ESV?

By the way, Reformed1689 had a lot to do with my switch from the NIV to the ESV.

 

Blessings brother!

 

1 John 5:7 - The clearest reference in the Bible on the Holy Trinity

NKJV

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one"

ESV

"For there are three that testify"

The Greek grammar of the passage is 100% against the reading as found in versions like the ESV. It was read by the Church theologian Tertullian (AD 155-220), where he found the words in the Greek and Latin New Testament.


“And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering Persons, one in the other, which three are one (qui tres unum sunt) [in substance ‘unum’, not ‘one’ in number, ‘unus’]; in the same manner which it was said, ‘I and the Father are one’, to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number” (Ad Prax. C.25).

Which is also found in the Greek and Latin used by Cyprian (died AD 258)


“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

This evidence is much older than any Greek manuscript!

1 Timothy 3:16 - The clearest reference in the Bible to God becoming Incarnate

NKJV

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory"

ESV

"Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory"

Again, like 1 John 5:7, the Greek grammar is against the reading of the ESV. The very early Church Father, Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch, who lived during the time when Paul wrote this Letter (AD 35-108), clearly read "God" here:

"God having come in the flesh" (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 7)

"God was manifest as man" (Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 19)

John 7:8, where modren versions make Jesus Christ a liar

NKJV

"You go up to this feast. I am not yet going up to this feast, for My time has not yet fully come.”

ESV

You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.”

Since Jesus did go to this feast at a later time, the Greek adverb, "οὔπω", no doubt was part of the Original Gospel written by John. The Greek Papryi manuscript, Bodmer II, which dates between 100-200 AD, and Bodmer XIV-XV, dating AD 175-225, both read as the NKJV.

Expect those who know almost zero about textual studies, have a rant here!

 

I'm not certain what you mean by that last statement.

Perhaps you might expand on that?

 

I see that you use "I think" a few times. And I think that you are very much wrong!

The Top Ten Best Selling Bible Translations Compared to Ten Years Ago | Church Answers

 

Right, because we have never heard these arguments before...

Excursus: Johannine Comma
In versions following the (so-called) Textus Receptus or Received Text (KJV and NKJV) there is an additional section of v. 7 known as the Comma Johanneum or the Johannine Comma (Gk., comma = sentence or clause). Here vv. 7 and 8a read, “For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the …” Why do most modern versions demote this additional section to a mere footnote? Are modern versions deliberately less Trinitarian than classic translations such as the KJV? The question involved in deciding whether this verse is authentic is not based on the truthfulness of the statement but on the external manuscript evidence. In other words, just because a statement is true does not make it Scripture. One must look at why and how the Johannine Comma came to be adapted into the Greek Edition of the New Testament known as the Textus Receptus (A.D. 1633). This is not a question of the inspiration of the text but of the transmission of the text. John’s letter, whatever the original, is inerrant. What must be established is what the autographs actually said.
The oldest textual witnesses of this text occur in Latin manuscripts of the seventh century. With its eventual acceptance in the Latin Vulgate (Clementine edition, 1592), the Johannine Comma began to appear in many other translations and versions. It only appears in eight Greek manuscripts (minuscules), none of which can be dated before 1400. Furthermore, it is clear that the text has been translated from Latin back into Greek, and in four of the eight manuscripts the Johannine Comma appears only in the margin of the text. If the text is authentic, then its disappearance in the early manuscripts is an absolute mystery. Why would the church be so careless as to let such a valuable text be forgotten?
It should be noted that not only does the manuscript evidence strongly favor the omission of this passage, but the same is true concerning the testimony of the p 199 early church. Not one Greek or Latin Church Father ever quotes this passage in the first four and a half centuries. This is especially revealing in light of the many controversies revolving around the Trinity (especially Sabellianism and Arianism). If the Johannine Comma was a part of the original text, then what would be a better passage to quote in order to prove the Trinity? Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) almost certainly would have taken advantage of it. The absence of such usage causes one to doubt seriously the authenticity of this passage.
Erasmus, a prominent New Testament Greek scholar of the fifteenth century, rejected the Johannine Comma in the first two editions of his Greek New Testament (1516, 1519). Soon, however, he began to receive criticism for his omission of the Johannine Comma. The Englishman E. Lee was one of Erasmus’s constant critics. After being criticized by Lee for several years, Erasmus wrote to Lee the following reply, “If a single manuscript had come into my hands, in which stood what we read (sc. In the Latin Vulgate) then I would certainly have used it to fill in what was missing in the other manuscripts I had. Because that did not happen; I have taken the only course which was permissible, that is, I have indicated (sc. In the Annotationes) what was missing from the Greek manuscripts.”199
Later, Lee suggests that Erasmus was negligent and that if he only had looked at other manuscripts he would have certainly found a copy that contained the Johannine Comma. Erasmus again explained to Lee that he had diligently consulted many manuscripts. He continues: “What sort of indolence is that, if I did not consult manuscripts which I could not manage to have? At least, I collected as many as I could. Let Lee produce a Greek manuscript in which is written the words lacking in my edition, and let him prove that I had access to this manuscript, and then let him accuse me of indolence.” Shortly thereafter, a Greek manuscript containing the Johannine Comma was shown to Erasmus.201 It is almost certain that this manuscript was produced simply to induce Erasmus to include the Johannine Comma in his Greek New Testament. Even though Erasmus suspected this Greek manuscript to have been based on the Latin, there is doubt as to whether Erasmus knew that the manuscript had been created for the purpose of encouraging him to include the Johannine Comma. In the third edition of his Greek New Testament, Erasmus included the extra text (although he omitted the passage from later editions).
After Erasmus included the additional words of 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament, others began to accept it without question. It was later included in Stephanus’s edition (1550), which was a precursor to the Textus Receptus—the basis for the KJV.
Is the Johannine Comma Scripture? The evidence seems to say no. Is the Johannine Comma truthful? Is it sound theology? Yes. It is not necessary, p 200 however, to place the Johannine Comma in the text of Scripture. The Trinity can be adduced from many other texts of Scripture (e.g., Matt 28:18–20; 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 1:3–14; 4:4–6). We are warned in the Bible neither to take away nor add to its words. On this basis it is best to leave out the disputed words.
Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 198–200.

