I John 5:7

[NickHassan]

Hi woutlaw,
You have to discern the whore of babylon from the church. The whore is driven by Satan but is religious. They are enemies.

Read Rev 17-18 in the light of Exodus 26 in colour code that

Blue symbolises God
Red symbolises man
Purple symbolises religion.

You will only see red and purple with no blue.

“Come out of her my people”
“God knows those who are His”

[Woutlaw]

No arguments from me Nick,

I agree totally. I'm well aware of the difference between the harlot church and the real church. That's why I said “church”, referring to the harlot church. I will definetly check out that passage though.

thanks Woutlaw

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Woutlaw @ Dec. 03 2005,21:43)

Personally, I do not believe in the Trinty or the Oneness doctrine. I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Not God the Son, not Jehovah or Yahweh in the Flesh. Its funny that as you look throughout the gospels, you see examples of Jesus casting out demons. And on certain occasions the demons referred to him as the Holy One of God, Or the Son of God. Matthew 8:28-29, Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34. John the baptist called him the Lamb of God. “of” meaning from. How can he be from God and yet be God. Matthew 16:16, peter confesses him as the Christ, the Son of the living God. after Peter made this confession Jesus commends him and said, “This was not revealed to you my man, but by my Father in heaven”. So if this was revealed to Peter by The Father, then what Peter said wasn't incorrect.

Hi Woutlaw,

Well said my friend.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Woutlaw @ Dec. 04 2005,12:54)

Good points Nick I don't know how things are in New Zealand, but here in America, complacency is definetly the right word to describe the “Church” here. The divorce rates in the “Church” are just as high as the divorce rates of the world. An alarming number of women who are having abortions in this country profess to be “Christians”. The traditional family structure is going down the commode. The percentage of children born out of wedlock among African Americans is 70%-80%. Yet African American communities are full of “Churches”, many times they are literally next door or across the street from each other. This is not a racist statement as I am an African American. So I am very qualified to speak on this issue. The percentage of children born out of wedlock amongst Caucasians is right around 20% and climbing. We are losing a generation of children to this sex,drugs, and rock n roll culture. The porn culture is ripping marriages and families apart at an alarming rate. We literally have children taking guns to school and blowing people away. AND YET AMERICA IS CALLED A “CHRISTIAN” NATION. Folks this is what happens when you have a “Church” system that teaches CHEAP GRACE. All the key issues I talked about in this paragraph are occurring in the “Church”. I welcome any thoughts

Another good post Woutlaw.

New Zealand is quite innocent compared to that, but I understand that a cheap system that pretends to be God's Church, makes everything else look cheap and disposable.

We need to realise that we don't go to church, rather we are the Church. What does it mean to be the Church? It means that we demonstrate the Kingdom of God 24 hours a day. It's not just a Sunday thing.

When we live in love, truth, and unity in God's Spirit, then that light will penetrate any darkness, all of the time.

Come out of her my people. Her sins have piled up to Heaven. Come out, lest you partake of her sins.

God bless you Woutlaw, for the truth sets us free.

[Woutlaw]

God bless you too brother T8,

I really appreciate the encouragement. That's what we need more of in the kingdom of God. You have no idea of how much the encouragement helps me. Today was a difficult day, I had a discussion with a Trinitarian co-worker in regards to the Trinity. Let's just say I got the big “H” scarlet letter now.

Hebrews 3:13, But encourage one another daily as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfullness.

Proverbs 27:17, as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another.

Let us not forget these things

[NickHassan]

Quote (Woutlaw @ Dec. 06 2005,02:42)

God bless you too brother T8, I really appreciate the encouragement. That's what we need more of in the kingdom of God. You have no idea of how much the encouragement helps me. Today was a difficult day, I had a discussion with a Trinitarian co-worker in regards to the Trinity. Let's just say I got the big “H” scarlet letter now. Hebrews 3:13, But encourage one another daily as long as it is called today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfullness. Proverbs 27:17, as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. Let us not forget these things

Hi Woutlaw,
Be encouraged. Your doctrine comes
From the Father
From Jesus.
From Peter.
From John.
And the apostles

All your friend can say is that their doctrine comes
From Emperors
From theologians
From the whore of Babylon.
And their followers

I think we should seek the approval of the former rather than the latter don't you?

