1 John 5:7,8

[Greektim]

New data changes a lot!!!

Please provide the Ms evidence that you find so convincing.

Please provide the early church fathers quotations.

Repeat for Jordan:

What quotations do you have that are convincing? Please provide the quotation and the original text if possible.

What Ms evidence do you have that is convincing? Please explain.

 

[HankD]

People are demanding evidence when in the final analysis the veracity of 1 John 5:7 is a matter of faith although evidence indeed plays a part in faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​

In addition, the demand of evidence is like a person going to a restaurant and ordering a dinner. Someone else does all the preparation and work and you enjoy the meal.

Not that that is wrong in and of itself, but my practice (when I decide to do it) is to give a high level citation and a sample or two of quotations then if an individual is serious about this (or any other matter) they will pursue it.

Over the years I have studied the matter of the Johannine Comma (aka 1 John 5:7). and have made a faith decision that it is part of the word of God.

Now-a-days you can very easily take another research short cut : go to the web and search for "johannine comma".

You will find a multitude of references both pro and con, enough to keep you going for several years. Myself, I like to purchase books as well and actually had no choice before the modern advent of the web (yes, I am that ancient).

Here is a good book (everything is documented).

Before I cite the book in my experience, most people who are critical of the author have not read his book(s). Why bother then with a debate?

Then there is the sanctimonious statement (and I point this out because I have judged myself guilty) to end the debate with something like "I believe the bible" and usually (but not always) means "I don't want to do the work".

In fact is this not the practice of many of us?

Again like the man who sees his face in the mirror of the word of God will go his way and forget what he saw (I'm talking about my own sanctimonial judgements). Thankfully He is diligent to remind us of our pride.

James 1

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.​

Many publications (in full and in part) are on the web with URL's of private libraries you may have to pay for - what is it worth to you to study (be diligent) to show thyself approved?

Here is the citation: A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, Michael Maynard, Comma Publications Tempe, AZ, 1995.

On page 37 he cites the quotation of Cyprian (AD250) in his work: De catholicae ecclesiae unitate

The Lord says I and the Father are one and like wise it is written of the father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one

As well as other references to the Comma by this Church Father.

Later he (Maynard) also goes into the historic fact that during the church-wide controversy concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (AD100-400) Arian (non-trinitarian) believers would break into book repositories and burn manuscripts and in particular 1 John. That is a possible reason that there are so few 1 John manuscripts extant.

Maynard's book contains more rererences to other writings and citations than the text of the book itself with over an additional 100 pages of reference indicies.

It's a good starting place for those who are interested in facts (as well as the challenge of a worthy debate).


HankD

 

[Rippon]

Here is a good book (everything is documented).

Uh, I wouldn't call the book a good one.

Doug Kutilek, who I trust lambasts Maynard's work. "The flaws of the book are manifold and serious."

Do you take misrepresentation and distortion as acceptable ways to put forth an thesis?

Later he (Maynard) also goes into the historic fact that during the church-wide controversy concerning the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (AD100-400) Arian (non-trinitarian) believers would break into book repositories and burn manuscripts and in particular 1 John.

Is it actually a fact? If so, why weren't other passages pointing out the Tri-Unity also rubbed out? Were there really book repositories, as such?

It's a good starting place for those who are interested in facts (as well as the challenge of a worthy debate).

No, I'm afraid it isn't.

And because I trust the judgment of Mr. Kutilek I won't waste my time and money on Mr. Maynard's book. Neither will I buy anything by Riplinger, Ruckman, Marrs, Chick and a host of lesser lights in the KJVO pantheon.

 

[HankD]

Uh, I wouldn't call the book a good one.

Doug Kutilek, who I trust lambasts Maynard's work. "The flaws of the book are manifold and serious."

Do you take misrepresentation and distortion as acceptable ways to put forth an thesis?

Is it actually a fact? If so, why weren't other passages pointing out the Tri-Unity also rubbed out? Were there really book repositories, as such?


No, I'm afraid it isn't.

And because I trust the judgment of Mr. Kutilek I won't waste my time and money on Mr. Maynard's book. Neither will I buy anything by Riplinger, Ruckman, Marrs, Chick and a host of lesser lights in the KJVO pantheon.

OK thanks for your opinion. But you have proven my point.

