the time the were engaged in copying of Greek manuscripts, was when the Codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, were produced.

2. Dr Metzger informs us that, "Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27). Dr Souter, in his book has classified manuscripts into groups for textual study, which he follows on from Professor Von Soden. Under the "K" Text, we find the four principal Greek Manuscripts, the codices, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Epharemi (5th century). We are also told that, "'K' was produced at Antioch by Lucian" (see, Souter, p.120). We are further told that Lucian "introduced useless corrections into the (Greek) Gospels, and the copies which he had 'falsified' were pronounced Apocryphal in later times" (Dr B F Westcott; On the Canon of the New Testament, p.392).

Now that we know what Lucian was responsible for, we shall see what his theology was. "Lucian taught that the Word that dwelt in Jesus was a semi-divine and non-eternal creature" (L Pullan; The Church of the Fathers, p.153). We are also told that, "he did not regard the Christ as essentially one with the eternal God, clinging to the conception of a perfect human development, as the means by which he reached divinity" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.111). One of the people who studied under Lucian at his School, was a Presbyter of a Church in Alexandria, Arius, who adopted Lucian's teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, pp.298-299). Now, if this Lucian is responsible for the bulk of our present day Greek Manuscripts, it is no wonder that important texts that refer to the Deity of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are corrupted. This is a very important fact, and must be borne in mind by all who undertake the science of Textual Criticism.

These are facts!

 

[SavedByGrace]

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Why didn’t Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this? I believe that he was so strongly theologically motivated to keep the “received text” here that he either did not see any other grammatical options, or that he deliberately ignored them. This then set the tone for the 19th-century apologists who similarly desired to protect the text.

In conclusion: the fact ought to be accepted that masculine adjectives/pronouns/participles can and do modify neuter substantives, in plain contradiction to Eugenius' claim

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar


Eugenius is apparently the source of much of the grammatical speculation [spread by writers such as Robert Dabney and Thomas Holland – JSJ] about First John 5:7-8 that has circulated. In what follows, I shall suggest that there is a fairly simple alternative. As before, Greek quotations from New Testament texts are taken from the Textus Receptus to forestall the objection that there is some sort of text-critical difficulty that, in the mind of the King-James-Onlyist, will invalidate the argument; likewise English quotations from the New Testament will be taken from the KJV. After that, I will present a more detailed response to Eugenius’ argument.
Have a look at First John 5:8:

και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. – “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Now, a bit of a grammar lesson, to help folks better understand the argument. “That bear witness” in English is actually a relative clause, but in Greek it’s a participle. A part of what? A participle. Participle comes from the Latin “to have a share in” and what participles do is share in the qualities of both an adjective and a verb – they are verbal adjectives. Another thing that adjectives get to do from time to time is to pretend to be nouns. We do this with proverbial statements in English, “The good die young” or “The poor shall always be with you.” The latter example shows that Greek does it too, since it’s a quotation from the New Testament. In Greek (and Latin) it’s done much more frequently, and not just with proverbial statements.
Greek does this most often by planting a definite article in front of the adjective or participle. That’s the syntax of “there are three that bear witness.” It is a substantive participle, standing in where one might expect a noun instead. Had the author written οἱ μαρτύρες, “witnesses,” it would mean essentially the same thing, the difference being that the participle describes the referent in terms of the action inherent in the verb. Greek does this all the time, such as at John 3:16, “everyone who believes” is actually a substantive phrase parallel to “three who bear witness.”

Now, why is this important? It means that the substantive functions more like a noun than like an adjective. That means it does not modify another noun (or nouns) in the sentence, but gets its number and gender from its understood antecedent, and its case from how it is used in the sentence. There is therefore no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence. Here, the author is clearly thinking of “witnesses, those who give witness.”
Notice also that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” all have the definite article. This not only suggests that they are discrete elements, but that they are to be associated with the subject and with each other without being the same as each other. They are three different types of witnesses. Instead of the participle modifying them, they stand in apposition with the substantive participle. They are the particular examples of the witnesses. Since the substantive is acting as a noun, there is no need for “grammatical concord” between the substantive participle and the nouns which stand in apposition to it. It does not matter that “those who give witness” is masculine and that the three nouns are neuter.
Are there other examples of this? Actually there are many throughout Greek literature, but two stand out in the New Testament:

See the full article at The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Do YOU

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Why didn’t Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this? I believe that he was so strongly theologically motivated to keep the “received text” here that he either did not see any other grammatical options, or that he deliberately ignored them. This then set the tone for the 19th-century apologists who similarly desired to protect the text.