[Woutlaw]

Hi Nick,

thanks for the encouragement. We as true believers should seek the approval of God only. Romans 3:4, Let God be true and every man a liar.

God's Blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi,
What bothers me about the deliberate twisting of scripture is the lack it also causes. God has perfect scriptural economy and only sufficient that we need to know is provided to us but any loss destroys what we need to know and what those verses should tell us.

[Anonymous]

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible? © 2001 by David W. Daniels

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called “Majority” Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:
The so-called “Majority” text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the “Majority” Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The “Majority” Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called “Sabellianism,” and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:
200 ADTertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 ADCyprian of Carthage, wrote, “And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One” in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 ADPriscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 ADIdacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 ADAthanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 ADAurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 ADCouncil of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 ADSeveral orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in “Three Witnesses in Heaven”
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in “The Three Heavenly Witnesses” [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 ADCassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 ADOld Latin ms r has it
550 ADThe “Speculum” has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 ADWianburgensis referred to it
800 ADJerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s ADminiscule 635 has it
1150 ADminuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s ADminiscule 629 has it
157-1400 ADWaldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 ADms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

[Anonymous]

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission. 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: “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'.” [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: “And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'.” [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as “the Word.” If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use “Son” instead of “Word.” However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de
Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, “si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.”

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of “Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury,” one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

[Anonymous]

1Jo 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1Jo 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.— FOLKS THERE YOU HAVE IT; NICK, T8 AND ALL THIER SUPPORTERS, THAT WOULD BE ALL JW`S ARE FALSE PROPHETS!

[Anonymous]

1Jo 5:20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. —FOLKS ALL OF CHAPTER 5 TEACHES US THE SIMPLE AND BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRINITY! IN FACT ALL THE BIBLE TEACHES THE TRINITY! WHO WILL YOU SERVE ? GOD WHO GAVE HIS WITNESS? OR NICK, T8 AND ALL THE OTHER FALSE PROPHETS? KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHO YOU SERVE!

[Cubes]

Quote (soxan @ Dec. 16 2005,09:12)

1Jo 5:20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. —FOLKS ALL OF CHAPTER 5 TEACHES US THE SIMPLE AND BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRINITY! IN FACT ALL THE BIBLE TEACHES THE TRINITY! WHO WILL YOU SERVE ? GOD WHO GAVE HIS WITNESS? OR NICK, T8 AND ALL THE OTHER FALSE PROPHETS? KNOW AND UNDERSTAND WHO YOU SERVE!

Hi Soxan,

I have not had time to read your posts on the previous pages related to the OP.  But I would say this:  all extra-biblical writings aside, please realize that we do not deny that there are 1) The Father and 2) The Son.  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and we are born again by HIS (the Father's) spirit in as much as Christ was conceived by HIS [the Father's] Spirit.  This is how he can call Jesus HIS son, and we can be called the children of God [The Father].

That is how we can have eternal life as Christ has eternal life given him by the Father.  We have no such access and right to that life, except through Christ Jesus whom the Father appointed for that purpose, who [Christ] also loved us and gave himself for us.  

The question is not that there is the Father, the Son, the Spirit of the Father [HOLY SPIRIT], the angels of God, the elders with crowns etc but who is God?  Who is equal to and like him?  Who does he rule over?  and how does Christ relate to God? (He is the express image of God, but we were created in their image though often times, one can't tell by looking at us!).  If we were not the original but had to be created in their image, then logically Christ is the image of the Father and therefore not the original either.  The Father, we are taught is the origin of all things.  That is the testimony of Christ.

The answer to your post is in the verse that you yourself have quoted.  Take it at face value.  Notice the relationship and order of preemminence supported throughout the whole of scripture and do not willfully minimize or neglect it. There is no such thing as a TRIUNE God or Trinity.