I don't agree with Ruckman,Ms Riplinger, Chick (Haven't read Marrs) as well but I have read their works and even posted them by book title and page here on the BB as incorrect and generally I agree that their work is flawed. Mr Ruckman himself contacted me personally and asked me to stop quoting his works.

Mr Maynard has provided prolific documentation unlike the individuals mentioned above.

Honestly I can say that I don't agree 100% with his research methodologies and of course some of his opinions and/or conclusions are questionable from my point of view.

I would ask you to cite one instance that you know of that is questionable because you have researched it from his book.

But, of course it's not possible in a debate as it's from hearsay by your own admission.

Those who are interested will pursue it and decide for themselves.

I hold no ill will towards you or any other brother because as I have admitted, the evidence for the Comma is weak.

The book is now out of print but is still occasionally available as a used book:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1886971056/?tag=baptis04-20

If one doesn't want to read Maynard's work, my suggestion still stands for those who want to know more of the history of the Johannine Comma - do a google (or whatever) of "johannine comma".


HankD

 

[Rippon]

Mr Maynard has provided prolific documentation unlike the individuals mentioned above.

But based on what Doug Kutilek says Maynard's work is badly flawed. The latter misrepresents and twists things around. He cites Gregory of Nazianzen for support but doesn't quote him fully. G of N's actual words do not buttress the aim of Maynard.

F.H.A. Scrivener and Burgon himself doubted the authenticity of the Comma. Even Tyndale did not accept it. But that was probably because Luther did not have it in his N.T. His translation was based on an earlier Greek text by Erasmus which did not include it.

By the way, don't you think it is odd for Maynard to insist,despite all evidence to the contrary, that Erasmus was not a life-long Roman Catholic?

Honestly I can say that I don't agree 100% with his research methodologies and of course some of his opinions and/or conclusions are questionable from my point of view.

Thanks for the concessions --but they don't go far enough.

If one doesn't want to read Maynard's work, my suggestion still stands for those who want to know more of the history of the Johannine Comma - do a google (or whatever) of "johannine comma".

Bruce Metzger, Philip Comfort, and Daniel Wallace may be more suitable starting points rather than Maynard.

 

[HankD]

But based on what Doug Kutilek says Maynard's work is badly flawed. The latter misrepresents and twists things around. He cites Gregory of Nazianzen for support but doesn't quote him fully. G of N's actual words do not buttress the aim of Maynard.

F.H.A. Scrivener and Burgon himself doubted the authenticity of the Comma. Even Tyndale did not accept it. But that was probably because Luther did not have it in his N.T. His translation was based on an earlier Greek text by Erasmus which did not include it.

By the way, don't you think it is odd for Maynard to insist,despite all evidence to the contrary, that Erasmus was not a life-long Roman Catholic?

Thanks for the concessions --but they don't go far enough.


Bruce Metzger, Philip Comfort, and Daniel Wallace may be more suitable starting points rather than Maynard.

I would generally agree with most of what you say.

Nobody is perfect including Maynard.

The fact is that I have studied both pro and con concerning the Comma and will also concede that for every author who sees it as genuine there is at least one (maybe more) who would reject it as genuine. But it's far from a unanimous decision either way.

And yes, Burgon was a disappointment for me as by that time I had a positive predisposition for the Comma

No matter how flawed Maynard's work may be (although I didn't think it severally flawed) it has one of the most prolific documentation sectors I have seen for a piece written concerning the Comma which can be checked for oneself.

Besides an indices section of over 100 pages (out of a total of 382), there are footnotes and documentation references on almost every page including the many photo images dispersed throughout the book for which one can also go to online sources and/or bound book libraries and validate.

For that part alone I would recommend the book.

Thanks for the exchange.

HankD

 

[DHK]

In a recently closed thread it was stated that for someone using the KJV they should not reject 1 John 5:7.

Well, no one using other translations rejects verses 7 and 8 of the chapter --just the additions by the TR.

The poster had gone on to say that a KJV'er should accept the wording of the KJV here as "part and parcel of the Bible that he puts his faith in. Otherwise how can he have faith in the word, since by his own admission he has not much knowledge of the Greek."

Well, no again. The truth of the Trinity is contained in other parts of the Scripture. There is no need to rely on a man-made tradition.

There is no excuse for ignorance --especially when knowledge is so accessible these days.

