Featured Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

They are all dead! There are no real living scholars that buy it. Please, look at what real scholars look at, not what dead ones who lost the debate said.

5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

I agree... and to me, the Greek grammar doesn't even have to be mentioned.
They are the words of God Himself through His apostle, John.

Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

Based on the Scriptures themselves ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17 ) and the fact that those who are "of God" and are Christ's sheep hear His voice ( John 8:43-47, John 10:26-27 ), a Christian doesn't even have to review the "manuscript evidence", neither does he or she need "scholars" to tell them which words are God's and which aren't...

They inherently know.

As do I.
That said:

While I thank you for the effort to post Mr. Henry's thoughts on the matter, and while agree with much of what he had to say on many subjects, my belief and understanding of God's word rests in His hands and always has...
So I've come to pretty much ignore the scholars on either side of any subject when it comes to the Scriptures.


May God bless you.

 

"Light weights like Daniel Wallace."

"Dr. Wallace, a fourth-generation Californian, is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Society of Papyrologists, and the Evangelical Theological Society (of which he was president in 2016). He has been a consultant for several Bible translations. He has written, edited, or contributed to more than three dozen books, and has published articles in New Testament Studies, Novum Testamentum, Biblica, Westminster Theological Journal, Bulletin of Biblical Review, the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and several other peer-reviewed journals. His Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is the standard intermediate Greek grammar and has been translated into more than a half-dozen languages. He is the executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org), an institute whose initial purpose is to preserve Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts. In the process CSNTM staff have discovered over ninety New Testament manuscripts throughout the world. He and his wife, Pati, have four sons, three daughters-in-law, three granddaughters, one grandson, and one Labrador." (Daniel B. Wallace)​

 

Over the years, what I've discovered for myself about debates and how they work may seem normal to some people.
But the reality of it is, the "winner" of any debate, right or wrong, is determined by the number of people that agree with them....
Not on whether they are speaking the truth or a lie.

Since there are few that be saved ( Matthew 7:13-23 ), the truth, in this present world, will always "lose out" to the majority;
That is, until the Lord returns.

 

I do not.
In fact, I consider the AV as the best of the Reformation-era translations and the one that I fully trust in English, while there are others that I trust in other languages... provided they were / are faithfully and accurately translated from the Received Text in the Greek.

An example of this is the French Louis Segond translation of 1874, while others include the Spanish Reina-Valera 1602 and 1909 translations.

I agree.
I see a few minor "flaws" ( such as the translators preference for using one word over what I think could have been a better one that has the same or similar meaning in the English ) here and there in the AV that I believe could be corrected...

But very few, and none of them affects the meaning and wording except for the use of italics;
Which I also think are, ultimately, unnecessary.

 

Again I agree.
Translations are not inspired...

But if done accurately and correctly through what is known as "preservation", they do indeed reflect the original inspiration of the Holy Spirit that was accomplished through the Lord's apostles.

In other words, I hold that just as the devil corrupts God's words through unbelievers who mis-translate His words and make use of corrupted manuscripts, so does the Lord use men to faithfully translate them accurately and from the correct manuscripts and other witnesses.

 

As I see it, that has already been established to my satisfaction.
I'm convinced beyond all doubt that the TR is God's preserved words in the Greek.

To me, anything outside of that is a corruption of His holy word...
Especially anything that makes use of either Westcott and Hort's work, and / or the ever-changing NA / USB apparatus, which are now in their 28th and 5th editions respectively.

I've researched this issue for over 20 years and have concluded, for myself, that there is no better collated Greek manuscript base in existence than what was used during the so-called "Protestant Reformation" by the translators of the AV.
However, I also recognize that there are many who disagree with me ( even to the point of ridicule, which no professing Christian should ever engage in ), and to me, they are free to do so.


Finally,
I have come to the firm resolution that I will not continue in fellowship with anyone who adamantly claims that 1 John 5:7 ( as found in English translations such as in the AV ) is not the word of the living God.

For anyone who does, we will have to simply agree to disagree, and go our separate ways in peace.

 

As you have clearly confirmed in your personal statement, those that take a TR position (or Pickering’s for that matter) usually take it for theological reasons and won’t be influenced by the ever-increasing documentary evidences from ancient manuscripts, no matter how convincing the evidence might be.
At least you recognize the text of the Critical edition has remained relatively stable.

Your label of anything outside of the TR as corrupt, borders on a rule violation on the BaptistBoard.

• Recognize that each manuscript “corruption” was used by faithful Christian communities for centuries.
• Recognize that Paul, in writing to Timothy stated that “all Scripture is inspired…” (Timothy was probably taught from the Septuagint).
• Recognize that the translators of the Authorized Version stated that earlier imperfect English (and Latin) translations could rightly be called “the Word of God” even with their imperfections.

Your statement means you have separated yourself from fellowship with the majority of Christian believers.

What are you doing here?

Rob

 

SBG, I don't recognize your authority to tell me that I'm wrong.

However, from my perspective, you do have the right to express your opinion just as I have, my friend.
While I hold your right to share it in high regard, I also happen to disagree with it.

May God bless you, as always.

 

"Relatively stable" isn't good enough for me, Rob.
I want something that I can point to that doesn't change and hasn't changed.

The CT hasn't stopped changing since its inception over 100 years ago.

Respectfully,
I'm not aware that this position, and my expressing it, was in any way a violation of this forum's rules.
In addition, there are several others here who also share a similar view point as my own, and they are not ( and have not been, in the past ) afraid to state it in no uncertain terms... and, to the best of my recollection, they have not been disciplined for it.

If you can direct my attention to what I am in violation of, I will gladly take it under advisement.

If by that you mean the majority of professing Christians, yes, I have.

But then I see that most, by far, who identify as Christians are guilty of that very same thing...
because they separate themselves into denominations such as "Baptist", "Evangelical Free", "Roman Catholic", " Lutheran", "Reformed", etc.

For example,
instead of having one body of professing believers with one set of doctrines and practices that are upheld ( like Corinth and Ephesus did in the 1st century ) in my hometown of roughly 5,000 people, there are ten...
And they all differ in what they do and what they believe about the Bible.

From where I'm standing, I'm not doing anything out of the norm when I separate myself from those that I disagree with.

 

If we were talking politics or regular debates you would be correct. But we are talking about the Word of God, which is far more important. We were talking about what man added to, or took away from God's testimony about His Son.

 

Edifying my brothers and sisters in the faith and taking this forum up on its invite:

"Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!"

While I like to think that I'm friendly, I also see no need to hold back on expressing my personal convictions on what I see the Bible teaching, and where I can actually find the preserved words of the Lord.
If sharing those opinions, whether agreeable or disagreeable, is not welcome, then I would ask that you please report my posts to one of the mods for disciplinary action, should it be determined that I am in need of it. I am more than willing to submit to any censure that they deem fit.

This is my last reply in this thread.


I wish you well and God's blessings upon you and yours.

 

Point of information: Tertullian died in 220; Cyprian in 258. The Vulgate (the Latin text to which you seem to be referring to) was not commissioned until 382.

The Archangel