1 John 5:7 KJV Is Original Scripture

[Dave G]

Believers can sincerely believe something and be sincerely wrong when what they believe something that is not true.

I agree.
But again, they don't stay there.

They have the Spirit to teach them and correct them.
They are not left to the devices of unbelieving men, because the Lord loves them and watches over them with care.

You seem to be unwilling to have your assertions examined and tested by a just application of scriptural truth.

Respectfully, you seem unwilling to believe that my position was arrived at through careful study of the situation and the belief that I know where to find Scriptural truth.
In other words, that I've already justly applied that truth to the subject.

We can agree to disagree, but you're not going to change my mind with mountains of quotes by "textual critics" whose current M.O. seems to me to be a never-ending search for what is already right in front of them and has been since this whole "merry-go-round" started...

God's word.

 

[Dave G]

While God does speak to the hearts of believers through His word, perhaps believers should be careful not to suggest mysticism, which may result in an undermining of the authority of God's word.

Again, and with respect,
Mysticism has absolutely nothing to do with it and I suggest no such thing

But I have an honest question since I'm picking up on something that I'm not sure is there in this discussion:
It seems to me that you doubt that there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit, and that He can and does lead ( Romans 8:9-16 ) and comfort God's people...

Would you please clarify?

 

[Dave G]

While many KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates correctly may reject a mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly condemn what in effect would be a mystical view of Bible translation? A mystical view of translation would also make man or his experience the authority.

A God-controlled view of translation ( as opposed to a mystical view ) and preservation that results in a trustworthy Bible consisting of all of His precious words that they can actually hold in their hands,
is what I believe in.

What I strongly condemn is the parallel idea that two completely different collated Greek texts ( the "TR" and the "CT"/ NA / UBS ) are both the word of God and are being used, by God.

Rather, I hold that one set of texts is being used, and has been used, by God as part of His promise to preserve and keep His words through all generations for His people...
and one is being used and has been used by professing believers ( and worse, outright unbelievers who don't care about more than simply making money off Christians ) who have been deceived into thinking that they don't already have His inspired words that they can trust and hold in their hands.

To me, modern textual criticism is not, and has never been, interested in producing a higher standard for God's word.

The evidence of the past 150 years or so clearly shows another agenda...
That agenda is nothing more than a concentrated effort to tear down and replace with an inferior set of texts (and resulting myriads of translations, especially in English), God's every word, and to try and deceive His children into thinking that they need "the newest and best", when the reality of it is that they already have what they absolutely need.

In other words, I see that many of today's scholars keep promising to deliver a better Bible...
But that promise isn't being kept, by and large.
The proof of much of that is in the fact that so many, especially nowadays, have been led to believe that 1 John 5:7 ( and Acts of the Apostles 8:37 and many more ) is not God's word;
I maintain that it is, and always will be.

With that said,
I've decided that this will be my final reply to you in this thread whether or not you choose to answer the above posts.
I came to see a long time ago that we do not agree on this subject,
and it seems to me that further discussion of it is ultimately of no real value to either of us.


I wish you well, sir, and may the Lord bless you in many ways.

 

[Dave G]

@Hark :
My apologies to you sir, for dominating your thread.

This is a passionate subject for me, and when I do reply to threads in this section, I tend to get carried away in those replies.
I'll step back now, and let others offer their observations and opinions.

Thank you for the privilege of posting here.

 

[Hark]

@Hark :
My apologies to you sir, for dominating your thread.

This is a passionate subject for me, and when I do reply to threads in this section, I tend to get carried away in those replies.
I'll step back now, and let others offer their observations and opinions.

Thank you for the privilege of posting here.

The Lord ministers. not me. I am a profitless servant. We all do as the Lord leads us to do in serving Him in seeking His glory.

I could get knocked off the internet whereby the Lord will minister through someone else so not really my thread at all.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ~ KJV

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. ~ KJV

Thank you for sharing as the Lord leads & provides.

 

[Yeshua1]

A God-controlled view of translation ( as opposed to a mystical view ) and preservation that results in a trustworthy Bible consisting of all of His precious words that they can actually hold in their hands,
is what I believe in.

