Featured The objective truth of God's word.

You are still not answering the question. Where is your objective evidence? Yes I know what vs 9 says but you seem to refuse to deal with the textural evidence. Site your source.

I have provided a number of sources and what have you provided. You claim the bible is 100% inerrant and I asked you to name the bible that is 100% inerrant and you have not given me one so am I to conclude that you do not know of one.

@37818 you said "Because there are no inerrant readers. No inerrant translations. And no single inerrant set of manuscripts. You do not believe that God actually gave us an inerrant Bible?"

Read what you said 37 "No inerrant translations." "no single inerrant set of manuscripts." Since you do not seem to trust any other set of manuscripts except the majority and by your own words there is not single inerrant set of mss. How can you claim that the bible we have in our hands is inerrant?
Do you not think it would be best to use the best mss available.

 

In Greek, if one had a Majority Text, a Textus Receptus, and a Critical Text, say Nestle/Aland 28 you would have an inerrant Bible in Greek. Ok, maybe just an almost inerrant one. But it would be very, oh so very accurate.

Why you would limit yourself to one in not understandable.

 

Oh my goodness. His method is weak. I read the book. He documents it well, but fails to convince me in any sense.

 

Did I say that I did, no. I have been saying that we have an accurate bible, which you have finally agreed with. Thank you. When we tell a skeptic that we have an inerrant bible and they point to the obvious differences it bibles then we have lost all credibility. But if we say we have a accurate bible because of the vast number and age of the mss that we have we are on solid ground.

 

True. The original manuscripts were inerrant. We have very very close texts that represent the evidence of the massive number of manuscripts, but we have to be careful with our words, or thinking people will destroy our arguments.

 

Oh 37 you are letting your emotions cloud your thinking.

There is some confusion in the English translations as to where 1Jn_5:6-8 begin and end. The portion of 1Jn_5:7 that is found in the KJV which says "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is not found in the three major ancient uncial Greek manuscripts of the NT: Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), or Sinaiticus (א), nor in the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It only appears in four late minuscule manuscripts.
1. MS 61, dated in the 16th century
2. MS 88 dated in the 12th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
3. MS 629, dated in the 14th or 15th century
4. MS 635, dated in the 11th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
This verse is not quoted by any of the Early Church Fathers, even in their doctrinal debates over the Trinity. It is absent from all ancient versions except one late Latin manuscript family (Sixto-Clementine). It is not in the Old Latin or Jerome's Vulgate. Utley 1Jn 5:7

Are you so wedded to the Antiochian line of transmission that you just reject other texts out of hand? The bible is accurate because scholars have and continue to use the best texts available.

The biblical doctrine of one God (monotheism) but with three personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not affected by the rejection of this verse. Although it is true that the Bible never uses the word "trinity," many biblical passages speak of all three persons of the Godhead acting together:
1. at Jesus' baptism (Mat_3:16-17)
2. the great commission (Mat_28:19)
3. the Spirit sent (Joh_14:26)
4. Peter's Pentecost sermon (Act_2:33-34)
5. Paul's discussion of flesh and spirit (Rom_8:7-10)
6. Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (1Co_12:4-6)
7. Paul's travel plans (2Co_1:21-22)
8. Paul's benediction (2Co_13:14)
9. Paul's discussion of the fullness of time (Gal_4:4-6)
10. Paul's prayer of praise to the Father (Eph_1:3-14)
11. Paul's discussion of the Gentiles' former alienation (Eph_2:18)
12. Paul's discussion of the oneness of God (Eph_4:4-6)
13. Paul's discussion of the kindness of God (Tit_3:4-6)
14. Peter's introduction (1Pe_1:2) Utley 1Jn 5:7

And I agree WE Genuine Christians do know God and trust His word.

 

I'll come back to this later. This will take time to answer intelligently and succinctly without you posting a book that you expect me to read and respond to. I do have a job.

 

There is only one Spirit. 37 you are making the assumption that the Johannine Comma should be included in the text as you find in the KJV. The textural evidence says that it should not be included so your argument is moot as I see it.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1Jn 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

Regarding the Johannine Comma:

They are omitted in all Greek manuscripts previous to the sixteenth century; by all the Greek fathers, and by many of the Latin fathers. They are omitted in the early editions of the Latin Vulgate. The text was never used by the Orthodox fathers of the early Church in defending the doctrine of the Trinity against Arius. That doctrine was established in the Church without any aid from this text. It is not needed for that purpose now, and it cannot be justifiably quoted as proof in that discussion. Whedon 1Jn 5:7

The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to 1Jn_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. RWP 1Jn 5:7

There are three that bear record (τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες). Lit., three are the witnessing ones. "The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." These words are rejected by the general verdict of critical authorities. VWS 1Jn 5:7

 

You are off the map . No one has said the Johannine Comma should be included. That is a mistake on your part.

 

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."

I don't know what to say.

This is such precious work of art.

One of the best posts ever.

So glad we know God.

 

Are you not the one that holds to the TR which includes the comma which would suggest that you think it should be included. Also did you not read post # 132 by 37818, he seems to support that inclusion is warranted.

1Jn 5:7 ὅτι Because G3754 CONJ τρεῖς Three G5140 A-NPM εἰσιν There Are G1526 V-PXI-3P οἱ Who G3588 T-NPM μαρτυροῦντες Bear Witness G3140 V-PAP-NPM εν In G1722 PREP τῷ G3588 T-DSM οὐρανῷ, Heaven, G3772 N-DSM ὁ The G3588 T-NSM πατήρ, Father, G3962 N-NSM ὁ The G3588 T-NSM λόγος, Word, G3056 N-NSM καὶ And G2532 CONJ τὸ The G3588 T-NSN Ἅγιον Holy G40 A-NSN Πνεῦμα· Ghost; G4151 N-NSN καὶ And G2532 CONJ οὗτοι These G3778 D-NPM οἱ G3588 T-NPM τρεῖς Three G5140 A-NPM ἕν One G1520 A-NSN εἰσιν Are. G1526 V-PXI-3P TRi

But I see that you think the Johannine Comma is spurious. I have to agree as that is what the mss evidence shows.

FYI many people and I would guess a number on this board think that the comma should be included but we can mark you down in the do not include column.

 

"Are you blind? Count the claimed witnesses. 3 and 3 a total of 5, one being counted twice. Or do you believe there are two different Spirits?" So what were you defending by this comment?

So are you saying that you do not think that the Johannine Comma should be included in the KJV. If so then you agree that the bible is not inerrant which is what I have been saying to to all along.

But you say you have objective truth yet you do not provide it. All I see from you is subjective claims.
I have provided ample information indicating that the comma should not be included but you do not want to accept that. The question is why do you not want to accept it? What do you base your position on?

Do you really think that all the scholars that compiled the information that shows the comma is spurious were wrong? If so based upon what?

 

Again, 37818 knew long before you that the comma doesn't belong. How would you like to be accused of promoting the Comma when you were not, but posters accused you again and again anyway. That is what you are doing.