The poster related that "the fact that such a verse got into the Bible and has not been edited out speak[sic] to its veracity."

An emphatic no. And what is this business of editing it out? Retaining all the errors of additions and deletions contained in the KJV and sister translations is just following man-made traditions.

Just because mistakes have been allowed in the KJV and like versions is no legitimate reason for retention of error. It certainly is no witness for veracity --just a fondness for keeping a man-made tradition.

Your thoughts?

You are referring to me Rippon.
You haven't "walked where I have walked."
I have been both in KJVO, KJV preferred, and on the mission field where there is only one translation of the Bible available in their language.

Hank said, "it is a matter of faith." He is quite correct in that.
In another respect, to criticize a person's Bible is to destroy their faith, especially on the mission field where there is only one Bible.

If I am using a translator and the verse is missing the translator is going to tell me that. What am I going to tell him? That his Bible is inferior? Verses are missing? Words have been changed? He can't trust it anymore?
It destroys a person's faith when you tell them that their Bible's are not trustworthy or verses are missing.
Many times these are evangelistic meetings where half the crowd is unsaved and the other half are new believers coming from a Catholic background or something similar. They need to have confidence in the Word, not confidence shaken.

In answer to the thread you referred to, the poster said that he used the KJV, and used it in all his arguments. He was also attempting to refute the trinity. Apparently he belongs to some kind of cult, one which may very well be KJVO. If so then, logically, they would believe all the KJV, not just a portion of it.

 

[Rippon]

In another respect, to criticize a person's Bible is to destroy their faith,

It's not a person's Bible. It is their Bible version.

especially on the mission field where there is only one Bible.

Are you referencing native English-speaking folks who use only the KJV? Or are you talking about non-English speaking people who have a TR translation? Please clarify.

If I am using a translator and the verse is missing the translator is going to tell me that. What am I going to tell him? That his Bible is inferior? Verses are missing? Words have been changed? He can't trust it anymore?

First of all, you need to talk it over with the translator ahead of time. Secondly, you need to educate folks a bit about the realities of the additions and deletions of the KJV and similar versions. Conveying knowledge is a good thing.

It destroys a person's faith when you tell them that their Bible's [sic]are not trustworthy or verses are missing.

It does no such thing.

Many times these are evangelistic meetings where half the crowd is unsaved and the other half are new believers coming from a Catholic background or something similar. They need to have confidence in the Word, not confidence shaken.

Do you make it a habit to preach on Mark 16:9-20;John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7,8? If so, you are asking for trouble. I have no sympathy for you. You walk right into it.

 

[prophet]

It's not a person's Bible. It is their Bible version.

Are you referencing native English-speaking folks who use only the KJV? Or are you talking about non-English speaking people who have a TR translation? Please clarify.

First of all, you need to talk it over with the translator ahead of time. Secondly, you need to educate folks a bit about the realities of the additions and deletions of the KJV and similar versions. Conveying knowledge is a good thing.


It does no such thing.


Do you make it a habit to preach on Mark 16:9-20;John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7,8? If so, you are asking for trouble. I have no sympathy for you. You walk right into it.

The mission is more important, than a dogfight at the moment.

These doctrines can be established through other references, and tides can be turned slowly.

Many languages have a translation of the AV in them, as the Bible Societies used it as the basis for translation, and not the TR, which was finished later, for many years.
The 3 main ones covenanted to use only the AV, back in the mid 19th century. Armitage's History of the Baptists, vol. 2 details this, as he was one of the agents for change from this standard.

 

[DHK]

It's not a person's Bible. It is their Bible version.

It is their translation, the only translation they have, in their language, the only Bible they have ever seen.

Are you referencing native English-speaking folks who use only the KJV? Or are you talking about non-English speaking people who have a TR translation? Please clarify.

I did refer to them in my opening statement, but that is not what I was referring to as a missionary.

First of all, you need to talk it over with the translator ahead of time. Secondly, you need to educate folks a bit about the realities of the additions and deletions of the KJV and similar versions. Conveying knowledge is a good thing.

First, perhaps you are not a preacher. I am not a "Jonathan Edwards" who prepares every single word of his manuscript ahead of time and then reads it. I have notes, but they aren't the complete message. When the Lord brings Scripture to my mind I use it.
I do not have all the thousands of variations between the CT and TR memorized.