What I strongly condemn is the parallel idea that two completely different collated Greek texts ( the "TR" and the "CT"/ NA / UBS ) are both the word of God and are being used, by God.

Rather, I hold that one set of texts is being used, and has been used, by God as part of His promise to preserve and keep His words through all generations for His people...
and one is being used and has been used by professing believers ( and worse, outright unbelievers who don't care about more than simply making money off Christians ) who have been deceived into thinking that they don't already have His inspired words that they can trust and hold in their hands.

To me, modern textual criticism is not, and has never been, interested in producing a higher standard for God's word.

The evidence of the past 150 years or so clearly shows another agenda...
That agenda is nothing more than a concentrated effort to tear down and replace with an inferior set of texts (and resulting myriads of translations, especially in English), God's every word, and to try and deceive His children into thinking that they need "the newest and best", when the reality of it is that they already have what they absolutely need.

In other words, I see that many of today's scholars keep promising to deliver a better Bible...
But that promise isn't being kept, by and large.
The proof of much of that is in the fact that so many, especially nowadays, have been led to believe that 1 John 5:7 ( and Acts of the Apostles 8:37 and many more ) is not God's word;
I maintain that it is, and always will be.

With that said,
I've decided that this will be my final reply to you in this thread whether or not you choose to answer the above posts.
I came to see a long time ago that we do not agree on this subject,
and it seems to me that further discussion of it is ultimately of no real value to either of us.


I wish you well, sir, and may the Lord bless you in many ways.

NO Greek text used today though is perfect copty of the original text, and despite that truth, the CT/MT/TR are all very close, and there are NO areas of doctrines where any of them would disagree on!

 

[Hark]

If 1 John 5:7 is being referred to way back since 250 A.D. in proving the deity of Christ & the Triune God, then it doesn't matter what happened with Erasmus nor why there does not seem to be any Greek manuscripts for 1 John 5:7

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

Read about what Majority Texts mean and why these debates as listed at that link above can be the reason why there was a movement to remove 1 John 5:7 out of whatever remaining books of 1 John that was left in the Greek but changed

 

[Yeshua1]

If 1 John 5:7 is being referred to way back since 250 A.D. in proving the deity of Christ & the Triune God, then it doesn't matter what happened with Erasmus nor why there does not seem to be any Greek manuscripts for 1 John 5:7

Chick.com: Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

Read about what Majority Texts mean and why these debates as listed at that link above can be the reason why there was a movement to remove 1 John 5:7 out of whatever remaining books of 1 John that was left in the Greek but changed

Much more reasons to see it as not being part of the original greek text!

 

[Hark]

Much more reasons to see it as not being part of the original greek text!

There is no progress in our discussion. .

I agree to disagree.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no progress in our discussion. .

I agree to disagree.

Please read
Wallace on the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5.7

 

[Logos1560]

Martin Luther's German Bible is on the KJV-only view's tree of good Bibles or pure stream of Bibles. All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime did not include 1 John 5:7, and it was not added to it until 1575. Preserved Smith reported that 1 John 5:7 was first placed in the German Bible in 1575 (Age of Reformation, p. 570). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that Luther omitted 1 John 5:7 from the revised edition of the Latin Vulgate that he published in 1529 (Olde Paths, March, 1997, p. 72).

Would it be suggested that Martin Luther did not believe in the deity of Christ or in the Trinity because his German Bible translation did not include 1 John 5:7? Evidently Martin Luther did not find that there was any compelling case for including it.

For over 50 years (from 1522 until 1575), German-speaking believers read Luther's German Bible, which did not have 1 John 5:7, and so far as I know it did not lead them to deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity.

 

[Logos1560]

Chick.com:

That could be considered a biased, unreliable source since it is extremely KJV-only and since it will make claims that are not true.

 

[Hark]

That could be considered a biased, unreliable source since it is extremely KJV-only and since it will make claims that are not true.