Take care.

[k4c]

Quote (epistemaniac @ July 05 2005,17:29)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 05 2005,10:11) Hi E, The God that was with God is not that God he was with. Now please also can you be consistent. You say the Word was fully God so you say there are two deities. So are there two deities in one God now or two Gods? I thought you say they are two persons in one God not two individual deities in one God? So is the Son part of a trinity God or a separate deity? Now you say both are Gods to be worshipped as equals? Trinity theory says in fact there are three equal coeternal persons in one God. So is the Holy Spirit also an individual deity to be worshipped? Why did the Spirit then not get a mention in the verse from John? Is the deity of the Spirit a lesser one in your view?   The Spirit does not seem to be mentioned in this way as an individual deity in the Word. Neither are there any verses that even hint that the Spirit is to be worshipped are there? Hello. Where is the equality in all this or do we have to take it all on faith? Confusion reigns!! Sorry but adding that we cannot understand God and that some things are mysterious will not wash. This is pure eyewash. “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” lol… aww now Nick.. you know sometimes I have to marvel at your continual misrepresentation of trinitarianism… I mean, disagree… fine… great… but could you at least have the decency to accurately relate what trinitarians believe? you know full well that our belief is that there are not 2 gods, but rather one God in 3 persons…. and its not that difficult to understand really… that is, that this is the belief… I am not referring to the “how” this can be so, because when we attempt to break beliefs down in ways that move towards bare basic level metaphysical relationships and the great problems of unity and diversity in the universe(s) we have to admit ignorance on enourmous scales as to the “how” most things can be…. we just do know that much really, thats what it comes down to….. and so when the Bible says things of the Son that can only be also true of God the Father, I have to be faithful to the Bible Nick, and not raise my human intellect above the revelation given us by God, and say in all my human pride “I cannot understand it, therefore it cannot be true”… no… I bow both my mind and spirit before God and accept on faith that things are the way He says they are, not the way I say….. so, to reply specifically to “The God that was with God is not that God he was with.” I have to say that once again, you are equivocating… this time on the word “God”… so its one God… ok? got that? don't read further until you understand this Nick… one God… in 3 persons… so there is no such belief as God being with another God…  that is consistent, there is no inconsistency anywhere…. you say ” You say the Word was fully God so you say there are two deities.” No I don't… YOU keep saying that… I say there is one deity you ask “So are there two deities in one God now or two Gods? “ one God Nick… just one…. and this God is triune, the Bible reveals God as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… elementary really…. you say “I thought you say they are two persons in one God not two individual deities in one God?” nope, never said this, don't put words in my mouth, don't create straw man arguments… you know Nick… the same things that have told you numerous times… but hey, if you can't refute the trinitarian position biblically, perhaps this is your last resort…. misrepresenting etc… and I know resorts can be very nice places to be Nick, but at some point you are going to have to go home… get back to reality and face the actual beliefs that trinitarians have.. and again.. go ahead disagree… in a sense I could care less about that… you are going to believe what ever it is you are convinced of… but Nick, I am not going to stoop to misrepresenting you just because I disagree with you…. I just wish you would stop creating these flimsy caricatures… if you think about it… its really a sin to do that Nick… its lying… lastly you ask “So is the Son part of a trinity God or a separate deity?” the great collection of ministers of God's word who came together to produce Westminster said it like this… Q7:  What is God? A7:  God is a Spirit,[1] in and of himself infinite in being,[2] glory,[3]  blessedness,[4] and perfection;[5] all-sufficient,[6] eternal,[7] unchangeable,[8]  incomprehensible,[9] everywhere present,[10] almighty,[11] knowing all things,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most just,[15] most merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth.[16] 1.  John 4:24 2.  Exod. 3:14; Job 11:7-9 3.  Acts 7:2 4.  I Tim. 6:15 5.  Matt. 5:48 6.  Gen. 17:1 7.  Psa. 90:2 8.  Mal. 3:6; James 1:17 9.  I Kings 8:27 10. Psa. 139:1-13 11. Rev. 4:8 12. Heb. 4:13; Psa 147:5 13. Rom. 16:27 14. Isa. 6:3; Rev. 15:4 15. Deut. 32:4 16. Exod. 34:6 Q8:  Are there more Gods than one? A8:  There is but one only, the living and true God.[1] 1.  Deut. 6:4; I Cor. 8:4, 6; Jer. 10:10 Q9:  How many persons are there in the Godhead? A9:  There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.[1] 1.  I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; John 10:30 Q10:  What are the personal properties of the three persons in the Godhead? A10:  It is proper to the Father to beget the Son,[1] and to the Son to be begotten of the Father,[2] and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.[3] 1.  Heb. 1:5-6, 8 2.  John 1:14, 18 3.  John 15:26; Gal. 4:6 Q11:  How doth it appear that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father? A11:  The scriptures manifest that the Son and the Holy Ghost are God equal with the Father, ascribing unto them such names,[1] attributes,[2] works,[3] and worship,[4] as are proper to God only. 1.  Isa. 6:3, 5, 8; John 12:41; Acts 5:3-4; 28:25; I John 5:20 2.  John 1:1; 2:24-25; Isa. 9:6; I Cor. 2:10-11 3.  Col. 1:16; Gen. 1:2 4.  Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14

