Question about textual difference

More nonsense! Tertullian did not quote the comma either, and there is no evidence in his writings that he was aware of it. And neither did Jerome quote the comma, and the fact that he did not is significant. And as I posted above, Ambrose quoted 1 John 5:7-8 four times, and the comma is not found in any of those four quotes. Priscillian was a heretic (a Sabellian or modalist). I quote Raymond E. Brown as an authority, and you say that he is not an authority because he was a Roman Catholic, and yet you cite Priscillian as an authority when even the Roman Catholics freely acknowledge that he was a heretic.

 

More nonsense! Tertullian did not quote the comma either, and there is no evidence in his writings that he was aware of it. And neither did Jerome quote the comma, and the fact that he did not is significant. And as I posted above, Ambrose quoted 1 John 5:7-8 four times, and the comma is not found in any of those four quotes. Priscillian was a heretic (a Sabellian or modalist). I quote Raymond E. Brown as an authority, and you say that he is not an authority because he was a Roman Catholic, and yet you cite Priscillian as an authority when even the Roman Catholics freely acknowledge that he was a heretic.

</font>[/QUOTE]There you go again, think you know it all!

I NEVER quoted Priscillian as an authority, but simply stated that the reading was know to him at his time.

I will not be discussing this with you any more, as you are nothing more than a LIBERAL, you pretends that he is orthodox, and have the nerve to question the fact that Holy Bible IS the Infallable, Inerrant Word of God. It is my very strong conviction, that ANYONE who does not accept a "Perfect" original Holy Bible, is nothing but a heretic, and has clearly been deceived by the devil! Make what you want of this, but your posts clearly show you undermining the Holy Bible, and placing yourself above God. You ought not to be on this board.

 

God is good, indeed, VERY good!

Thank you for sharing with me your opinion.

 

If posting such remarks is your demonstration of what you believe to be conservative Christian conduct, I am very thankful that you do NOT believe that I am a conservative.

I have very carefully checked and rechecked all of the data in my posts before posting them in order to be certain that I am posting correct information. Can you quote even one item of data that I posted that was factually incorrect? If you cannot, you owe me and the rest of the board an apology for your conduct.

 

I don’t want to come right out and call you a liar on this message board, so I will simply restate the truth and every reader of this thread will have the facts before them.

I had no idea the KJVO conspiracy dates clear back to the 3rd century AD and that Cyprian was a part of it!

</font>[/QUOTE]?????

Where in this quote do you find the Johannine comma? I do not find it there, and I do not know of even one exegete of 1 John who finds the Johannine comma in this quote (unless you are referring to the Watch Tower Society). Let’s look at it more closely,

Dicut dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptus est. Et tres unum sunt. [The Lord says, "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

Notice that the only words from 1 John 5 quoted by Cyprian are the following, “Et tres unum sunt.” ["And these three are one."]

Compare these words with the comma and the genuine portion of 1 John 5:8,

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.

The comma is NOT quoted by Cyprian. The comma reads, 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,

Cyprian quoted, And these three are one.

Cyprian was not quoting the comma at all—he was quoting “et tres unum sunt” ["And these three are one."] which are the last four words in 1 John 5:8 (in the Latin vulgate) which are NOT even a part of the comma.

Cyprian was not quoting the comma at all—he was quoting “et tres unum sunt” ["And these three are one."] which are the last four words in 1 John 5:8 (in the Latin vulgate), therefore the footnote is incorrect and you should have checked this out and caught the error before you posted it.

 

What part of this do you not understand?

THE FOOTNOTE SAYS “1 JOHN 5:7.” THAT IS WRONG! THE CORRECT REFERENCE IS 1 JOHN 5:8.

I better say this again,

THE FOOTNOTE SAYS “1 JOHN 5:7.” THAT IS WRONG! THE CORRECT REFERENCE IS 1 JOHN 5:8.

And, hopefully, for one last time,

THE FOOTNOTE SAYS “1 JOHN 5:7.” THAT IS WRONG! THE CORRECT REFERENCE IS 1 JOHN 5:8.