Jack Chick believes that all Catholics are going to hell, but scripture says anyone that believes in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God has raised Him from the dead are saved. I believe the scripture reproves what the RCC built on that foundation but was laid by Jesus Christ, whereby on that foundation are the works of Catholicism that denies that salvation gained by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ & that God raised Him from the dead.

But Jack Chick is not the author of that book containing references for the claims made in that book regarding the validity of 1 John 5:7 being scripture; David W. Daniels is.

Neither is Jack Chick nor David W. Daniels are the authors of those historical references where 1 John 5:7 was used from scripture to defend the deity of Christ & the "Trinity" in those "debates" in the past.

Those historical references can be researched by anyone to confirm that 1 John 5:7 was used way before the Erasmus incident that questions 1 John 5:7 being original scripture.

And I dare say, I submit that because 1 John 5:7 was used a lot in those theological debates back in early history of the church, is why sore losers did not keep up with the Book of 1 John & why even some dared to remove 1 John 5:7 to call anyone liars when they cannot find it any more in the modified updated version of 1 John 5:7. The fact that there are still believers today arguing against the deity of Christ & the "Trinity" is why "they" argue against 1 John 5:7 being original scripture in the KJV.

There is no reason to add to His words when scripture elsewhere testify to the deity of Christ & the "Trinity" but there is ample evidence for why it was removed & why there are not that many Books of 1 John among the Greek manuscripts as being kept up as such by those that loved Him & His words to keep even the sayings of His disciples per John 15:20

Only the Lord can help you discern this & why removing 1 John 5:7 from the KJV does not align with 1 John 5:9 because John would be failing to explain how the witness of God is greater than men's as led by the Spirit to testify of the water & the blood which is the testimony of men & not God's witness from Heaven in testifying of His Son.

 

[Yeshua1]

Martin Luther's German Bible is on the KJV-only view's tree of good Bibles or pure stream of Bibles. All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime did not include 1 John 5:7, and it was not added to it until 1575. Preserved Smith reported that 1 John 5:7 was first placed in the German Bible in 1575 (Age of Reformation, p. 570). Glenn Conjurske pointed out that Luther omitted 1 John 5:7 from the revised edition of the Latin Vulgate that he published in 1529 (Olde Paths, March, 1997, p. 72).

Would it be suggested that Martin Luther did not believe in the deity of Christ or in the Trinity because his German Bible translation did not include 1 John 5:7? Evidently Martin Luther did not find that there was any compelling case for including it.

For over 50 years (from 1522 until 1575), German-speaking believers read Luther's German Bible, which did not have 1 John 5:7, and so far as I know it did not lead them to deny the deity of Christ or the Trinity.

He was much closer to the time period then we are, so should know if there was a good textual reason to n ot include it!

 

[Yeshua1]

That could be considered a biased, unreliable source since it is extremely KJV-only and since it will make claims that are not true.

Totally non scholarly source!

 

[Hark]

He was much closer to the time period then we are, so should know if there was a good textual reason to n ot include it!

Having come out of the Catholic church, Luther did not prune away everything that is Catholicism. He had still used the term sacraments which some Protestant churches later on learned to drop.

So.. best ask Jesus to confirm through the Holy Spirit His words to you is kept in the KJV of 1 John 5:7

 

[Yeshua1]

Having come out of the Catholic church, Luther did not prune away everything that is Catholicism. He had still used the term sacraments which some Protestant churches later on learned to drop.

So.. best ask Jesus to confirm through the Holy Spirit His words to you is kept in the KJV of 1 John 5:7

He would have included if he thought the textual evidence supported it!

 

[Hark]

He would have included if he thought the textual evidence supported it!

Since we prophesy in part & now in part in understanding scripture in the KJV, how much more is it to understand the text for what He meant in the KJV?

 

[Yeshua1]

Since we prophesy in part & now in part in understanding scripture in the KJV, how much more is it to understand the text for what He meant in the KJV?

Do not think that refers to the Kjv though!

 

[Hark]

Do not think that refers to the Kjv though!

For reproving the works of darkness rather than supporting false teachings as the NASB does? No.

For learning from the KJV as wisdom comes from the Lord to discern good & evil by His words in the KJV? Yes.