Which Bear Record in HeavenÖ
I John 5:7
Editor: Steve Van Nattan-- I am amazed at the exceptional work this fellow has done. It seems that these people do not give out their identity for reasons of persecution. Please visit their Web Site above. You will enjoy the depth of zeal and research they have done.
There has been enormous controversy over the scripture of I John 5:7. Muslims use this phenomenon to support this errouous assertion of Bible corruption. But is this fully the truth? Here is an argument by one web administrator blip Abdullah. He has been asking me about this verse and was looking for me to address this issue. This phenomenon extends beyond both of us and some of his arguments have been used over and over by other Muslim apologetics. His comments are in green:
As we've seen in our previous conversation regarding this subject, the 1 John 5:7 Biblical Verse which you highly approve and believe that it is indeed an inspired Word of GOD is not approved by the Roman Catholics Christians.
This isnít true because Erasmus under the pressure of the Catholic Church included this scripture.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmusí Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3
3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5. (The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8, by Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary, pg. 1, 2)
Mr. blipís assertions start off incorrect because it was the Catholic Church that pressured Erasmus to include this verse. However, as we shall see later there is tons of evidence to verify the authenticity of I John 5:7.
Read their New JerBliplem Bible (NJB). Now Mr. Quennel, do we both agree that the Roman Catholics Bible, the NJB is corrupted or has some corruption in it which makes it then a corrupted book as far as you are concerned since the Gospel of "1 JOHN" is not fully agreed upon by both your Bibles?
Read about the New JerBliplem Bible:
New JerBliplem Bible (NJB) of 1985 revised and updated the text and notes of the JerBliplem Bible of 1966. This version, translated by two Catholic scholars, is an elegant, literary rendering (perhaps the most poetic since the KJV). The notes reflect a modern, liberal perspective. http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
When we look at the history of the NJB, we see that Mr. blip is overstating its importance. If you go in Borders bookstore, you will see the Catholic NASB, Catholic NIV, along with other versions which shows us that the Catholics use several versions as well but just with the extra 7 books of theirs. This bible was only translated by 2 scholars, compared to the many other versions of the Bible that are translated with at least 20! We will get more into this further along in this paper.
What blip and other Muslims fell to notice is that one scripture doesnít prove the Bible is corrupted especially when it well authenticated throughout Islamic history that there are whole passages missing from the Quran:
It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).
There is, in fact, a virtually unanimous opinion among the early historians that the Quran, as it stands, is incomplete. Abdullah ibn Umar, in the earliest days of Islam, was quite emphatic about this matter, so our Muslim contemporaries need to be real careful in how they try and argue against the bible.
We have evidence of a whole section of the Qur'an that is now said to be missing in the as-sunan al-Kubra of al-Baihaqi, an extensive collection of hadith records not regarded as authentic as the six major works we have mentioned but nonetheless of great interest and importance. Ubayy ibn Ka'b is said to have recalled a time when Suratul-Ahzab (the thirty-third Surah) once was the same length as Suratul-Baqarah (the second Surah), which means it must have had at least two hundred verses not found in its text today (Al-Baihaqi, As-Sunan al-Kubra, Vol. 8, p.211).
There are further evidences of whole surahs said to be missing from the Qur'an as it is today. Abu MBlip al-Ash'ari, one of the
early authorities on the Qur'an text and a companion of Muhammad, is reported to have said to the reciters of Basra:
We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).
The one verse he said he could recall is one of the well-known texts said to be missing from the Qur'an and we shall give
separate attention to it shortly. Abu MBlip went on to say:
We used to recite a surah similar to one of the MBlipbbihaat, and I no longer remember it, but this much I have indeed preserved: 'O you who truly believe, why do you preach that which you do not practise?' (and) 'that is inscribed on your necks as a witness and you will be examined about it on the Day of Resurrection'. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.526).
So basically there are some surahs in the Quran which are nothing more than the interpretations of men and are based on the mere memory of them. I donít see this on Islamic sites when they talk about the corruption of the Bible.
The tradition as here quoted follows the record of it in the Sahih Muslim where it is recorded after the statement about the surah resembling the ninth surah and containing the verse about the son of Adam (Vol. 2, p.501). The MBlipbbihaat are those surahs of the Qur'an (numbers 57, 59, 61, 62 and 64) which begin with the words Sabbaha (or yBlipbbihu) lillaahi maa fiis-samaawati wal-ardth - "Let everything praise Allah that is in the heavens and the earth" (cf. NŲldeke, 1.245).