How many Spirits are in the godhead?

[NickHassan]

Hi k4c,
“God is one”
“But there are many gods and many lords”
Both are true and only understood in terms of 1Cor 8.6f
” Yet for us there is only one God, the Father..”

[Proclaimer]

I was going to start up a discussion on this verse and hello it already exists. Great. I want to add the following information as a possible explanation to how this verse found its way into the KJV. I wasn't there so I don't know for sure, but there is a reason why this verse is not found in most bibles.

The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticised by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well-known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript which did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.

The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads “son” instead of “word.” Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition). Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

[david]

This addition, in 1 John 5:7 known technically as the “Johannine Comma,” was protected by the Vatican until 1927, in spite of the fact that even some Catholic scholars had raised doubts about its authenticity as early as the sixth century. This dishonest insertion shows the lengths to which Trinitarians will go in their efforts to prove their doctrine.

1 John 4:7,8
“For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.”

This rendering is in agreement with the Greek texts by C. Tischendorf (eighth ed., 1872); Westcott and Hort (1881); Augustinus Merk (ninth ed., 1964); José María Bover (fifth ed., 1968); United Bible Societies (third ed., 1975); Nestle-Aland (26th ed., 1979).

After “witness bearers” the cursive mss No. 61 (16th century) and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc add the words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. (8) And there are three witness bearers on earth.” But these words are omitted by ?ABVgSyh,p.

Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB
The Catholic Jerusalem Bible explains in a footnote that this text is not found in any of the early Greek or the best Latin manuscripts of the Bible.

I find it quite interesting that Soxan spent a month bad mouthing people, saying the trinity was so obvious, and then the first time he mentioned any scriputre, the first scripture he mentioned as proof of the trinity was this one–one that was inserted and has no right being there.

[Woutlaw]

Good Stuff guys

[Eliyah]

T8 gave the correct disertation on ( 1 John 5:7) this was not in the original greek manuscripts, but was later added.

Also, you will be interested to know that the K.J.V. was translated by Latin Catholics, and all English versions such as the ( R.S.V. N.A.S. N.I.V.)are based on the K.J.V.

Quote

The King James Version (KJV) is an English translation of the Bible, commissioned for the benefit of the Church of England at the behest of King James I of England. First published in 1611, it has had a profound impact not only on most English translations that have followed it, but also on English literature as a whole. The works of famous authors such as John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, John Dryden, and William Wordsworth are replete with inspiration apparently derived from the King James Version. Modern Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are largely revisions of its text; it has deeply influenced Bibles such as the New International Version that do not claim to be revisions of its text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible

[Eliyah]

Also, you can read the introduction preface of the K.J.V. proving they were Catholic translators at…

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/1611pref.html

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/transaid.html

[Author]

Posts