 

CBTS,

But how does Cyprian say that the Scripture says that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one from 1 Jn. 5:8? Those three terms are directly mentioned in the Comma (the Father, the Word [v.l. Son], and the Holy Spirit [lat. Spirit]), not in v. 8. For the sake of argument, if the Comma is original, Cyprian quoting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that these three are one is a better and more direct quote from 1 Jn. 5:7 than many other NT writers themselves quoting various passages out of the OT.

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

Cyprian is commenting on 1 John 5:7-8 much in the same manner that Tertullian did. However, he quotes only four words from the Latin text of 1 John 5:7-8. Those four words are the last four words in v. 8, which is not a part of the comma. I have posted this information twice already in this very thread. I wrote,

 

I am trying to understand both sides of this issue.

CBTS, so you are saying that Cyprian spriitualized 1 Jn. 5:8 by calling the Spirit the Father, the water the Son, and the blood the Holy Spirit? Was such a common interpretation of the time? Somehow that interpretation became the exact one that was later put into the MS tradition. Is that what you're saying?

In the Latin MSS that contain the comma, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are there right before, "et hi tres unum sunt"--"and these three are one." Honestly, if the comma were originally in the MSS Cyprian were looking at, how else would he have quoted what he actually did quote?

Yours, Bluefalcon

 

I believe in God's perfect holy word. The problem is you have been challenged to prove that the Bible we have today is perfect and you have not. You cannot prove the Bible we have is absolutely perfect. I believe it is the best it has ever been but that does not make it perfect. The parts I might consider to have problems with are so small that it has no bearing on my knowing God. I believe God and that is all that counts. In fact it is only by faith in Christ that anyone can please God (Heb. 11:6). Proving whether we have a perfect Bible has no bearing on my ability or choice to please God, faith is the key. The problem we have today is that many in the church are arguing about a number of issues and never win one person to Christ in their entire lifetime making them practical atheists. They have not even made one disciple making their life fruitless. Just compare Mt. 4:19.

To prove the Bible we have is absolutely 100 percent correct is impossible. It is like proving history. History is not repeatable. The closest proof we have is other history or events surrounding the event. History is not an absolute proof. History is open to interpretation.

To believe the Bible we have is correct is one thing but quite another to prove it.

You cannot prove that God created, but you can see the evidence of creation attributed to God.

 

Bluefalcon asked,

No.

Cyprian quoted the last four words in 1 John 5:8. He and Tertullian may have seen an allusion to the trinity in the three witnesses, but I do not wish to conjecture. I believe as do virtually 100% of the New Testament scholars who have written on the Johannine epistles in the past 150 years. I do not, however, believe this way because they do, but for the same reasons that they do. From our point of view, Cyprian simply quoted the last four words of a Latin translation of the true Greek text of 1 John 5:7 – 8 and commented very briefly upon them in a manner similar to what Tertullian had done. Personally, I am not aware of any New Testament scholar today of any credibility that sees this any differently. Indeed, I find it rather shocking that some laymen on this message board are so adamantly arguing against such well established New Testament scholarship.

However, even if virtually everyone who has studied this issue is wrong, and Cyprian had seen a manuscript that included the comma, why did he not quote it? What possible sense could it have made to quote the last four words from verse 8 and comment on a part of the text that he did not quote? And even if he had seen a manuscript that included the comma, all that would do is give us an earlier date for this particular scribal gloss.

Raymond E. Brown, in his commentary on the Johannine Epistles, traces in detail the origin and the circulation of the comma and provides a bibliography on the subject of the comma. For those who genuinely desire to understand the position on this matter that is held by New Testament scholars today, Brown’s commentary is certainly a must read. The commentaries on the Johannine Epistles by I. Howard Marshall and by Stephen S. Smalley should also be very carefully read. The other commentaries on the Johannine Epistles that I referenced earlier in this thread come to the same conclusions, but provide much less discussion on the matter.

So far, I am the only one in this thread who has gone to the bother of researching this matter in any depth at all, and I am getting all kinds of heat for my position. I would think that anyone who really cares about this issue would first read what the most noted scholars of this epistle have to say before forming such a firm opinion. The commentaries by Brown, Marshall, and Smalley are the best of the best and are easily procurable anywhere in the world.