Second, you don't seem to have a sense of mission work even though I thought you were abroad at one time.
I gave you basic information: a third world nation; evangelistic meeting; almost half unsaved; the other half new believers with Catholic or similar background.
Now, instead of preaching the gospel and basic related doctrine you would have me give them a seminary course on textual criticism. Do you know how foolish that sounds? That is now what they need to hear. It is the last thing they need to hear. Many of them are unsaved. They need to hear the gospel, not how the Bible may be untrustworthy.

It does no such thing.

Yes, it does. What do you think is one of the motivating factors behind the KJVO movements. They want to have the confidence or faith that they can put their hand on their Bible and say: "This is the inspired Word of God." It is a matter of faith. There are many that are "weak in the faith." They will never understand MSS evidence and related matters. They simply want to be able to say: "I believe the Bible, and have a Bible to believe." They don't want someone to come and say "Your Bible has mistakes in it," as you would do or recommend.

Do you make it a habit to preach on Mark 16:9-20;John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7,8? If so, you are asking for trouble. I have no sympathy for you. You walk right into it.

Do you know how many differences there are in any two translations of two different languages? Even if they came from the same text, do you know how much meaning would be lost in translation? Some idioms are not translatable. Now add to that the change (hundreds of them) in the text itself, and you see only a small part of the problem. It is further complicated by the competency of the translator.
I have no sympathy for someone who walks into a discussion and knows nothing that he is speaking about.

 

[Rippon]

I do not have all the thousands of variations between the CT and TR memorized.

I spoke of the top three in my prior post. Surely you know of the textual variants regarding those passages. And being a preacher of God's Word you should have some basic knowledge of textual criticism.

Second, you don't seem to have a sense of mission work even though I thought you were abroad at one time.

You don't "seem" to grasp common sense. I have been abroad a total of nearly 14 years. And you speak as if you are uninformed about my burden for souls.

Now, instead of preaching the gospel and basic related doctrine you would have me give them a seminary course on textual criticism.

No,I told you stay clear of the mine field texts.

What do you think is one of the motivating factors behind the KJVO movements.

Sin.

It is a matter of faith. There are many that are "weak in the faith."

First of all, you are not the person who can talk of faith in a scriptural manner. You have spoken in demeaning ways about faith countless times on the BB. You have compared saving faith as no different than the "faith" that a dog has for its master.

Being weak in the faith has nothing to do with someone's particular Bible translation.

They will never understand MSS evidence and related matters. They simply want to be able to say: "I believe the Bible, and have a Bible to believe." They don't want someone to come and say "Your Bible has mistakes in it," as you would do or recommend.

Again, it's a translation of the original --not the original. Every translation has mistakes.

Do you know how many differences there are in any two translations of two different languages? Even if they came from the same text, do you know how much meaning would be lost in translation? Some idioms are not translatable. Now add to that the change (hundreds of them) in the text itself, and you see only a small part of the problem. It is further complicated by the competency of the translator.

Do you know how many threads I have been involved with regarding the above? -- A plethora. You act as if you are new to the forum.

 

[DHK]

Do you know how many threads I have been involved with regarding the above? -- A plethora. You act as if you are new to the forum.

I know that most here are "armchair theologians" with no experience on the mission field, especially a foreign field as unique as mine. It would be a bit similar to John of Japan when he first arrived there. Even with the answers you have given you don't seem to have a clue what goes on in a non-English nation which has only one Bible and the illiteracy rate is very high. You would have me teach the textual criticism when they barely know the basics of the gospel. What a sad outlook on evangelism/missions you have!

 

[Rippon]

Even with the answers you have given you don't seem to have a clue what goes on in a non-English nation which has only one Bible and the illiteracy rate is very high.

China and South Korea have been my sole areas of reference. They don't fall within the parameters of which you speak. But you take a rather patronizing tone. Being in China and its challenges with respect to evangelization --you should be mindful that it's no walk in the park.

You would have me teach the textual criticism when they barely know the basics of the gospel.

I did not say any such thing. I told you that you should steer clear of the big textual problem passages. I also said that as a preacher you need to be better informed regarding the subject.