7:8 Jesus’ statement, “I am not going up to this feast,” should not be taken as a mistake by John or a falsehood by Jesus, even though John then records that Jesus did go up to the feast (v. 10). The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons. In fact, many of the oldest and best manuscripts have oupō (Gk. “not yet”) rather than simply ouk (Gk. “not”), and that might have been the original reading, though the reading “not” seems more likely to be original.
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2037.

 

The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

which Greek word do you refer to in verse 8, where you say, "can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,”? I don't know if you are here quoting from someone else, or these are your own words? In either case, the Greek grammar is faulty! Show how simply with the use of the Greek present, you can get, “I am not now going”? This is not even a paraphrase, but a commentary on what it might or should, read. this is known as conjecture!

 

You don't know if I am quoting someone else yet there is a citation? You have no credibility at this point.

 

Further, you quote the words, "Not one Greek or Latin Church Father ever quotes this passage in the first four and a half centuries". This is a JOKE, as I have shown that both Tertullian and Cyprian quote from this passage in 1 John 5, and both knew Greek and Latin!

 

The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

 

whatever! now, with your Greek knowledge, which you have said that you have in the past, show from the grammar, that "the Greek present, you can get, “I am not now going”?. I wait...

 

are you personally for, or against, the Comma Johanneum?

 

The Greek manuscripts are about evenly divided between the reading ouk (not) and oupō (“not yet”; cf. the NIV). Ouk is most likely the correct reading, since it is unlikely that anyone would replace oupō with ouk, thereby introducing a seeming contradiction into the text (cf. v. 10). On the other hand, there is an obvious reason for scribes to have replaced ouk with oupō, since doing so removes the apparent contradiction with verse 10. In either case, however, the Lord’s meaning is clear. He was not saying that He would not attend the feast at all, but that He would not go with his brothers in the manner they expected. Nor would He allow the Jewish leaders to take His life because His time had not yet fully come. When Jesus did lay down His life, six months later, it would be at the very moment God had predetermined (cf. v. 30; 8:20). Thus, having said these things to His brothers, He stayed in Galilee for a little while.
John F. MacArthur Jr., John 1–11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 2006), 282–283.

 

Against. It is not original.

 

It is not about the grammar, it is whether the manuscript actually says it. You and I adhere to different manuscripts so we will not agree on this.

 

you just said above, "The Greek present tense in v. 8 can legitimately have the sense, “I am not now going,” indicating that Jesus did not go up to the feast in the way the brothers suggested, for they wanted Jesus to manifest himself to his contemporaries for secular reasons". This deals with the GRAMMAR, and not the TEXT. You do know there is a difference???

 

Cyprian quotes the second half of verse 8 which is often rendered these three agree.
8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

 

Of course I know the difference, but what you seem to ignore is that in the manuscripts I use the word yet is not found and therefore not translated into English.

 

The only people that squawk about the issues @SavedByGrace is harping on are those that are adamant about the TR. Any objective person knows there is no substantial issue here.

 

Here is Cyprian, show how you get what you do? you are clearly out of your depth!

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt”