Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?

[Jack Koons]

Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?

The words in question:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

In many Bibles today, the above verse is presented in different ways: 1) It may be presented as above, without any notation or 'footnote'; 2) It may be presented as above, but with a notation or 'footnote' that tells the reader that the words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" are not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (MSS) ; and therefore should not be a part of the text; or 3) Verse 7 consists of only a few words such as, "There be three that testify", along with a 'footnote' that states something like, 'Some versions add the words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one", however, since these words are not found in the best Greek manuscripts (MSS), these do not belong in the text'.

In spite of the fact that these words have been in the Authorized Version (KJV) for over 400 years, the majority of modern scholarship (mainly textual critics) believe that since these words appear in only a few 'late' (16th century) Greek MSS, they were not part of the original autograph; and therefore do not belong in the text.

The question then is simple, "Should 1 John 5:7 have the words "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one", as it appears in the KJV, or should it read, "There are three that testify", as it does in many modern versions?

 

[Lovely Jar]

I agree with the verse. There is one God, as scripture relates numerous times in both the old and new testaments.

James 2:19

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

Isaiah 43:11

I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior.

 

[Pteriax]

The KJV has several known errors in it, get an ESV and move on.

 

[Jack Koons]

The question is: Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible; yes, or no?

Both cannot be right. Either it belongs there, or it doesn't; and to simply say that the KJV has "known errors", doesn't answer the question of this thread.

The FACT that the translators of the KJV included the words in question means they had to have reason to include these words, or quite simply, they wouldn't be there.

Where is the PROOF that these words were not written by John?

 

[theophilus40]

Here is the history of this verse:

A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7

The King James translators obviously thought the verse was authentic but they were human and therefore capable of making mistakes.

 

[standingtall]

The answer is simple:

If you're a KJV-Onlyist, and believe Christianity, Jesus, and God's existence depend on and revolve around the KJV, then yes....the added words in 1 John 5:7 should be there.

<sarcasm>
If you're a Satan worshiping, pornographic loving, new age "modern version" heretic, then no....the added words from the KJV in 1 John 5:7 should not be there because they were not contained in the OLDER manuscripts used in these versions. These OLDER manuscripts are of the devil and are deceiving countless multitudes who are on the fast train to hell because they don't use the KJV.
</sarcasm>

There's the answer. No further discussion should be necessary - which will quickly become obvious as this thread continues to go round and round in a circle, with no resolution.

 

[Jack Koons]

Here is the history of this verse:

A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7

The King James translators obviously thought the verse was authentic but they were human and therefore capable of making mistakes.

The following is an excerpt from the link you supplied:

"The evidence regarding I John 5:7
Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period.
The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.
Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest)."


Since you supplied me with the link that contained the above excerpt, I would like to know if you believe the information above is a truthful, and accurate presentation of the evidence shown.

The reason I ask this is because often times there are facts 'left out' in a presentation of such evidence, that if included, would cast an entirely different light on the exact same evidence that is provided.

So again I ask, is the information above a truthful, and accurate presentation of the evidence shown.

Jack

 

[Pteriax]

The question is: Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible; yes, or no?

Both cannot be right. Either it belongs there, or it doesn't; and to simply say that the KJV has "known errors", doesn't answer the question of this thread.

The FACT that the translators of the KJV included the words in question means they had to have reason to include these words, or quite simply, they wouldn't be there.

Where is the PROOF that these words were not written by John?

KJV has the contested portion in it, KJV has known errors not contained in better translations such as NASB and ESV, ergo it should not be in there; thus my statement. Get a better Bible and move on. KJV onlyism is a heretical movement started by a cultist.

 

[Jack Koons]

KJV has the contested portion in it, KJV has known errors not contained in better translations such as NASB and ESV, ergo it should not be in there; thus my statement. Get a better Bible and move on. KJV onlyism is a heretical movement started by a cultist.

Are you saying the NASB and the ESV are perfect? If not, I would equate your statement to, "the pot calling the kettle black"!

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

It is often stated that the Greek MSS evidence in support of the comma' (1 John 5:7) are to considered "late" witnesses. (Post 9th century A.D. is the United Bible Society standard) What is NOT mentioned however is that 95% of the Greek MSS which contain 1 John 5, but DO NOT CONTAIN the comma, ALSO DATE AS "LATE" (post 9th century A.D.).

