ESV?

I have already shown your error here.

 

"The critics all agree in exscinding from the common reading the words which we include within parenthesis. Οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τω ουρανω, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος, και το αγιον Πνευμα: και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη,] το Πνευμα, και το υδωρ, και το αιμα: και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points: First, if it be made, the masculine {378} article, numeral, and participle, οι τρεις μαρτυρουντες, are made to agree directly with three neuters—an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun, ο Πατηρ, ο Λογος, και το αγιον Πνευμα; where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines τρεις μαρτυρουντες in the eighth verse agreeing with the neuters, Πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα, may be accounted for by the power of attraction, so well known in Greek syntax, and by the fact that the Πνευμα, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculineness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group. Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession. Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse, και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν, contains an unintelligible reference. The insuperable awkwardness of this chasm in the meaning is obscured in the authorized English version, "and these three agree in one." Let a version be given which shall do fair justice to the force of the definite article here, as established by the Greek idiom and of the whole construction, thus: "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One," the argument appears. What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none: the το εν so clearly designated by the definite article, as an object to which the reader has already been introduced, has no antecedent presence in the passage. Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute" (Robert L Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.).

Dabney was a leading Reformed theologian and scholar, and clearly shows the problems with the Greek grammar, when the words in verse 7 are removed!

“But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another kind : it respects the Article in eis to hen in the final clause of the eighth verse : if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that TO hen of verse 8, referred to hen of verse 7 : as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article” (Thomas Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testamentpage 441).

The best work done on the Greek article ever! Bishop Middleton is commenting on the Greek article used in verse 8, "to hen", and shows that it must refer to a previous use of "one". Without verse 7, where "one" is used, though rejected as not genuine, to what does the Greek article refer? Middletion himself did not accept verse 7, but sees a problem with the Greek grammar in verse 8, as accepted in all Greek manuscripts.

 

Only in the eyes of KJV onlyists and TR fanatics despite all real evidence.

 

see your problem, you are like a little child, who when they cannot get their own way, and are proven to be WRONG, laugh at things! The EVIDENCE that I have provided, you and others CANNOT refute, so you laugh and post silly remarks!

 

I can and have refuted it. Your evidence is IRRELEVANT. You are ignoring the fact that the entries don't show up in any manuscript until the 1500s. Now why do you suppose that is? Did Tyndale also translate it wrong? It is a marginal note, it is not Scripture. Not to mention no church father quoted it as being there despite what you try to claim.

 

Here is something for you to learn, IF you are HUMBLE enough to do so. The oldest Greek manuscript that has John's account of the Woman Found in Adultery (chapters 7-8), is a 5th-6th century one. YET, over 100 years earlier, the scholar Jerome says, that this account is found in "many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin". WHERE are these manuscripts???

 

Here is another one. Colossians 2:2 has no less the FOURTEEN different readings in the Greek manuscripts!

τοῦ θεοῦ, Χριστοῦ] p46 B vgms Hilary Pelagius Ps-Jerome WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
τοῦ θεοῦ] D1 H P 6 424c 436* 1881 1912 2464 copsa(ms)
τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 81 1241 (1739 omit τοῦ) pc itb Euthalius (Fulgentius)
τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ ἐστιν Χριστός] D* itar itd ite ito itx (eth) vgmss Ephraem Augustine1/2 (Augustine1/2) Varimadum Vigilius
τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ] 33 (Clement) Ambrosiaster
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ] (‭à* 048 πατρὸς Χριστοῦ) A C 0150 1175 pc l596 (itdiv Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (itc itf itz vgww copsa(mss) Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) (itmon κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (vgst) (vgmss) copbo (Ambrose) Ps-Jerome
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] arm
τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] 075 0208 459 1908 (l809* (itdem κυρίου ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ) (vgcl Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) (vgmss) syrp Chrysostom (Severian) (Pelagius) Theodorelat Cyril omit πατρὸς) (Cassiodorus)
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ] ‭à2 L Ψ 256 263 365 945 1319 1573 1962 1984 1985 2127 l422 l593 l603 l809c l1153 vgms syrh geo2 slav
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ] D2 K L (88 καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς) 104 181 326 330 424* 436c 451 614 (629 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) 630 1852 1877 (2200 πνεύματος for πατρὸς) 2492 2495 Byz Lect (l1154 καὶ Χριστοῦ) syrh* Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio

You have MUCH to learn about textual criticism. BUT, can you handle it?

 

Oh trust me, of the two of us I'm certain it is not me who does not understand textual criticism. You would not make your ridiculous arguments if you did.

 

You tell me.

 

then refute this, The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

 

many manuscripts were lost and destroyed, over the centuries. it is only those that have survived and come down to us, is what we have. Like we do not have any of the Original Autographs for the 66 Books of the Holy Bible

 

The Burning of the Library of Alexandria | eHISTORY

 

No but we have excellent copies of them. Thats what makes up the Greek New testaments. You have absoloutly no Greek evidence. None. Over 500 manuscripts of 1 John have survived, and over 500 say you are wrong. They all testify against you.

 

RUBBISH!

Both Tertullian and Cyprian had the words in their Greek and Latin New Testaments

 

What did you use before that? Because the ESV has been in circulation for two decades.

 

Now you are resorting to false witness. You have absoloutly no Greek writings for either one. None whatsoever. They were never preserved in Greek. You have already been shown by Reformed 1689 that Cyprian quoted verse 8, just like our Greek Bibles.

And to call 500 Greek manuscripts rubbish is wrong.

 

Thank you!

 

See #42 from the best Textual scholar Dr Scrivener

 

Nothing wrong with either translation.

As to why your Pastor changed, only he can answer that.

 

NASB95