Early support for 1 John 5:7?

Icthus, it's agreed by scholars that the verse is a margin note that crept into the text.

 

Which scholars? Regardless of what these so-called "scholars" might say, there are very important internal, grammatical questions that can ONLY be answered by the disputed words being retained to their rightful place. I believe, that the Lord in His Providence, ensured that Erasmus restored that which was removed by enemies of the Truth on the Holy Trinity. This is the clearest verse in Scripture for the Holy Trinity, just as 1 Timothy 3:16 with "God" in the text is for the Deity of Jesus Christ.

So, when you say that "scholars" have decided that 1 John 5:7 is a "gloss", then I have the same respect for these guys as I have for those who say that "young woman" is the correct reading in Isaiah 7:14!

 

Young woman is definitely the correct reading of Isaiah 7:14. Read Isaiah and see the prophecy was fulfilled, and not by a virgin birth. It was made to Ahaz, king of Judah, at a time when Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel were threatening to invade his land and set up their own king (verses 1–6). The Lord told Ahaz this would not happen and encouraged him to believe it (verses 7–9). The Lord even encouraged Ahaz to ask for a sign, which he refused to do (verses 10–13). Then follows the statement, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign" (verse 14).

If the prophecy said "virgin," then either (a) there were two virgins births or (b) Isaiah 7:14 contains a false prophecy. I quote from the Beacon Bible Commentary: "The Bible affirms only one Virgin Birth, not two, as would be the case if we both accept the historical accuracy of Isaiah 7 and at the same time insist that ‘almah here must be translated ‘virgin."’

 

Lets not worry too much about the Beacon Bible Commentary, as this is not the Holy Bible!

If you, like some others accept that the reference in Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ, then we have a case of Biblical error, and that by the Holy Spirit!

I assume that you believe in the plenary inspiration of the original Holy Scriptures? Can I also assume that you accept the complete inerrancy of the Holy Bible, again in the original autographs? If you answer yes to both, then read on.

Let me remind you of Matthew 1:22-23

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

Do you see that Matthew actually here quotes from Isaiah chapter 7? And here he takes the reference to the Virgin Birth and says that it was fulfilled in the birth of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ! Are you saying that Matthew, who wrote under the hand of the Holy Spirit, is wrong! You should also note, that Matthew does not quote from Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word: "neanis", which would strictly mean a "young woman". However, he does use the Greek: "parthenos", which cannot be used to describe someone who is not a "virgin", something not true of "neanis"

The great Hebrew scholars, Drs Edward J Young and Robert Dick Wilson, have done a complete study on the use of "almah", and conclude that it is never used of someone who is not a "virgin"!

Read the words of Dr Young:

" Why, however, did he choose the word 'almah? The answer is ready at hand, for 'almah is a word which is never used of a married woman. Of all the words listed above, 'almah alone seems to have this distinction. This fact has often been pointed out. In the Old Testament itself the word does not occur frequently, but even these frequent occurrences show that it is not used of a married woman. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson in 1926 made an exhaustive study of the usages of the word outside the Old Testament and came to the conclusion, which has never been refuted, that outside the Old Testament also the word is not employed of a married woman. In 1929 the texts at ancient Ugarit, modern Ras Shamra, were discovered, and these have further light to cast upon the situation. One of these texts (Nikkal and Yarih) describes a wedding between the gods. In proclaiming the wedding, the bard sings of the woman to be married as one who will have a son. "Behold," he cries in language similar to that of our text, "a virgin will bear . . . behold, an 'almah will bear a son . . ." What is of significance here is that the word 'almah, used in Ras Shamra, is employed of the woman only before she is married. After the marriage an entirely different word is used to designate her as a married woman. The results of Dr. Wilson's investagation, then, can be extended to Ugarit. On these texts the word 'almah is never employed to designate a married woman, but only an unmarried one. (All the evidence I have collected in Studies in Isaiah, 1954.)"

 

Icthus, you obviously didn't read anything in my post. I'll reiterate. If almah never refers to anyone but a virgin, then you are either (a) calling Isaiah 7:14 a false prophecy or (b) claiming there were two virgin births. There are no other possibilities.

 

Almah in Isaiah 7:14 IS a reference to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ ONLY! It is NOT a "dual prophesy" as some wrongly assume!. In which case it can only mean, "virgin"! It this clear?

 

That's absurd. It's an OT prophecy fulfilled in the OT. The Jews don't believe it refers to an unfilled prophecy, and they don't believe it refers to a virgin birth. The only people who would come to that conclusion are those who want to twist scripture to fit their beliefs.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

"The Jewish response starts with the general rule that “almah” represents an ‘age group’ and not ‘a state of sexual purity’. The term “almah” in Hebrew means ‘young woman’ of marriageable (child-bearing) age (the equivalent male term is “elem”), irrelevant of the status of her virginity, i.e., whether or not the young woman is a virgin is not at issue, as its usage in the Hebrew Bible suggests. For example, when one says in English, "a young woman went to the store", there's nothing in that phrase that is implied about her virginity - it's a non sequitur. When the term “almah” is used in a sentence in spoken Hebrew, or in a verse in Biblical Hebrew, there is no implicit reference to the young woman’s state of virginity, period! Anyone who is fluent in the Hebrew language knows that."

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714b.html

[ March 16, 2005, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: manchester ]

 

What about Matthew quoting Isaiah 7:14 for the Virgin Birth? Did he also twist Scripture? Why do you worry about what the Jews believe, as they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah! Are the also right here?

 

icthus, it's self-evident why. Your interpretation makes Isaiah 7:14 into a farce, a failed unfulfilled prophecy.

It is fine for Matthew to say it means "virgin." The word can have that meaning, and had a double meaning here. But to say that it always means virgin, and never means otherwise, and denying that it was part of an OT prophecy that was fulfilled, is wrong.