In conclusion: the fact ought to be accepted that masculine adjectives/pronouns/participles can and do modify neuter substantives, in plain contradiction to Eugenius' claim

The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar


Eugenius is apparently the source of much of the grammatical speculation [spread by writers such as Robert Dabney and Thomas Holland – JSJ] about First John 5:7-8 that has circulated. In what follows, I shall suggest that there is a fairly simple alternative. As before, Greek quotations from New Testament texts are taken from the Textus Receptus to forestall the objection that there is some sort of text-critical difficulty that, in the mind of the King-James-Onlyist, will invalidate the argument; likewise English quotations from the New Testament will be taken from the KJV. After that, I will present a more detailed response to Eugenius’ argument.
Have a look at First John 5:8:

και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. – “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Now, a bit of a grammar lesson, to help folks better understand the argument. “That bear witness” in English is actually a relative clause, but in Greek it’s a participle. A part of what? A participle. Participle comes from the Latin “to have a share in” and what participles do is share in the qualities of both an adjective and a verb – they are verbal adjectives. Another thing that adjectives get to do from time to time is to pretend to be nouns. We do this with proverbial statements in English, “The good die young” or “The poor shall always be with you.” The latter example shows that Greek does it too, since it’s a quotation from the New Testament. In Greek (and Latin) it’s done much more frequently, and not just with proverbial statements.
Greek does this most often by planting a definite article in front of the adjective or participle. That’s the syntax of “there are three that bear witness.” It is a substantive participle, standing in where one might expect a noun instead. Had the author written οἱ μαρτύρες, “witnesses,” it would mean essentially the same thing, the difference being that the participle describes the referent in terms of the action inherent in the verb. Greek does this all the time, such as at John 3:16, “everyone who believes” is actually a substantive phrase parallel to “three who bear witness.”

Now, why is this important? It means that the substantive functions more like a noun than like an adjective. That means it does not modify another noun (or nouns) in the sentence, but gets its number and gender from its understood antecedent, and its case from how it is used in the sentence. There is therefore no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence. Here, the author is clearly thinking of “witnesses, those who give witness.”
Notice also that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” all have the definite article. This not only suggests that they are discrete elements, but that they are to be associated with the subject and with each other without being the same as each other. They are three different types of witnesses. Instead of the participle modifying them, they stand in apposition with the substantive participle. They are the particular examples of the witnesses. Since the substantive is acting as a noun, there is no need for “grammatical concord” between the substantive participle and the nouns which stand in apposition to it. It does not matter that “those who give witness” is masculine and that the three nouns are neuter.
Are there other examples of this? Actually there are many throughout Greek literature, but two stand out in the New Testament:

See the full article at The Text of the Gospels: The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

Your link to Dr. Barry Hofstetter, shows the extent of your own reasoning on the Greek grammar, which is, like Hofstetter, is flawed! Just check some of the comments on this article, and you will see that Hofstetter's argument against the masculine gender, is incorrect! Futrthermore, I don't see any mention on the use of the Greek article in verse 8, “και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν”; nor the relative pronoun, “ἥν”, in verses 9 and 10? Hofstetter has said nothing to show that the Greek of this passage, disproves what I have said in the OP!

 

[Conan]

Well, here is a small education for you and others, who would really want to know some facts on textual studies

1. “On the one hand there is the statement of Eusebius (Vit. Constant, iv. 36) that the Emperor Constantine about the year 331 ordered fifty copies of the Scriptures on vellum for the churches in his new capital ; on the other, there is the statement of Jerome that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius (arc, 350)” (Sir Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the textual criticism of the New Testament pp.47-48)

Firstly, both these men were very strong followers of the arch heretic, Arius. Secondly, the time the were engaged in copying of Greek manuscripts, was when the Codices Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, were produced.

2. Dr Metzger informs us that, "Lucian influenced the form of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of New Testament textual criticism, p.27). Dr Souter, in his book has classified manuscripts into groups for textual study, which he follows on from Professor Von Soden. Under the "K" Text, we find the four principal Greek Manuscripts, the codices, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Epharemi (5th century). We are also told that, "'K' was produced at Antioch by Lucian" (see, Souter, p.120). We are further told that Lucian "introduced useless corrections into the (Greek) Gospels, and the copies which he had 'falsified' were pronounced Apocryphal in later times" (Dr B F Westcott; On the Canon of the New Testament, p.392).

