Featured These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions

that is also very true of Calvinism!

what do you think of that article on the Greek of 1 John 5:7. Looks to me that it cannot be refuted

 

why quote when you know the Greek word "ὃς" never means anything more than "who"?

 

"who" is a demonstrative pronoun.

 

Which ever way you look at it, Paul could not have written simply "ὃς", as this leaves the sentence without its subject. He would have written "Jesus", or "Christ" or "Jesus Christ", or "the Lord", etc, but not "who". If he wished to connect this with "God" in verse 15, then he would have written, "οὗτός".

 

still "who" and not "he who", which is used because of the improvement in the sense which is needed. The neuter "ὁ" better fits the grammar, and has some textual evidence. Did you know that one of the main objectors to "God" in this verse, was a man on the RV committee, George Vance Smith? He was a Unitarian and would be opposed to the Deity of Jesus Christ. His persuasion carried the "orthodox" to accept "who". Why have a man who represents the lies of the devil, help translate the Word of God? I believe that another Unitarian, Joseph Thayer, of the lexicon, was also on the US committee! Says a lot of the RV

 

Both these Greek texts are not reliable as their notes in many places give inaccurate "textual evidence", as is the Textual Commentary published by the UBS. As I have already shown, these men did not have a high regard for the Holy Bible, and even openly questioned Its Authority. It makes no difference of whether the NASB or ESV used these two Mss, because the textual versions you quote heavily rely on them

 

Hello, I am referring to the "text" used by the KJV and not the translation. I have already said elsewhere, the KJV gets it wrong in a few places on points of grammar and choice of words. No version is perfect, but many of the modern ones are way off, like The Message...

 

Origen was a rank heretic!

 

"But the above aside, the entire Byzantine textform consistently reads Θεος", what are you referring to here? because of the uncial manuscripts, there is only the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, and correctors to the Codices Sinaiticus, Ephraemi and Bezae, that read "Θεος". There are of course many minuscule manuscripts that do read "Θεος". I think that the Patristic evidence of the Greek Church fathers is of far greater weight for "Θεος", which is shows its presence and use from a very early date.

 

I actually examined the original Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum about 25 years ago with the aid of a microscope, which you cannot do these days, and I can agree with those who examined it when it first came to England, that the original hand has "Θς", which was written in contracted form, with the bar above the letters. It did not appear to me to be of a later date.

This does not make much difference in the debate to the correct reading of this great verse, as the testimony of the Greek fathers is more than conclusive that Paul did indeed write Θεος. What I find interesting, is that this reading is supported by the Greek fathers, while the Latin don't seem to know it. Likewise, in 1 John 5:7, the Latin fathers know of the "Heavenly Witnesses" as part of the text, while the Greek don't. the very early quotation of both Tertullian and Cyprian of this verse is on great importance, as they both had Greek New Testaments in their possession, even though the were from the Latin Church, which shows that in the 3rd century in North Africa, this reading was known.