The words of the first verse mentioned by Abu MBlip are exactly the same as those found in Surah 61.2 while the second text is very similar to Surah 17.13 ("We have fastened every man's fate on his neck and on the Day of Resurrection We shall bring out an inscription which he will see spread out") which would explain why he particularly recalled these two verses.
Those Muslims who claim that the Quran is exactly the same today as it was when first delivered by Muhammad, nothing aried, added or omitted, have to reckon with such evidence that much is indeed missing from the standardized text.
Do we both agree on this little information Que? I would like to see a "Yes" or "No" answer from you so I can move to the next point of this topic please.
No, because the NJB defense is overstated in your part and this doesnít explain why I John 5:7 is included in other more reliable versions of the Catholic Bible. Remember this my reader, there are parts of this scripture that is considered to be disputed not the whole scripture. You will find part of this scripture in virtually all translations of the Bible. Keep this in mind because this will be discussed later also.
But again Que, I don't care whether it is a corruption or not. That is not the issue.
The issue is, why this great deal of differences among Christians and their Bibles in acceptance to what is the Word of GOD and what is not?
Look at blipís statement closely if he doesnít care about whether it is corrupted, then why is he worried about what Christians think in their exceptance of this verse? As we look on blipís site about Bible corruption we see that this is very much the issue and that he is disguising his argument to actually admit that this scripture is corrupted. http://www.answering-christianity.com/1john5_7.htm
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Not really there are many verses in the Bible that tie them together read Matthew 28:19-20:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
The word for name here in Greek is Onoma which is singular in this scripture and denotes unity of 3 beings into one name.
Read this verse of Isaiah 48:12-16 to see how the Bible clearly shows a trinity.
Listen to Me, O Jacob, even blip whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. Surely My hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together. Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? [Yahweh] or the LORD loves him; he shall carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful. Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."
The identity of the speaker is clearly the God of blip because He calls Himself "the first and last" in verse 12. This title had already been used of Yahweh of Hosts in Isaiah 44:6:
"Thus says [Yahweh], the King of blip and his Redeemer, [Yahweh] of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.'"
The blip for "I am the first and I am the last" is the same in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12: .... This God is further identified as "the ahweh of armies" in Isaiah 44:6. Now this was God's words in Isaiah 48:16, and not Isaiah, lets look closely. The word for Time in Isiah 48:16 is `eth It means:
a.time (of an event)
The root origin of this word as defined in Strong's concordance is `ad.
Here is it's meaning:
1.perpetuity, for ever, continuing future
a.ancient (of past time)
b.for ever (of future time)
1.of continuous existence
c.for ever (of God's existence)
ever 41, everlasting 2, end 1, eternity 1, ever + (05769)&version=kjv 1, evermore 1, old 1, perpetually 1.
It has always meant something that was everlasting and preexisting. So for this to be the speech of Isaiah and not God would say that Isaiah was eternal and preexisting!!! blip scriptures speak for themselves. Already we see that blipís claims are unfounded based on the scriptures themselves.
This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for. However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.
blip makes an error when he says that all recent versions of the Bible have expunged this verse since they have part of the verse in it and since it isnít the entire verse that is under scrutiny but the last part:
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
Now lets look at this verse from the translations mentioned by blip of I John 5:7
From the Revised Standard Version
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
From this version we see that there is allusion to 3 witnesses agreeing but however this is just mentioned in verse 8 instead of 7 we will expound more on this matter soon.
From the New Revised Standard Version
7 There are three that testify:
8 the spirit and the water and the blood and these three agree.
From New American Standard Bible
7 For there are <*1> three that testify:
8  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are  in agreement.
Look at what the numbers show about the meaning as seen in this verse. <*1> corresponds with Matthew 18:16:
16 ""But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
When we look at this verse of Matthew 18:16, we see that witnesses refer to separate people who are confirming something. In I John, the Spirit is identified as being God. Even with the disputed part taken out you still see that the Holy Spirit is identified as being one with the water and the Blood, keep this in mind. The  and  refer to this: 1.A few late mss add ... in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit 2.Lit for the one thing. As far as the Philpís Bible and the New English Bible, these versions arenít well-known translations and arenít used by any major Christian organization, etc, which is due to the fact in why I couldnít find them. But as you will see, this wonít have a real big affect on this issue.
Now lets take this issue using this translations and see how the Trinity doctrine is still in effect, read from the RSV beginning with I John 5:5-10:
5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
10 He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son.
When we look at this passage with some context, we see that the idea of the Trinity isnít fully destroyed. Verse 5 says that people who overcome BELIEVE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. Note: Jesus deity is still affirmed here and this refutes everything that Islam tries to portray since the Quran says that Jesus isnít the son of God, but yet it is still present in this verse! Verse 6 says that Jesus came by water and blood and then in verse 8 we see that these 2 are mentioned as witnesses. Then in verse we see that the spirit is also a witness and then in verse 9, we find out that GOD HAS BORNE WITNESS TO HIS SON! We see the work of these 3 working together because the Spirit is separate from God, then Jesus who is also separate but yet Jesus came by Blood and water, and then this blood and water is mentioned as being a witness! We see that God borne witness to his son through his testimony and then we see that there are 3 witnesses!!! You donít see the word God in verse 7 or 8, you see only the spirit, the water and the blood! But verse 9 tells us that these 3 which agree are the testimony of God himself! This doesnít refute the trinity because the spirit, water and blood are all separate but yet verse 9 tells us that this is the testimony that God gave witness to his Son! If God is giving witness of his Son and we see that the spirit, water and the blood agree, then The spirit is God, Jesus which came by blood and water is God and God the father is God testifying to this matter since the verse says obviously that God has borne witness to his son. Even without the disputed part in the Trinity isnít destroyed at all. Infact verse 10 says that He WHO BELIEVES IN THE SON OF GOD HAS THE TESTIMONY IN HIMSELF, much like Christ who testified of himself being the spirit and blood, and then it says that HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE GOD HAS MADE HIM A LIAR BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE TESTIMONY THAT GOD HAS BORNE TO HIS SON! This says it all, God gave testimony of his Son and due to the fact that Islam rejects Godís own testimony, this would make this an unbelieving religion. Lets look at the NASB, which is the most literal English bible, since the NRSV is the virtually the same as the RSV, here we investigate from the NASB with itís relevant links, you can go here to view them in your spare time http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1JOHN+5:5-10&language=english&version=NASB&showfn=on#footnote_975052123_1
5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who <*1> believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is the One who came <*2> by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not  with the water only, but  with the water and  with the blood. It is <*3> the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are <*4> three that testify:
8  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are  in agreement.
9 <*5> If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that <*6> He has testified concerning His Son.
10 The one who believes in the Son of God <*7> has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has <*8>made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
The [ ] reference links to I John 5:5-10 and their signficance
Lets look at some of the number references,  is linked to John 19:34
34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.
Since the blood and the water are witness this explicitly shows that the blood and water refer to the crucifixion!! If blip and other Muslims who use this scripture to prove that there is no trinity, they arenít actually refuting the it but in essence proving the crucifixion which the Quran claims never happen (without given an explanation to what really happened)!! Reference  is linked to Matt 3:16f; John 15:26; 16:13-15
16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and  <*1> he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and  lighting on Him,
1. Or He
2. Lit coming upon Him
When we look in the bible, we see that the Spirit of God came from heaven and was able to take the shape as a dove which is why I John 5:7, although disputed by some, show the 3 witnesses bearing record in heaven! Here is more:
26 ""When the  Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
1.Gr Paracletos, one called alongside to help; or Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor
This scripture is used on many Islamic sites in trying to refer to Muhammad, but how can Muhammad testify as the Spirit when Muhammad isnít from heaven? Even looking at these scriptures linked to I John 5:7 we see clearly that the trinity is still shown in the Bible even without the disputed part of I John 5:7. Lets not forget, the whole verse of 5:7 isnít disputed only some, but yet with this undisputed part, we still see the essence of the Godhead by just reading the bible. Another verse that is linked with I John 5:7 is John 16, when dealing with the Spirit of Truth:
13 ""But when He, <*1> the Spirit of truth, comes, He will <*2> guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 ""He will <*3> glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.
15 ""<*4> All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.
This verse also has appeared on Islamic sites when trying to fit Muhammad in the Bible but when we look at this and the Quran we see that Muhammad rejects Christ as being God, notice Christ said ALL THINGS THE FATHER HAS IS HIS which would obviously equate him to God since he claims that the universe and everything in it, which belongs to God also belongs to him. This again refutes Islam because this spirit of truth is present in the undisputed part of I John 5:7 but yet by reading the bible we see that this spirit of truth comes from heaven, testifies of Christ in I John 5:7 is indirectly still affirms the trinity since the later undisputed verses of I John 5 show that it was God who testifies of his son!
Going back to the original I John 5:5-10, we have come to verse 8 of the passage. Here there is the reference link , it refers to John 5:34, 37; 8:18, letís see itís meaning on this passage:
34 ""But <*1> the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved.
37 ""And the Father who sent Me, <*2> He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
1.John 5:32; 1 John 5:9
2.Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; 24:27; John 8:18; 1 John 5:9
This coincides perfectly with I John 5:9 which says that
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
This once again affirms the Trinitarian presence of God in I John 5. We see more evidence when we look at John 8:18
18 ""I am He who testifies about Myself, and <*1> the Father who sent Me testifies about Me.''
1.John 5:37; 1 John 5:9
This fits perfectly with I John 5:7-8 which says that the blood and water testify!! And then verse 9 says that this was God which testified and then it says that God borne witness to his son distinguishing him from the Son who was called the water and the blood! When you look at this, you see 1. the Holy Spirit testifying, 2. the Blood and water testifying, which was Christ and 3. God testifying of his son. Even without the disputed part careful reading of the bible affirms the Trinitarian stance. The bible affirms this by showing the Holy Spirit as being God:
The Holy Spirit Speaks:
"Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon me, and he told me to say: `This is what the LORD says... '" Ezekiel 11:5
The Spirit is referred to in the masculine pronoun, he, and also speaks.
"While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, `Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'" Acts 13:2
"... Coming over to us, he took Paul's belt, tired his own hands and feet with it and said, `The Holy Spirit says, "In this way the blips of JerBliplem will bind the owner of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles." `" Acts 21:11
The Holy Spirit Has Emotions:
"I urge you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to join me in my struggling by praying o God for me." Romans 15:30
"And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30
The Holy Spirit Has Will:
"All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines." 1 Corinthians 12:11
A force does not have emotions, intellect, will and cannot speak like the Holy Spirit does. Hence, the Spirit is far from being a force, but is a divine personality within the being of God. The other personality that the OT identifies as God is the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given the following divine functions and qualities:
1.The Spirit is Called God
"The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue. The God of blip spoke, the Rock of blip said to me: 'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God." 2 Samuel 23:2-3
2.The Spirit is the Creator
"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Genesis 1:2
"The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life." Job 33:4
We even see from the O.T. that the Spirit which testified in I John 5 was part of the Godhead. We will now continue with some of the claims from blipís site which can also be found at other sites to see if they are solid evidence. His comments are in regular font and the people he quotes are in italics.
The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:
"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."
Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).
For one thing this reference of blip is wrong which we will see, and it also contradicts his later reference which says it was inserted into the bible in 400 CE!!! Read:
Edpiano coversd Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).
Now we must ask this question, if this wasnít in the Bible before 1500 and then none of the early Latin fathers mentioned or said anything about it then how could it be inserted in 400 C.E? Also blipís sources are wrong also for saying that no Church fathers or ecclesiastical writers mentioned this, read:
Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma or I John 5:7 is found in the following sources
(some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):
1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 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)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.
Now you know why these apologists against I John 5:7 donít go into detail about these guys because it really disproves their idea of this verse being corrupted!
From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from piano help. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. (The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7 article, pg. 3)
Dean Burgon was a world expert on these issues dealing with Bible manuscripts, just look at this short biography of him:
At the same time that Wescott and Hort were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to Wescott and Hort. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.
He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. (IBID pg. 1)
From what we have seen so far, there was ample evidence long before Erasmus and 1500 CE that shows that I John 5:7 was known to the early Christians! Even though we might not have those documents today currently we do have their testimonies which were documented and written down at that time. It would be impossible for all these guys to quote something that wasnít supposed to exist until 1500 CE. blip continues:
Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said
"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."
As we have seen above, this argument is more bark than bite since Mr. Gibbon must prove how this verse can be fake when the early church fathers themselves mentioned and cited it. Also if you read a lot of these modern bibles you will still see this scripture in it with a footnote. This shows that this verse hasnít already been stamped out despite these scholars so-called great evidence. Infact you donít even need the verse of I John 5:7 to be proof of the heavenly witnesses since reading the entire bible proves this case. These guys are disputing this scripture but I believe the majority of them are Trinitarians.
To which Mr. Bentley responds:
"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."
Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.
For one thing blip thinks that the KJV is a modern bible which is false, it was written in the 1600ís, and all scholars of Christianity donít unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication. If they did then please tell me why the ongoing debate about this verse still continues till today. We will see later on that this so-called scholars arenít as learned as blip wants to tell us, for one they totally overlooked the testimony of the Church fathers and we will see how the Greek text will refute them later on.
It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir Isaac Newton from openly revealing these facts to all:
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their booksÖ Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"
Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156
Look at the highlighted part of blipís quote, Now look at the truth from history. The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea, Muhammad and 1500 A.D.
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle. "O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr. "For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. "In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterpiano coversds became also man, of Mary the virgin. For Ďthe Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons. "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father Ďto gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, Ďevery knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment topiano coversds all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. "We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. A disciple of Origen. Defended Christianity. He wrote much about Christianity. "If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him bepiano coverse lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority...There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132). "For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis,1.111.4)
"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).
If, as the anti-trinitarians maintain, the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine and was never taught until the council of Nicea in 325, or was never discussed as Mr. Newton claimed then why do these quotes exist? The answer is simple: the Trinity is a biblical doctrine and it was taught before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and before 1500 CE.
According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.
For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian
denominations got together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.
That is fine and great but what blip doesnít tell you is that the RSV still isnít the most popular bible even with all these denominations helping nor that it was composed in 1952, but look at this:
New King James Version (NKJV), released in 1982, involved 119 contributors. It updates the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and beauty. Although it uses the same blip and Greek tests as the original, it indicates where other manuscripts differ. Published by Thomas Nelson. http://www.firstpresb.org/translations.htm
The NKJV had 119 scholars and they included the verse and even used footnotes showing why they did it. Infact I will discuss this later also.
Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into JerBliplem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:
"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."
Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.
When we look at this passage of Mark 11:2-10 closely, we see Jesus say- Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. The word for Lord here is Kurios, read it when referring to Jesus, Read this from that same link: b.is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master c.this title is given to: God, the Messiah. These Muslim web administrators are good at ignoring things, blip shouldnít have a problem with this since his friend Mohd used this source, and blip to this day has Mohdís article located on his site at http://www.answering-christianity.com/rebuttal2.htm . Read more from the link provided: http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2962&version=kjv
Kurios-Lord 667, lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, miscellaneous 4. Kurios in the Greek New Testament means Lord 667 times!!! The bible isnít completely free of the Trinity as we have shown earlier in extensive detail also about the colt, here is the relevant material:
Old Testament Prediction: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of JerBliplem! Behold your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey" (Zechariah
New Testament Fulfillment: "Then they brought him to Jesus. And they threw their own garments on the colt, and they set Jesus on him. And as he went, they spread their clothes on the road" (Luke 19:35-36).
We see that Mr. blipís or his friend from which his information comes from doesnít know anything whatsoever about the Bible. Read this:
Old Testament Prediction: "I gave My back to those who struck Me, and My cheeks to those who plucked out the beard; I did not hide My face from shame and spitting" (Isaiah 50:6).
New Testament Fulfillment: "Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palm of their hands" (Matthew 26:67).
When we look at this particular prophecy closely, we see that Yahweh is talking in Isaiah 50:6 and he says that he gave his back to be struck and that he would be spit own, and then Matthew 26:67 show the exact thing happening to Jesus which clearly shows us that this prophecy was filled with Christ and that it was Christ who was talking as Yahweh in Isaiah 50:6!
Now lets investigate more on I John 5:7 and how it is authenticated. James White who wrote the King James Only controversy is one who rejects the statement of I John 5:7, he along with other scholars are going to be investigated on their claims:
White ignores the scholarly defense of the Trinitarian passage published by Frederick Nolan in 1815--An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated, and the various readings traced to their origin. This 576-page volume has been reprinted by Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108. The Southern Presbyterian Review for April 1871, described Nolanís book as "a work which defends the received text with matchless ingenuity and profound learning." (DEFENDING 1 JOHN 5:7 Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 16th year of publication. Quoted from article pg 2)
These scholars arenít always honest in their approach. Many of todayís scholars like White have ignored 19th-century Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney, who wrote in defense of the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 (Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Vol. 1, p. 350-390; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1891, reprinted 1967).
Dabney was offered the editorship of a newspaper at age 22 and it was said of him that no man his age in the U.S. was superior as a writer. He taught at Union Theological Seminary from 1853 to 1883 and pastored the College Church during most of those years. He contributed to a number of publications, including the Central Presbyterian, the Presbyterian Critic, and the Southern Presbyterian. His last years were spent with the Austin School of Theology in Texas, a university he co-founded. A.A. Hodge called Dabney "the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world," and General Stonewall Jackson referred to him as the most efficient officer he knew (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney, cover jacket, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977 edition of the 1903 original).
This guy was an expert on these issues and itís ironic that scholars of today donít even bring him up. Infact the first influential modern bible to eliminate I John 5:7 from the text was the American Standard Version. White along with other scholars today ignores the fact that it was particularly the Unitarians and German modernists who first fought viciously against the Trinitarian
passage in the King James Bible.