Now that we know what Lucian was responsible for, we shall see what his theology was. "Lucian taught that the Word that dwelt in Jesus was a semi-divine and non-eternal creature" (L Pullan; The Church of the Fathers, p.153). We are also told that, "he did not regard the Christ as essentially one with the eternal God, clinging to the conception of a perfect human development, as the means by which he reached divinity" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine, p.111). One of the people who studied under Lucian at his School, was a Presbyter of a Church in Alexandria, Arius, who adopted Lucian's teaching on the Person of Jesus Christ (F J Foakes Jackson; The History of the Christian Church, pp.298-299). Now, if this Lucian is responsible for the bulk of our present day Greek Manuscripts, it is no wonder that important texts that refer to the Deity of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are corrupted. This is a very important fact, and must be borne in mind by all who undertake the science of Textual Criticism.

These are facts!

Yes I know you are a begining student of textual criticism. Reading out of date material that now no modern textual critic believes. This was an conjecture by Westcott and Hort (Hort's actually). Hort gave 8 examples of where he thought the Byzantine text conflated "western" and Alexandrian readings. So he conjectured the Byzantine text was made up of 2 previous text types, "western" + Alexandrian. His conjecture carried the day back then with students. But not Scrivener and Burgon, they were not fooled. Metzger took up the flawed reasoning and tried to take it farther by showing "western"+Alexandrian couplets in the Greek Septuagint. Metzger tried to say they were Lucian's. Remember Hort only suggested Lucian. It was pointed it out by Old Testament Textual critics that these "couplets" already existed in the Old Latin in the 2/3rd century AD, so they could not have been created by Lucian in the 4th. Metzgers failure was quietly forgotten about.

Another reason people reject it today is that Hort's example of 8 couplets doesn't mean squat. It's only 8 examples, so what? That's all he could come up with. Even the total 8 doesn't hold today, but even if they did they as so few in number it doesn't mean anything. Further more at least 4 examples of Alexandrian couplets have been found. Does that mean the Alexandrian was made from the "western" and Byzantine text types?

No one on this planet believes lucian is responsible for almost all of the Greek Manuscripts on this planet. Its mear conjecture with no proof whatsoever.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No one on this planet believes lucian is responsible for almost all of the Greek Manuscripts on this planet. Its mear conjecture with no proof whatsoever.

really? and you know this how?

 

[Conan]

There is not one piece of evidence to support it. I just explained it to you above. It is mear conjecture that Lucian was responsible for anything. It was a guess. Do you know why they proposed Lucian's name? Because his name was mentioned by Jerome as editing an edition of the Septuagint. So they conjectured his name. You saw Metzger's failure above. He was the first to try to actually prove it.

 

[Conan]

In other words, they were looking for someone to pin it on. That is the Greek Byzantine manuscripts. They wanted to get rid of their testimony. A reason to dismiss them in block so they could justify editions like Westcott and Hort. The big block of another Text type was getting in their way, and they had to have a reason to dismiss them. Remember Scrivener and Burgon were not fooled even before the writers named by you wrote.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In other words, they were looking for someone to pin it on. That is the Greek Byzantine manuscripts. They wanted to get rid of their testimony. A reason to dismiss them in block so they could justify editions like Westcott and Hort. The big block of another Text type was getting in their way, and they had to have a reason to dismiss them. Remember Scrivener and Burgon were not fooled even before the writers named by you wrote.

you have thus far failed to deal with what I have said in the OP, on the Greek article in verse 8, and the relative pronoun, in verses 9 and 10. As it rightly stands in the TR, there can be no doubt that the words as in the KJV are 100% genuine and the work of the Apostle John. As in verses 6-8, these 2 verses also show that the the Three Heavenly Witnesses, are without doubt Breathed by God the Holy Spirit! I have added my comments to the link you provided by Dr. Barry Hofstetter. His arguments are moot, because he fails to deal with the entire passage. Nor do the the examples that he gives from the Greek usage, show that what I have said in the OP, to be wrong.

 

[SavedByGrace]

There is not one piece of evidence to support it. I just explained it to you above. It is mear conjecture that Lucian was responsible for anything. It was a guess. Do you know why they proposed Lucian's name? Because his name was mentioned by Jerome as editing an edition of the Septuagint. So they conjectured his name. You saw Metzger's failure above. He was the first to try to actually prove it.

Scrivener and Burgon were very much opposed to anything that W&H said. I would rather accept what Jerome says, who actually had in his possession the Version of the OT by Lucian, than the dismissal by Scrivener and Burgon.

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[Conan]

Scrivener and Burgon were very much opposed to anything that W&H said. I would rather accept what Jerome says, who actually had in his possession the Version of the OT by Lucian, than the dismissal by Scrivener and Burgon.