 

SoS 6:8 – "There are sixty queens, and eighty concubines, and maidens (“va’alamot”) without number."

60 wives, 80 concubines, and countless young women were listed as being among King Solomon’s ‘lovers’. Alamot is plural of almah. It clearly does not always mean virgin.

 

Manchester, what complete nonsense you are talking here! How can you even question the quotation of Matthew of Isaiah 7:14, where it is very clear that he, under the Holy Spirit, sees this 100% fulfilled in Jesus Christ. If you still have a problem with Matthews usage, then I suggest that you take it up with the real author of the words that Matthew wrote, the Holy Spirit Himself, and see whether He would agree with you! I think that you have lost it!

 

PLEASE DO NOT put things into Scripture that is not there. No where does it ever say that these "maidens" (almah) were Solomons lovers. Don't twist the Word of God for your own purposes!

 

icthus, your heart has been hardened. The scripture stands despite your blows.

 

icthus wrote:

I have dealt with the facts, but I shall deal with them again. 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows:

7. Hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes, {*}
8. {*} to Pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima, kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin.

The first asterisk marks the beginning of Johannine Comma, and the second asterisk marks the end of the Johannine Comma. The plain, simple, and undeniable FACT is that there is no participle, masculine or otherwise, in verse 8. The only participle in these two verses (omitting the Comma) is found in verse 7.

Participles are verbal adjectives and, therefore, have voice and tense as a verb, and number, gender, and case as an adjective. The participle in verse seven is in the present tense and the voice is active. It is plural in number, masculine in gender, and it is in the nominative case.

What puzzles me here is that you have insisted in several of your posts that there is a masculine participle in verse eight, and that this participle, being masculine, in not in grammatical agreement with the three neuter nouns: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. If you could read Greek at all, you would know for a fact that there is no such participle in verse eight. And, of course, if you had studied high school English, you would know that there is no participle in verse 8. I suppose that you have probably read some articles on the Internet and gotten very badly confused, for there is, in verse 8 an instance where there is not a grammatical agreement in gender, but it has nothing at all to do with any participles. And that instance I have already addressed. But here it is again, since you appear to be very badly confused about verse 8.

The article hoi and the adjective treis are both masculine although they both modify the three neuter nouns: translated the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. But let’s look at verses 7-8 and see what we find.

5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
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. (KJV, 1769, with the Johannine Comma in bold type. (KJV, my emphasis)

What we find is that, even allowing for the Comma, the masculine article and the masculine adjective both modify the three antecedents: translated the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Therefore, the fact that the gender of the article and the adjective does not agree with the gender of the nouns remains. Adding the Comma does nothing to make this go away. Is it bad Greek? No, not if doing so brings out a thought that the author wanted to express that would not be expressed if he use a neuter article and adjective.

I have already posted this, but perhaps you missed it—so here it is again:

hoti = conjunction
treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural
hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
marturountes = present active participle, nominative plural masculine

to = article, nominative singular neuter
pneuma = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
to = article, nominative singular neuter
hudor = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
to = article, nominative singular neuter
haima = noun, nominative singular neuter
kai = conjunction
hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
eis = preposition
to = article, accusative singular neuter
hen = adjective, accusative singular neuter
eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural

This is the Greek text of 1 John 5:7-8, and I have parsed it for your convenience. As you can see for yourself, there is not participle in verse 8!

 

icthus wrote:

Amazing! Absolutely Amazing! You ask us not to put things into Scripture that ARE [not “is” (we have number agreement in English just like they do in Greek)] not there, and yet you are doing precisely that by inserting the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8.

And when we conclusively prove that the Johannine Comma is a scribal addition to the genuine text, you resort to attacking the science of textual criticism and those employed in that science rather than refuting any of the evidence against the genuineness of the Johannine Comma. I suppose that if we told you that the earth is round, you would argue that it is flat. And if we posted incontrovertible evidence that the earth is round, you would attack astronomers for calling Pluto a planet and argue that the astronomers who deny that Pluto is a planet are absolute proof that the earth is flat.

 

Craig. It is clear from your response, that you do NOT understand Greek gramar! You assume, incorrectly, that it is not a problem with the grammar for John to have introduced the masculine, to describe what would require the neuter, having already just used the neuter for the same nouns in verse six. I see no point in any further discussion on this, as it is very plain to me that you need to get your Greek grammar sorted out first, and then return. You will then see that you are wrong!

I will recommend three good books that are useful

1. A T Robertson's large work
2. W E Winer, Greek Grammar
3. William Goodwin, Greek Grammar

I will not respond to any more of your posts on this, as its like talking to a wall, since we are talking serious misunderstanding of the basic rules of Greek grammar here!

 

God is Good!

 

God is Good!

</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, we know that God is good, but you still need to sort out fact from fiction!

 

CBTS wrote:

If this was “bad” Greek, it would be just as bad with or without the comma. The fact is, however, that it is not “bad” Greek and you cannot quote one scholar of Greek grammar who says that it is bad Greek. It is merely an exception to general practice, and we find these exceptions throughout the New Testament. Even John himself sometimes used the masculine definite article to modify the neuter Greek word for Spirit, and he did so to personify the Holy Spirit in the context of referring to Him as our Paraclete. And many scholars, including Raymond Brown and I. Howard Marshall, believe that we find a similar use of the masculine article in verse 8. John grew up speaking, reading, and writing Greek (and Aramaic and probably Hebrew) and it is quite clear from your posts that you can do none of these things and yet you dare to accuse John, under the inspiration of God Himself, of using bad Greek? Just who do you think you are!!!

And feel free to reply that I used the wrong punctuation at the close of my last sentence and that I used poor grammar beginning this sentence with a conjunction.