The Overwhelming Evidence For I John 5:7 – By John Henry

[DavidL]

“THE JOHANNINE COMMA”

(1 JOHN 5:7-8)
IS IT INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ?

by John Henry

PREFACE

This paper stems from research that I did to prepare for debate on the validity of the Received Greek Text from which the KJV was translated. The case in point here is 1 John 5:7. Many say there is little evidence for it’s inclusion in the Bible.

Here is the text that we are talking about. The words in capital letters are not found in most modern translations. First John 5:6-8:

6 …And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.
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)

My Debater:
As far as the 1 John 5:7-8 reading in the KVJ, they say that Erasmus omitted this reading from his first 2 editions of his Greek NT (1516, 1519) and was challenged for this omission. He replied that he would include it in his next edition if anyone could produce even one Greek manuscript that included that reading. One 16th century Greek minuscule…manuscript of the Franciscan friar, Froy or Roy, was found so he inserted it into his 1522 edition. The KJ translators followed the text of Erasmus.

This book [General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix] says the earliest reading of the KJV reading of this text [1 John 5:7] is in a fourth century Latin treatise attributed to either the Spanish heretic Priscillian or his follower Bishop Instantius.

INTRODUCTION

First John 5:7 is called the “The Johannine Comma”.
I do not know much about Priscillian except that he was the very first to receive the death penalty for heresy from a “Christian” Emperor. “The undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, [Idacius Clarus, and] Priscillian, who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus….on the charge of sorcery and heresy.” (Hills) However, there are others that quoted the Comma earlier than that as we will see. There is empirical evidence as to the existence of the Johannine Comma prior to that date.

“The Comma did not appear in the first two editions of Erasmus’ Receptus but was added to his third. Some have stated that Erasmus added the Comma reluctantly. Erasmus had been criticized for his earlier editions which did not contain the passage. Metzger writes, ‘In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comman Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found–or was made to order!’ (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, p 101.) This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversely, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts. (Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis presented to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller…, p 205. This is further verified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, p 209).” (MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE, lessons given by Dr. Thomas Holland)

“While it is argued that the Comma is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts, it should also be remembered that none of the papyri manuscripts contain 1 John chapter 5 (except for P74 of the seventh century, which only contains verses 3-4, 9-10, and 17). Of the eleven uncial manuscripts which contain 1 John (and omit the Comma), seven come from the ninth and tenth centuries. The remaining four come from the fourth and fifth centuries. This information tells us that the majority of Greek manuscripts, which do not contain the Comma, likewise are of later dates. Further, we note that there is evidence for the Comma (in Latin) long before the fourth century. The external evidence, therefore, is not as weak as some would have us believe.” (Holland)

THE EVIDENCES IN FAVOR OF 1 JOHN 5:7

Is this TR/KJV reading a valid Bible passage or not? There are at least four evidences that convince us of the validity of 1 John 5:7-8:
THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
THE GREEK GRAMMATICAL EVIDENCE
THE THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
Let us examine the evidences and put it to a fair test to verify the validity of the so called Comman Johanneum:

THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE

OLD LATIN MANUSCRIPTS EVIDENCE: The “three heavenly Witnesses” is contained in practically all of the extant Latin Vulgate MSS. Although not included in Jerome’s original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin MSS. (Hills, Jones) This historic usage of the text in the Western Church lay behind its final inclusion in the Greek Text of Erasmus. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in Latin: “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

1) Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.

2) Old Latin MS r has the verse (AD 550).

3) Old Latin MS l has the verse.

4) Latin Vulgate from AD 800 on.

GREEK MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: There are at least 10 confirmed Greek MSS that contain the Comma.

1) 61 (late 15th century) (Aland’s Text, 3rd edition, p. 824)

2) 629 (14th century) (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

3) 918 (Aland’s; 3rd ed., p. 824)

4) 221 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

5) 2318 (Listed by Dr. D.A. Waite; Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

6) 634 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)

7) 636, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

8) 88, margin, Codex Ravianus, 12th century (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

9) 429, margin (Aland’s, 3rd ed., p. 824)

10) Omega 110 (Listed as confirmed by Dr. D.A. Waite)

11) 635, margin (Holland)

12) Codex Wizanburgensis (8th century) (Cloud)

13) Dr. Waite lists 10 other Greek MSS that are unconfirmed as yet.

GREEK LECTIONARIES (These contained extracts of the New Testanent):

1) Lectionary 60

2) Lectionary 173

WRITINGS AND CITATIONS BY CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHERS:

1) AD 170 – Old Syriac Version (G.A. Riplinger, p. 381)

2) AD 200 – Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, “An exposition of the NT”, Vol 2, pp. 907-8)

3) AD 250 – Cyprian, who writes, “And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: ‘and the Three are One'” (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)

4) AD 385 – Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)

5) AD 350 – Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)

6) AD 350 – Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

7) AD 380 – Varimadum

8) AD 435 – Cassian

9) AD 427 – The Speculum, MS m, a treatise containing an Old Latin texts arranged by topic.

10) Sixth century – Ps-Athanasius

11) Eighth century – Ansbert

12) AD 750 – Wianburgensis cites the verse

13) 1200-1400 – Waldensian Bibles have the verse

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

1) The Waldenses (AD 120 on) of Northern Italy who protected the Old Latin or Italic Bible (AD 157) with their lives. These had the earliest of connections with the church in Asia Minor and Syria, and could easily verify their translation with the Received Text of those churches. (Which Bible, pp. 194-215) The “Comma” is in their Bibles. After an honest study of the history of the Waldenses it cannot be denied that they were the people of God. Their Apostolic connection, their doctrinal beliefs, their evangelization of Europe, and their stand for the Truth in the face of the greatest of persecution are all traits and proof that they were the true church of God in those dark days. They earnestly contended for the Faith, including 1 John 1:9. They translated the Word from their Latin Bibles into Gallic, Flimish, German, and other languages. (Armitage)

2) Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (d. 336 AD) and pupil of Lucian of Antioch, denied the deity and eternality of Christ Jesus. The Greek or Eastern Church was completely given over to that heresy from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius the Elder, a span of at least forty years (c.340-381, to the convening of the fourth Council of Byzantium). Conversely, the Western Church remained uncorrupted by the Arian heresy during this period.…[W]ith the Arians in control of the Greek Church for the forty or so year span, Eusebius was able to suppress this passage in the edition that he revised which had the effect of removing the verse from the Greek texts. Thus the disputed verse was originally suppressed, not gradually introduced into the Latin translation. (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pgs. 28-29, 293-306, 561)

3) Several orthodox African writers (AD 450-530) quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. After the Vandals over-ran the African provinces, their King (Hunnerich) summoned the bishops of the African Church and the adjacent isles to deliberate on the doctrine bound within the disputed passage. Between three to four hundred prelates attended the Council at Carthage while Eugenius, as bishop of that See, drew up the Confession of the orthodox in which the contested 7th verse is expressly quoted. That the entire African Church assembled in council should have concurred in quoting a verse which was not contained in the original text is altogether inconceivable. Such loudly proclaims that the 7th verse was part of its text from the beginning. These writers are:
A) Vigilius of Tapensis (AD 490) (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (died 533)of Ruspe in N. Africa (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
D) Cassiodorus of Italy (AD 480-570).
E) Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in a confession of faith (AD 484).

THE GREEK GRAMMATICAL EVIDENCE

It has been pointed out that if the [capitalized words below] are removed from the text, there are certain grammatical difficulties which result in the Greek. The nouns spirit, water and blood in v. 8 are in the masculine gender when they are normally neuter; but if v. 7 is present the terms Father and Word which are masculine would influence the structure of v. 8 and explain this anomaly. (Traditional Text Society) Dr. Frederick Nolan is quick to point out that the verse as preserved in the Latin manuscripts is consistent and full whereas the Greek is internally defective grammatically (Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. 259-261, 294) Now let us listen to a few scholars that know the Greek grammatical problem well.

Textus Receptus reading of 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV). The omitted words are capitalized:

“For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

1) EDWARD HILLS: “[T]he omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is “personalized,” and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.

2) FLOYD JONES: The Greek language has “gender” in its noun endings (as do many other languages). Neuter nouns normally require neuter articles (the word “the” as in “the blood” is the article). But the article in verse 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is the foundation of the new versions…is masculine. Thus the new translations read “the Spirit (neuter), the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine!! – from the Greek article “hoi”) are in one.” Consequently three neuter subjects are being treated as masculine (see below where the omitted portion is capitalized). If the “Comma” is rejected it is impossible to adequately explain this irregularity. In addition, without the “Comma” verse 7 has a masculine antecedent; three neuter subjects (nouns in vs.8) do not take a masculine antecedent. Viewing the complete passage it becomes apparent how this rule of grammer is violated when the words are omitted. I John 5:6-8:

“… And it is the Spirit (Neuter) that beareth witness (Neuter), because the Spirit (Neuter) is truth. For there are three (Masculine) that bear record (Masculine) IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER (Masculine), THE WORD (Masculine), AND THE HOLY SPIRIT (Neuter): AND THESE THREE (Masculine) ARE ONE (Masculine). AND THERE ARE THREE (Masculine) THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit (Neuter), and the water (Neuter), and the blood (Neuter): and these three (Masculine) agree in one.

3) THOMAS HOLLAND: The phrase in verse 8, to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, oi marturountes (who bare witness) which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis). The proper grammatical explanation for this, mixing the neuter and the masculine, is that the parallel is introduced in verse 7. There we find the phrase, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost) which are masculine nouns (with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which stands in the neuter). The would allow for the masculine oi marturountes since the clause contains two masculine nouns. If, on the other hand, the masculine nouns of verse 7 are removed we are at a loss as to why the masculine is used in verse 8. Therefore, the inclusion of the Comma is not only proper theology, it is proper Greek.

THE THEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

1) The Trinitarian formula, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost” is unique not only for John but for all NT writers. The usual formula, “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ” would have been assuredly used by a forger. Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of “Word” instead of “Son”? It is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one. The fact is that the use of “Word” is consistent with the apostle John’s style.

2) The number of times that John uses the Name that signifies the Lord’s eternal pre-existents is 7, the number of perfection if 1 John 5:7 is included:

John 1:1: “In the beginning was 1) the Word, and 2) the Word was with God, and 3) the Word was God.

John 1:14: “And 4) the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

1 John 1:1: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of 5) the Word of life.”

1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, 6) the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called 7) The Word of God.”

3) It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four (cf. Prov 30, Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13 etc.), the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40, the combination of the words of Christ in Matthew 12:40 (cf. Gen 15:5; Isa 55:10-11; ). It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula “there are three that bear witness” will be repeated at least twice (cf. Matt 6:10).

4) The text of 1 John 5:7 is most Christ-honoring. It shows His Deity and Unity in the Godhead. The Lord Jesus Himself said we would know the truth from the witness and guidance of the Spirit who would show us Christ’s Deity and glorify Him:

John 16:13-15: “Howbeit when he, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, is come, he WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. HE SHALL GLORIFY ME: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE: therefore said I, that HE SHALL TAKE OF MINE, AND SHALL SHOW IT UNTO YOU.”

1 John 5:6-11: “…And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.”

5) Providential protection of the reading by God: Our confidence in Word of God must ultimately rest upon the truth of the Providential Preservation of Holy Scripture, a truth taught in the Bible itself. We begin with the presupposition that God has preserved His Word; because He said that He would: consider the following verses in the Book of Psalms alone: 12:6, 7; 89:1, 2; 119:89, 160. The promise of God was that He would preserve His Word in His church – Isaiah 59:21. Therefore, we believe that the true text of Holy Scripture is that which has been passed down through the generations of God’s believing people who have preserved the faith of the gospel. This authentic text may not at every point be found in a majority of surviving manuscripts.

6) Remember Origen and those that he influenced, like Eusebeus, did not believe in the Trinity or the Deity of Jesus Christ. They cut I John 5:7 out of the Bible early on in Christian history because he hated the Doctrine of the Trinity. But what man cuts out God can put back in. They pulled a King Jehoiakim (Read Jeremiah 36):
* God gave His Word to Jeremiah (v. 1)
* Jeremiah dictated it to Baruch who wrote it down (v. 4)
* Jehoiakim heard the Word, didn’t like and burned it (v. 21, 23)
* God had the same thing rewritten again (v. 27, 28).
The same thing has happened with I John 5:7. The Greek speaking Arians didn’t like it so he cut it out of the Greek Bible, but God put it back.

EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE FOR THE COMMA

After examining 1) the Latin and Greek manuscript evidence, 2) the citations and documentation by the church fathers and others, 3) the grammatical evidence and 4) the doctrinal evidence we should be able to come to a logical conclusion. Let’s put the evidence to the “Tests of Truth for New Testament Criticism”.

1) Antiquity: We have the testiomon of the Old Latin Version as early as AD 157, Tertullian around AD 200, Cyprian around AD 250, and on the Greek side Codex Wizanburgensis from the 8th century, and 88 from the twelfth century. The Comma passes this test.

2) Consent of Witnesses: There is consent Latin witness throughout history, as well as several Greek witnesses. Pass.

3) Variety of Evidence: There are various witnesses (i.e. MSS, versions, Fathers, lectionaries, etc.) from a virity of locations (N. Africa, Italy, Asia) which qualifies the Comma.

4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight: Tertullian, the Waldenses, Cyprian, and the orthodox African writers are all credible. Pass.

5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition: The reading appears consistently throughout history from AD 150 to 1500. Pass.

6) Credibility of Opposing Evidence: The manuscripts, circumstances and many of the people of the opposing side are suspicious or not credible altogether. 1 John 5:7 passes again.

7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness: The elementary Greek grammar is deficient without 1 John 5:7, and fundamental Bible doctrines suffer without it. The so called Comma passes again!

CONCLUSION

“Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite the reluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel (“Gnomon”, published in 1742) also convincingly defended its inclusion as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by the providence of God, the Johannie comma obtained and retained a place in the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place.” (Jones) “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28)

http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/1John5-7Henry.html

 

[NickHassan]

Hi davodl,

Do you feel better now you found someone whom you can align with?

The apostate theologians who placed it there will defend it.

 

?

[Jael]

Please explain how GOD (who is Father Son and Holy Spirit) has a SON who is GOD?

Is this SON composed of Father Son and Holy Spirit?

Sounds illogical and rhetorical?

The disputed verses for this thread have been shown to be false for so ongoing that it flummox me that anyone  should bring it up as a point of debate.

Basically, trinitarians were so desperate to show any kind of evidence of a trinity that the translators chose to add in their own ‘proof’. Other verses were altered to try to claim that ‘God’…’came in the flesh’ when it is clear from any position that it referred to the promised messiah, aka:Jesus the Christ; the SERVANT OF GOD.

Once again, if Jesus is ‘God’ how is he THE SERVANT OF HIMSELF, much like the trinitarian belief in an unworkable ‘Son of God’ who IS A COMPONENT PART’ of that selfsame ‘GOD’?

I haste to add: is the Father also GOD? (Yes, ‘the ONLY TRUE GOD’,Jesus said, ‘the only one to be worshipped in spirit and truth’.) But in the trinity view, the Father and Jesus are both GOD, yet it takes three to be a trinity…trinitarians seem unable to reconcile their doctrine with their utterings from scriptures, such as: ‘I and the Father are one’, which, apparently, to a trinitarian, is a claim of a TRINITY!!

Of course trinitarians will rebuff and disclaim their own representatives by saying something like, ‘Oh, I DON’T THINK THAT…,’ and in my debates they add a weird postfix of, ‘I have never heard anyone claim that…!’

Another trinitarian mashup is ‘God said to my God’…

Wow, where do these people come from?

The verse was first spoken concerning KING DAVID in a song by a minstrel. The minstrel sang that ‘ALMIGHTY GOD: Yahweh, said to MY GOD … ‘ that is, ‘The God of all gods said to MY KING…’. No, I’m not changing words. The word ‘GOD’ is NOT an EXCLUSIVE USE WORD for Yahweh!!! It refers to WHOMEVER is the OVERALL INDIVIDUAL OR POWER in a contextual situation.

The GOD OF A COURTROOM is the PRESIDING JUDGE.

The GOD OF A SCHOOL is the headteacher or Principal.

The GOD OF A (presume god fearing!) HOUSEHOLD is the Father.

We use the title ‘God’ to refer to the (Christian) deity in overall place in our religious belief. ‘GOD’ is NOT a name – it THE TITLE of the spiritual person who is the target of our belief.

BUT trinitarians have realised that unless they create a false reference and claim the title ‘God’ as a NAME then their false ideology cannot work. And this shows admirably in such verses as, ‘I am going to MY GOD and YOUR GOD’, ‘MY LORD and MY GOD’. Jesus absolutely states that he HAS A GOD which is the same as their God. And Thomas states that he was seeing in Jesus BOTH Jesus, the Lord, and GOD, the Father, as he had previously heard Jesus say, ‘If you see me then you see the Father also’.

Strangely enough, trinitarians never refer to the link between these two verses appropriately (and there is no wondering why!).

Since no one (yes, I know but we can instantly dismiss these cults) believes that Jesus was saying he WAS THE FATHER, even when affirming, ‘I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE!’, why then do so many suddenly believe that ‘MY LORD’ (personal) and ‘MY GOD’ (personal) are referring to Jesus as one and the SAME PERSON?

Note the strict separation words ‘AND MY’… To refer to the same person it would be said as, ‘My Lord and God’.

A point of order is appropriate here in that I have NEVER received a response to the question of why ONLY THOMAS, by trinity claim, saw Jesus as ‘BOTH LORD AND GOD’ nor proffered a reaction to such a claim prior or after… Such a claimed revelation that Jesus …WAS… God (ha ha, sorry!) the Father… would surely have resounded throughout scriptures… Yet the only so-called writings of Thomas are fully discredited as FAKES.

Returning to ‘God said to my God..’, if these were said prophetically concerning Christ Jesus – and this means ALMIGHTY GOD was calling Jesus ‘MY GOD’ (oh dear!!) then what did they mean when the minstrel sang them unto King David? It’s strange that trinitarians are unlikely to refer to King David and the minstrel when quoting these words as their proof that Jesus was called ‘GOD’ (MY GOD?) by ALMIGHTY GOD: YAHWEH.

Confused? Par for the course for trinity ideology I’m afraid…!

[AndrewAD]

I don’t find the evidence of this article overwhelming at all and notice it’s put out by Landmark Baptists who are KJV only and of course trinitarians.I’ve come to realize that any sect that is pushing their own agenda will always point to whatever evidence they think makes them right,while usually ignoring, changing and misinterpreting the evidence that may prove them wrong.

What I’ve read and has been admitted on trinitarian sites is the fact that at the major councils over the trinitarian controversy between the fourth and eighth centuries this verse was never appealed to. If this a proof text for the trinity then why did the trins not use it since they were hard pressed to find such a text? Either it wasn’t in their bibles,Latin or Greek or if it were in some,then they all knew it was spurious,or had no bearing on the controversy.

Based on the fact they didn’t mention this verse that seemingly would be one worth debating I can’t help but think it wasn’t in the bible yet or if it was in some of the bibles they were using they knew it to be not genuine.

1) Included in the 2nd century Old Latin Bible.– from what I can read the oldest” old Latin” manuscripts still extant are dated from the 4th century and some do contain the disputed clause as the article says in point 2 and 3 of the manuscript evidence. Point 2 says 550 which is the 6th century and point 4 says in the Vulgate from 800 on. But the oldest extant copies of the Vulgate-which Jerome translated from Greek- don’t contain the clause.So why do the oldest known copies of the Vulgate not contain the clause,but after 800 they do? Could it be because the church councils had by then ratified the doctrines in question? Jerome certainly didn’t copy/translate the clause from the Greek manuscripts he used. And as this article points out the clause is in not found in Greek manuscripts until the 14th century. So it seems that scribes of the Vulgate added the clause from some of the old Latin texts from 800 on for doctrinal reasons.

I find this all interesting since at one point many years ago I was nearly a KJV only person and read about some of these issues but didn’t really understand it all as I do now. I’d like to touch on some of the other points of the article later.

 

[AndrewAD]

As for the WRITINGS AND CITATIONS BY CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHERS:

First is mentioned Gail Riplinger-1) AD 170 – Old Syriac Version (G.A. Riplinger, p. 381)-This lady has written several books condemning all other translations but the kjv and accuses all who use them or had any hand in producing them as satanists and anti-christs.This woman lies about people and historical facts and is an uncredible sham. But many baptists bought into her and her ilk hook line and sinker and still do. I read much about the kjv only,being influenced by certain fundamentalist baptists in the early 90’s but their information and accusations were just over the top.

I have a Lamsa bible which is translated from Syriac-and the contested verse is not there,but idk about one from 170.-I find it highly unlikely though.And as for all the supposed quotes from the church fathers they are all contested as their interpretations. Anyone can read about it from Wiki  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum 

13) 1200-1400 – Waldensian Bibles have the verse-The Waldensians bible called the Olivetan was translated into French using many sources including the text of Erasmus which had the verse. And being aligned with the reformers and being trins of course they would include it. All baptists like to claim the Waldenses as their forbears to trace themselves back to the apostles.

2)” Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (d. 336 AD) and pupil of Lucian of Antioch, denied the deity and eternality of Christ Jesus- …With the Arians in control of the Greek Church for the forty or so year span, Eusebius was able to suppress this passage in the edition that he revised which had the effect of removing the verse from the Greek texts. Thus the disputed verse was originally suppressed, not gradually introduced into the Latin translation.”

-So Arius and Eusebius were somehow able to remove the verse when it was never used in the councils? Even able to remove it from all their theological opponents bibles? in a forty year span?  How unlikely and miraculous is that? It’s far more credible that it was gradually introduced into the Latin bible and that is what the evidence proves. This silly argument shows poor research and blatant denial of reason.

[Author]

Posts