 

[Yeshua1]

I know that most here are "armchair theologians" with no experience on the mission field, especially a foreign field as unique as mine. It would be a bit similar to John of Japan when he first arrived there. Even with the answers you have given you don't seem to have a clue what goes on in a non-English nation which has only one Bible and the illiteracy rate is very high. You would have me teach the textual criticism when they barely know the basics of the gospel. What a sad outlook on evangelism/missions you have!

Think that you and Rippon are addressing this from the perspective of two different agendas here!

If we were in a church setting here in USA, or with Christians who have access to a variety of bibles , have the means to read and understand textual criticism, then yes, agree with Rippon on this issue,,, BUT

IF overseas in a mission field, or like here in downtown Detroit Mi, have to realize that many have never had a Bible to read, so in their case, let us have the Lord save them first, and let them use even the Kjv, as it is still the Word of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

China and South Korea have been my sole areas of reference. They don't fall within the parameters of which you speak. But you take a rather patronizing tone. Being in China and its challenges with respect to evangelization --you should be mindful that it's no walk in the park.


I did not say any such thing. I told you that you should steer clear of the big textual problem passages. I also said that as a preacher you need to be better informed regarding the subject.

Think DHK has to do as he has done though, considering the situations on the mission field!

Do agree with you also though that passage probably not in original text!

 

[DHK]

I did not say any such thing. I told you that you should steer clear of the big textual problem passages. I also said that as a preacher you need to be better informed regarding the subject.

You have been here long enough to see KJVO posters paste charts of hundreds of differences just between two Bibles like KJV and NIV, much less between two MSS such as A and B, or the thousands of differences between A and B, and the TR. I am sorry, but I don't have all those differences memorized so that you think I can "stay clear from them."
I have a good understanding of the the subject, and to tell an unfamiliar audience (evangelism) that your Bible is untrustworthy--the implication--because verses are missing, changed, don't have the proper meaning, have been mistranslated, etc. etc. is not right. It doesn't matter what you believe, there is no perfect translation. In a society in a third world nation, where illiteracy is rampant, the people live simple lives, speaking of "changes in their one and only Bible," will only undermine their faith.

 

[Rippon]

I am sorry, but I don't have all those differences memorized so that you think I can "stay clear from them."

Why is that you ignore my plain English? I said steer clear of the biggies. I referenced three of them. But I also said you need to know more as a preacher about textual variants.

It doesn't matter what you believe, there is no perfect translation.

There you go again ignoring my very clear words. I said that all Bible translations have mistakes.

 

[DHK]

Why is that you ignore my plain English? I said steer clear of the biggies. I referenced three of them. But I also said you need to know more as a preacher about textual variants.

You are not one to judge for you don't know how much I do know about textual variants. I know enough.
The fact is that no one knows them all or has them all memorized. Even if they did one still has to deal with the mistranslations of the Bible in question. One must still deal with those who are "weak in the faith." One of the most important thing in a new believer's life and in the life of an unbeliever is not to undermine the authority of the Word of God. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Why on earth would you want to come across as one who is undermining the very authority that you are preaching from? To keep correcting the Word of God in public is undermining the faith. But no matter how many times I say that, you just don't get it.

 

[Rippon]

one still has to deal with the mistranslations of the Bible in question.
To keep correcting the Word of God in public is undermining the faith.

Do you see how you contradict yourself?

Now you want to use KJVO-speak "Bible correctors." How many times do I have to tell you that every Bible translation is a version of the original --it is not perfect. Each faithful preacher of the Word of God has to explain some mistranslation at one time or another. Of course sometimes a given pastor makes an unfounded determination. But, as you have said:"One [especially a preacher]still has to deal with the mistranslations of the Bible in question." That undergirds one's faith in the Word of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you see how you contradict yourself?

Now you want to use KJVO-speak "Bible correctors." How many times do I have to tell you that every Bible translation is a version of the original --it is not perfect. Each faithful preacher of the Word of God has to explain some mistranslation at one time or another. Of course sometimes a given pastor makes an unfounded determination. But, as you have said:"One [especially a preacher]still has to deal with the mistranslations of the Bible in question." That undergirds one's faith in the Word of God.

I would not say that a pastor/missionary cannot preach and teach from the Kjv though, as while to me NOT the best vesion, still accurate and the word of God to them!

Guess the pastor needs to just preach and teach from the greek itself, eh?