Philip Schaff: NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

What are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As a matter of fact you post on textual criticism made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I had scanned it and saw the old theories but just look in more detail and saw the hideousness of the statements. They are all wrong, someone took facts and mixed in lies. Let me guess, you got it from a KJVOnly site. You did not get that from reading their actual books because they mixed in lies with the quotes. I am sure you did not do it but KJVOnlys, they do that. You just followed their works not knowing any better.

There is no doubt you got the grammar argument from the KJVOnlys as well, but you didn't admitt that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What are you talking about? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

As a matter of fact you post on textual criticism made absolutely no sense whatsoever. I had scanned it and saw the old theories but just look in more detail and saw the hideousness of the statements. They are all wrong, someone took facts and mixed in lies. Let me guess, you got it from a KJVOnly site. You did not get that from reading their actual books because they mixed in lies with the quotes. I am sure you did not do it but KJVOnlys, they do that. You just followed their works not knowing any better.

There is no doubt you got the grammar argument from the KJVOnlys as well, but you didn't admitt that.

I have been studying Greek grammar since 1983! You use your strawman arguments because in fact, neither you, nor anyone else who rejects 1 John 5:7, can prove what I have written in the OP, on the Greek grammar, to be wrong. Yet again you fail to disprove what I have said on the Greek article in verse 8, and relative pronoun in verses 9 and 10! Please deal with this, before you question my knowledge of Greek.

 

[Conan]

you have thus far failed to deal with what I have said in the OP, on the Greek article in verse 8, and the relative pronoun, in verses 9 and 10. As it rightly stands in the TR, there can be no doubt that the words as in the KJV are 100% genuine and the work of the Apostle John. As in verses 6-8, these 2 verses also show that the the Three Heavenly Witnesses, are without doubt Breathed by God the Holy Spirit! I have added my comments to the link you provided by Dr. Barry Hofstetter. His arguments are moot, because he fails to deal with the entire passage. Nor do the the examples that he gives from the Greek usage, show that what I have said in the OP, to be wrong.

Your in deep error. You have lost all reasonability. You are going against all Greek scholars for an old argument brought up by KJVOnlys to try to rescue words not written by John. You get your information from KJVOnlys without naming them as your source. You are mislead by them.

 

[Conan]

I have been studying Greek grammar since 1983! You use your strawman arguments because in fact, neither you, nor anyone else who rejects 1 John 5:7, can prove what I have written in the OP, on the Greek grammar, to be wrong. Yet again you fail to disprove what I have said on the Greek article in verse 8, and relative pronoun in verses 9 and 10! Please deal with this, before you question my knowledge of Greek.

You did not come up with this. This is a discussion on the internet. Name your source. You are decieving people acting like you came up with it. Now tell the Baptist Board where you got it from. Quit acting like it is your work.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your in deep error. You have lost all reasonability. You are going against all Greek scholars for an old argument brought up by KJVOnlys to try to rescue words not written by John. You get your information from KJVOnlys without naming them as your source. You are mislead by them.

can you deal with the Greek grammar YOURSELF, without people like Hofstetter, whose article shows that he has not a clue what this pasage means!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You did not come up with this. This is a discussion on the internet. Name your source. You are decieving people acting like you came up with it. Now tell the Baptist Board where you got it from. Quit acting like it is your work.

ha, ha! This is MY own reading from the Gree New Tesatament, which I knew about over 30 years ago, when I first looked at this passage, after reading Dr A T Robertson's objections to this verse in his Greek Word Pictures. This is long before the Internet! Now, prove this wrong!

 

[Conan]

You have been proven wrong already. One, by the link I gave. Two, by all the independent Greek scribes, over 700 did not have a problem with the grammar. Because scribes when they saw a problem some of them would correct it. Why is that? Because they were honest scribes and did not add to God's word. Over 700 Greek scribes did not correct it. That is a fact Plus all the other ancient language Bibles did not correct it as well, but read as the Greek. Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic. Only exception is some of the Old Latin. Its missing from the earliest Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Jerome had no problem with the grammar.

Only KJVOnlys have recently revived the discussion, and you have not named them as you source, which is misleading of you to the BB. You adopted their argument, which you did not give them credit for. You did not come up with this independently. It was brought up by KJVOnlys and TROnlys, which is where you got it from. This is at least the 3rd time I have seen you use their sources.

 

[SavedByGrace]

It was brought up by KJVOnlys and TROnlys, which is where you got it from

I am neither! you have yet again FAILED to disprove the OP.