So let's put this into perspective. The main (not the only) argument or reason (according to textual critics) that the comma should NOT be included in the text is because the Greek MSS containing the comma are of "late" origin. It would therefore only be fair to apply the same rules to ALL Greek MSS containing 1 John 5. Doing so then removes 95% of the Greek manuscript evidence of the textual critics.

All of a sudden, the evidence is NOT so overwhelming against the disputed text!

Jack

 

[Pteriax]

Are you saying the NASB and the ESV are perfect? If not, I would equate your statement to, "the pot calling the kettle black"!

Jack

No I am not, so your argument is a straw man. I never claimed anything was perfect. Some are much better than others is what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. They don't have to be perfect to be BETTER.

 

[Jack Koons]

No I am not, so your argument is a straw man. I never claimed anything was perfect. Some are much better than others is what I said. Do not put words in my mouth. They don't have to be perfect to be BETTER.

You stating that the versions you 'believe' to be better, in no way makes it factual. Your point that the KJV has the comma may INSINUATE an error, but the evidence against the comma is at best weak; and at worst, a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the so called 'facts,' as I have already shown an example of in my last post.

It is only reasonable, and logical to at least consider the fact that if this much deception has taken place by scholars to convince people that the comma in an 'error'; how much more deception has taken place by 'scholarship' to convince people of other 'errors' in the KJV?

Jack

 

[classicalhero]

I think one important question is that does it introduce or remove doctrine? 1 John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. 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 Ghost: 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.

I don't see any doctrine that is affected if verse 7 is included. Also I don't see any doctrine being removed if it doesn't belong, so in reality it is a moot point.

 

[Jack Koons]

Just so you know:

I received Christ as Saviour in 1983 while serving in the Marines. It was not very long before I found myself in the middle of the KJV conflict. I found quickly that each side of the issue had lots of "facts" to support their particular position. What I heard at that time was the same rhetoric that I hear to this present day. I was told the same story, again and again, of the lack of credible evidence to support belief in the outdated KJV. So I decided to do a little research to find out what the facts were for myself.

I found that behind all the rhetoric of "better" this, or "better" that; was nothing but deceit, misdirection, and the telling of partial truths (which are full lies). The deceit for example of one of the previous links given to me which had in part the excerpt I provided, which in part stated: "... Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers. ..."

The above excerpt insinuates that while the Greek MSS containing the comma are few and "very late", the Greek MSS not containing the comma are many and early. This however, as stated in my previous post, is not the case. The hope of the scholar which supplies information to those he or she knows will simply 'parrot' the information given, relies on the laziness of the audience (me) not to check out the information to see if it is credible. Since most people simply say, Wow! I never new that. The scholar successfully fools another victim. I however am not one of those people.

What I ask of the reading and opposing audience, is to simply show credible data that supports your claims, in stead of giving a parroted answer that you learned from a scholar. If I can find this information, so can anyone else. Check out the issue, there is much more to the story than the textual critics say.

Jack

 

[abysmul]

This is for anyone genuinely interested in the topic, and approaching with an open mind. It is simply another article on the text in question, that I find interesting and useful:

https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8

 

[standingtall]

The answer is simple:

If you're a KJV-Onlyist, and believe Christianity, Jesus, and God's existence depend on and revolve around the KJV, then yes....the added words in 1 John 5:7 should be there.

<sarcasm>
If you're a Satan worshiping, pornographic loving, new age "modern version" heretic, then no....the added words from the KJV in 1 John 5:7 should not be there because they were not contained in the OLDER manuscripts used in these versions. These OLDER manuscripts are of the devil and are deceiving countless multitudes who are on the fast train to hell because they don't use the KJV.
</sarcasm>

There's the answer. No further discussion should be necessary - which will quickly become obvious as this thread continues to go round and round in a circle, with no resolution.

...just throwing this out there again. Is anyone ready to get off the merry-go-round yet?

 

[Jack Koons]

I think one important question is that does it introduce or remove doctrine? 1 John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. 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 Ghost: 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.

I don't see any doctrine that is affected if verse 7 is included. Also I don't see any doctrine being removed if it doesn't belong, so in reality it is a moot point.

Does the exclusion of this verse affect any Bible doctrine? No, it does not. Does the inclusion of this verse affect any Bible doctrine? No, it does not. However, that far from makes the exclusion or inclusion of this verse a moot point.

Saying this is a moot point is exactly what textual critics want you to say. The real point is why we allow textual critics to edit our Bible, while fabricating false evidence to justify their "editions".

The real issue here is simply this: can modern scholarship actually support the claims they make concerning the exclusion of this verse? I have already shown that the assertion that the Greek MSS containing the comma, are "late" MSS, is at best misleading, and at worst deliberately deceitful. (Considering the fact that the same scholarship that is aware of the 'dating' of the Greek MSS containing the comma, is also aware of the Greek MSS not containing the comma.) The real point here is the general public is being deceived by scholarship as to the validity of changes made to our Bible.

It is time for an "audit" on the 'history of the Bible, according to textual critics'. As I have stated already; there is far more to the story of the 'comma' than textual critics are telling us. Let the full story (the truth) be told.

Jack

 

[Pteriax]

You stating that the versions you 'believe' to be better, in no way makes it factual. Your point that the KJV has the comma may INSINUATE an error, but the evidence against the comma is at best weak; and at worst, a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the so called 'facts,' as I have already shown an example of in my last post.

It is only reasonable, and logical to at least consider the fact that if this much deception has taken place by scholars to convince people that the comma in an 'error'; how much more deception has taken place by 'scholarship' to convince people of other 'errors' in the KJV?

Jack

I know them to be better because I have done a bit of research. KJV was translated from newer manuscripts (further out from the originals) and parts were even translated from the Latin Vulgate Bible, rendering it a translation of a translation. ESV and NASB are both translated from older (closer to the original) manuscripts, and none of them is a translation of a translation. Accuracy matters. RSV is an updated version of the KJV with a lot of the errors fixed so if you are absolutely sold on KJV, the RSV is a good alternative. You really gotta study this stuff man.

 

[BelievingIsObeying]

Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?

The words in question:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

In many Bibles today, the above verse is presented in different ways: 1) It may be presented as above, without any notation or 'footnote'; 2) It may be presented as above, but with a notation or 'footnote' that tells the reader that the words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one" are not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (MSS) ; and therefore should not be a part of the text; or 3) Verse 7 consists of only a few words such as, "There be three that testify", along with a 'footnote' that states something like, 'Some versions add the words, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one", however, since these words are not found in the best Greek manuscripts (MSS), these do not belong in the text'.

In spite of the fact that these words have been in the Authorized Version (KJV) for over 400 years, the majority of modern scholarship (mainly textual critics) believe that since these words appear in only a few 'late' (16th century) Greek MSS, they were not part of the original autograph; and therefore do not belong in the text.

The question then is simple, "Should 1 John 5:7 have the words "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one", as it appears in the KJV, or should it read, "There are three that testify", as it does in many modern versions?

Sorry, I read this but still don't understand what reason there would be to take it out. I don't see anything wrong with the verse. What am I missing?

 

[hedrick]

The reason I ask this is because often times there are facts 'left out' in a presentation of such evidence, that if included, would cast an entirely different light on the exact same evidence that is provided.

So again I ask, is the information above a truthful, and accurate presentation of the evidence shown.

Jack

I agree that there's lots of biased information out there. But this is a really well-known case. As far as I can tell, the summary above is fair.

Sorry, I read this but still don't understand what reason there would be to take it out. I don't see anything wrong with the verse. What am I missing?

Huh? You should leave it out because it wasn't part of what the author of 1 John actually wrote. It may be perfectly true. Removing it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. But when I look at a Bible I expect to find something as close as possible to what the original authors wrong. There are plenty of fine Christian things that still don't belong in 1 John because the author of 1 John didn't write them.

Leaving the verse in causes a serious practical problem. If you're trying to justify to someone that the Trinity is based on the Bible, and you quote this passage, if they (or someone who they're reading) knows the history of this passage, they're going to know you're wrong. They're likely to ignore the rest of what you say, and in fact they may decide that the Trinity is simply a mistake, based on errors in the Bible. It's important for Christians to be as careful as possible with the truth.