In a book talking about this subject we see testimonies and evidence of this ploy. It was written by Ezra Abbot. Ezra Abbotís Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v.7 (New York: James Miller, 1866). Abbot, Harvard University Divinity School professor, was one of at least three Christ-denying Unitarians who worked on the English Revised Version (ERV) of 1881 and the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Abbot was a close friend of Philip Schaff, head of the ASV project, and was spoken of piano coversmly in the introduction to Schaffís history. According to the testimony of the revisers themselves, the Unitarian Abbot wielded great influence on the translation. Consider the following statement by Matthew Riddle, a member of the ASV translation committee:
"Dr. Ezra Abbot was the foremost textual critic in America, and HIS OPINIONS USUALLY PREVAILED WHEN QUESTIONS OF TEXT WERE DEBATED. ... Dr. Ezra Abbot presented a very able paper on the last clause of Romans 9:5, arguing that it was a doxology to God, and not to be referred to Christ. His view of the punctuation, which is held by many modern scholars, appears in the margin of the American Appendix, and is more defensible than the margin of the English Company. ... Acts 20:28. ĎThe Lordí is placed in the text, with this margin: ĎSome ancient authorities, including the two oldest manuscripts, read God.í ... Dr. Abbot wrote a long article in favor of the reading [which removes ĎGodí from the text]" (Matthew Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times Co., 1908, pp. 30,39,83).
Matthew Riddleís testimony in this regard is very important as he was one of the most influential members of the American Standard Version committee and one of the few members who survived to see the translation printed. The ASV was the first influential Bible published in America to drop 1 John 5:7 from the text, AND IT DID SO UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A
UNITARIAN. This is where this controversy becomes more and more like opinions of men in dealing with the word of God. This is the equivalent to a Christian translating the Quran and then inserting that Jesus died according to Islam!!!
White also ignores the scholarly articles defending 1 John 5:7 which have been published since the late 1800s by the Trinitarian Bible Society. He also ignores the excellent defense of 1 John 5:7-8 by Jack Moorman in his 1988 book When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing piano help on the Authorized Version (Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108). Moorman gives an overview of the internal and external evidence for this important verse. White also ignores the excellent reply given in 1980 by Dr. Thomas Strouse to D.A. Carsonís The King James Version Debate, in which Dr. Strouse provides an overview of the arguments supporting the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Received Text. Dr. Strouse (Ph.D. in theology from Bob Jones University) is Chairman of the Department of Theology, Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary (717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464. 888-482-2287, firstname.lastname@example.org). White also ignores the landmark work of Michael Maynard, author of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 (Comma Publications, 1855 "A" Ave. #4, Douglas, AZ 85607). It is possible, of course, that he had not seen Maynardís book prior to the publication of The King James Bible Controversy. Maynardís book basically summarizes the long-standing defense of 1 John 5:7-8 as it exists in the King James Bible, but White pretends that there is no reasonable defense of the Trinitarian passage. (DEFENDING 1 JOHN 5:7 Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 16th year of publication. Quoted from article pg 3)
This is very odd because if you ignore everything sure you can present a good argument. Lets look at some quotes from Michael Maynard book called A history of the Debate over I John 5:7-8. It was published July 1995. This 383-page hard-bound volume carefully traces the evidence pro and con regarding the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 through the centuries. The author demonstrates the theological apostasy of many of those who have despised this passage.
Maynard earned an A.A.S. in Engineering Technology at Phoenix College and a B.A. in German at Arizona State University. As a graduate student, he studied classical philology in Tucson at the University of Arizona, where the Classics Department apiano coversded him an appointment as Graduate Assistant in Teaching Classics. He did research at the University in Leipzig, Germany, and engaged in graduate studies at the University in Tbingen, where he completed a class in Textual Criticism, "taught by the foremost scholar of Latin manuscripts of the Bible, Walter Thiele." In 1992 he earned the Master of Library Science degree from the Graduate Library School in Tucson, Arizona. Only 75 out of 1,800 applicants were selected for admission to this program in 1991. He has studied German, Latin, Biblical blip, Syriac, Koine and classical Greek. He continues his studies of foreign languages, having recently completed four semesters of French.
He has the skills, background and the knowledge of this issues and he is more qualified that any of these so-called scholars who try and debunk I John 5:7-8. Maynard compiled 137 bibliographic items (37 journal articles, 50 essays from books, and 50 entire books) in pursuit of his subject. Those who think there is no textual defense of 1 John 5:7 should read this book. Here are some quotes:
Maynard gives an interesting reply to the question of why 1 John 5:7 does not appear in many of the Greek manuscripts.
"The second reason that the absence of 1 John v.7f in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof, is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse. ... John Owen suggested that God, while preserving the whole scripture entire, allowed a certain variety 'to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word' ('The Divine Original of the Scripture,' Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth, 1980, 16: 301).
"The context of Owen's idea, deals with blip texts with 'things of less, indeed of no importance.' But his ideas can surely be applied to the Greek text, with matters of great significance, such as the Trinity. Why then would God decree to allow 1 John v.7f to fall out of 14 relatively early Greek MSS and in many ancient versions? His purpose may have been to draw attention (or to highlight) the importance of the doctrines of the deity and of the Trinity. That almost all the objections to the inclusion of the verse (as Adam Clarke said in 1807) came from 'Unitarians of all classes' demonstrates that it indeed did draw attention to these doctrines. (It would explain the dispute over theos vs. os in 1 Timothy 3:16). It is difficult to suppose that it was merely incidental that the objections to such a verse came from so many Unitarians" (Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, pp. 286,87).]
This should come as no surprise since we saw earlier that the ASV bible was headed by a Unitarian who even wanted to change scriptures in Romans when the evidence was against him!!!
Maynard also looks at and investigates a number of myths which are commonly promoted by modern version proponents. Consider an example:
"Kenyon said of Codex Vaticanus, 'A few readings from it were supplied to Erasmus by his correspondent Sepulveda, but too late for use in his editions of the New Testament.' In this claim, Kenyon made two serious errors. It was not 'too late' because Erasmus' 5th edition appeared in 1535 [two years later]. Nor was it merely a 'few readings,' for in this letter, Sepulveda furnished Erasmus 'with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements' that Codex Vaticanus is 'a weighty proof of excellence with the Latin version'... (Maynard, p. 88).
"A recent myth (originated by Rummel in 1986, and now parroted by James R. White in 1995) is that Erasmus challenged Edpiano coversd Lee to find a Greek manuscript which included 1 John 5:7. A much older myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if such a Greek manuscript were produced. Maynard indicated that the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, at Rijksuniversiteit, (Leiden, The Netherlands) has refuted both myths. The Dean, H.J. de Jonge, is a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies. H.J. de Jonge refuted the old myth of a promise in 1980, and he refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth) in a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard.
"I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus' Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and impiety.
"'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.'
"From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.
"In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject" (Maynard, p. 383).
Do you see this my dear reader, these scholars are taking things out of context and shortening up to try and eliminate I John 5:7!!! Yet they will do anything they can to try and discredit the Holy Trinity. Even without the disputed verses as we saw earlier the Trinity is still easily recognized in this passage. Lets continue to show you just how deceitful these advocates are in trying to debunk I John 5:7.
The following is excerpted in an article from A CRITIQUE OF D.A. CARSON'S THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by Thomas Strouse, 1980, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary, 717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23464 Ė
The specific passage that Carson attempts to repudiate is the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7,8). He lists some "hand-me-down" arguments against the inclusion of the passage in question. For instance, he states that "it is found in precisely four Greek manuscripts" (p. 60). (IBID pg. 1)
Carson states that there are only four MSS that contain this reading. He is wrong about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). ["I John 5.7," The Dean Burgon News 5 (1979); 1.] This evidence is ample to argue for the retention of the Johannine Comma. Incidentally, some verses in the UBSNT have been retained on far less evidence than this. The whole issue at hand concerning the "Comma" is this: did the orthodox interpolate the verse in the text, or did the heretics expunge the verse from the text? Acknowledging the evidence, the most Christ-honoring approach is the latter (Thomas Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson's 'The King James Version Debate,' 1980).
I tell you they will do everything they can, ignore facts, lie what more can we expect from enemies of God!!!
Are these scholars theories provable by the Greek text?
September 16, 1998 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - The following is summarised from Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967) by the Trinitarian Bible Society,
217 Kingston Road, London, SW19, 3NN England Ė
All the critics vote against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 but let us see whether the case is quite as clear as they would have it. The arguments in favour of its claim to genuineness carry a good degree of probability and this text is a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which recent critics profess to discard. The full text follows with the disputed word in brackets:
HOTI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUNTES (EN TO OURANO, HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA; KAI HOUTOI HOI TREIS HEN EISI. KAI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUTES EN TE GE) TO PNEUMA, KAI TO HUDOR, KAI TO HAIMA; KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN.
The internal evidence against the omission is as follows:
1. The masculine article, numeral and participle HOI TREIS MARTUROUNTES, are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. If the disputed words are allowed to remain, they agree with two masculines and one neuter noun HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA and, according to the rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines TREIS MARTUROUNTES in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters PNEUMA, HUDOR and HAIMA may be accounted for by the power of attraction, well known in Greek syntax.
Here is more,
The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words "Spirit," "water" and "blood" are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns "Father" and "word" in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the "Spirit" is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I.H. Marshall is a current voice for this weak argument: "It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in I John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood." The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words "that one" (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction "unparalleled," p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is "these three are one" (to hen). (The following is excerpted in an article from A CRITIQUE OF D.A. CARSON'S THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by Thomas Strouse, 1980, Tabernacle Baptist Seminary, 717 N. Whitehurst Landing Rd., Virginia Beach, VA 23464, pg. 1)
In dealing with Wescott and Hort about these same very issues, this article says this:
This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar. (The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7 article, pg. 3)
These scholars who are trying to eliminate this verse from the Bible are doing so based on something that is impossible to do based on the Greek grammar itself!!! Here is more cited evidence:
2. If the disputed words are omitted, the 8th verse coming next to the 6th gives a very bald and awkpiano coversd, and apparently meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession.
3. If the words are omitted, the concluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN mean precisely--"and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One." This rendering preserves the force of the definite article in this verse. Then what is "that One" to which "these three" are said to agree? If the 7th verse is omitted "that One" does not appear, and "that One" in verse 8, which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced, has not antecedent presence in the passage. Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word and Spirit constitute.
4. John has asserted in the previous 6 verses that faith is the bond of our spiritual life and victory over the world. This faith must have a solid piano coversrant, and the truth of which faith must be assured is the Sonship and Divinity of Christ. See verses 5,11, 12, 20. The only faith that quickens the soul and overcomes the world is (verse 5) the belief that Jesus is God's Son, that God has appointed Him our Life, and that this Life is true God. God's piano coversrant for this faith comes: Ftuning leverT in verse 6, in the words of the Holy Ghost speaking by inspired men; SECOND in verse 7, in the words of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the Sonship and unity of Christ with the Father.; THIRD in verse 8, in the work of the Holy Ghost applying the blood and water from Christ's pierced side for our cleansing. FOURTH in verse 10, in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him that he feels within a divine change. (September 16, 1998 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, 1701 Harns Rd., Oak Harbor, WA 98277) - The following is summarised from Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967) by the Trinitarian Bible Society, 217 Kingston Road, London, SW19, 3NN England Ė)
In this paper we have seen that even without the disputed words of I John 5:7, the trinity is still seen in full force and we have seen that in order for scholars to be correct in their assertions, they would have to violate the basic concept of Greek grammar which would make the text an error. In all of these discussions about I John 5:7, you probably will never see them bring up the Greek grammar idea since they donít wonít the unsuspecting reader to know about it. In order to make I John 5:7 fit in their agenda they would have to make the two masculine nouns and one neuter Greek noun agree which the basic student of Greek will see is impossible. Therefore if anybody tries to tell you against I John 5:7 tell them to please come up with a time machine, go back in time and change how the Greek grammar is supposed to be written and then prove that their statements is true based on the Greek language. They canít and that is why the a good deal of the modern versions keep I John 5:7 in brackets.
Here is one last quote dealing with this verse from my Greek Interlinear N.T. Bible:
About I John 5:7,
c. OR a few other authorities read (with variations) There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth. (Word Study Greek English N.T., McReynolds, 1998, pg. 870).
Here is what they say dealing with OR:
The N.T. Committee has based its work on the most recent edition of the Greek N.T., prepared by an interconference and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966: 3rd ed. Corrected, 1983)Ö Other ancient authorities read ďidentifies alternative readings preserved by Greek Manuscripts and early versions. Alternative rendering of the text are indicated by the word ďORĒ. (IBID, introduction)
The purpose of this paper was to first show you how some Muslims are using these arguments and then show you that even without the disputed part of the verse the Trinity is still present and then show you how some scholars are trying to eliminate this verse when by the laws of Greek, it is impossible, because they are violating the Greek Syntax rule called "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group. Why do they do this it is beyond me, but let me say this, it is overstated that many Christians donít agree with this verse. Even if they did this still doesnít explain the impossibility of it being correct due the Greek grammar. Ladies and gentlemen these scholars are good and many of them are trinity believers but if what they claim is impossible in the Greek text the basically they are promoting error. In the future I may expound even more, God Bless All.
TO THE ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL
BACK TO THE ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL