-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
J
Jack Koons
Guest
People are claiming to know the history of this verse by giving a link to an article written by Dr. Daniel Wallace (a textual critic of course) who parrots a story about Roy (or Froy) supplying Erasmus' with a "made to order" Greek MS containing the comma. The point of the story is to ruin the credibility of Erasmus, therefore ruining the credibility of the KJV.
The focus of the textual critic is that the Greek MS evidence containing the comma is few and late. (While hiding the fact that 95% of the Greek MS evidence not containing the comma is also late by UBS standards.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The excerpt taken from article by Doug Kutilek for example had three points (all of which can be easily shown to be false) showing the evidence against the comma. So far we have only touched on the first, and no one has denied that 95% of Greek MSS containing 1 John 5 are also post 9th century AD. (Of course someone will now say. "That's not true".) Just check it out for yourself.
There is very much (and very strong) evidence to show the real history of the comma; the textual critic (and the textual critics student) just do not want you to see it.
Jack
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
No BelievingIsObeying, we do not have THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPH (the original epistle written by the hand of John). You must understand the position of the textual critic. Nothing except the actual "original autograph" would suffice as credible evidence for the defense of 1. John 5:7.
What is interesting is that the history of the text can be traced back to the 2nd century AD. (and the textual critics know it). The truth is there is no way for them to change their story at this stage of the game without getting a whole lot of 'egg' on their faces.
Jack
Upvote
0
Very good link. I'm sure the KJV-Only people will scream heretic at you but the history of the verse given makes sense.
Upvote
0
cubanito
Well-Known Member
- Nov 16, 2005
- 2,680
- 222
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Very informative thread. I always thought the evidence against the comma was conclusive but now it seems it's just shaky.
Now for those that think this is some sort of subversion of Biblical inerrancy: you are wrong! Never confuse the absurd, biased, and poor scholarship of the "higher" critics with the logical, necessary and generally solid scholarship of textual criticism. It is an undisputed fact to anyone but the KJV-only crowd that we do NOT have an exact word for word perfect copy of the originals. If you are unwilling to conced that the copies of the Biblical manuscripts we have contain some errors (somewhere between 5 tp 2% error) you are lying to yourself.
Jesus Christ predicted that the perfect transcription of the written word would come to an end when He said: Matthew 5:18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
To understand this double conditional sentence you practically have to diagram it. It comes down to what He means by "all is accomplished." This passage comes in the middle of the Beatitudes, His first public sermon. And as Isaiah predicted, Jesus INTENTIONALLY hid the truth behind parables, and in this case, a double conditional. It seems at first glance He is saying that the Earth and Heaven would pass away before a single mark would go errant in the written word, but that is not true. In fact what has to be accomplshed prior to either the erros creeping into the written word, or the passing away of Earth and Heaven, is that "all be accomplished."
And that is, until all the Sermon on the Mount, all those conditions for which it is IMPOSSIBLE for any sinner to accomplish is accomplished. That is, until the covenant requirements of God be met PERFECTLY by a human being. Which is what the "it is finished" is about at the Cross. There Jesus FULFILLED all the Law of God for all the elect.
AFTER the cross, then, errors of a missing letter, and additional sentence ect WOULD creep into the written word. Thus at the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD whatever perfect copies remained of the original manuscripts of Moses, Joshua ect where lost to us. So now we have an imperfect Bible, in that there are questionable words and passages.
That does NOT detract from the inerrancy of the Bible, for none of the questionable passages, including the Johanine comma, change even peripheral doctrine. It is easy to arrive at a Nicene formula from the current Bible. Chalcedon, well, I am not all sure I even understand Chalcedon and I think that's a strech. How exactly the "to natures" of Christ interact, assuming there even is 2 natures or that anyone even understands what the "nature" of something is, well, it's still beyond me.
Anyway, it does not help to cover the noonday sun with your thumb and say it's nightime.
JR
Now for those that think this is some sort of subversion of Biblical inerrancy: you are wrong! Never confuse the absurd, biased, and poor scholarship of the "higher" critics with the logical, necessary and generally solid scholarship of textual criticism. It is an undisputed fact to anyone but the KJV-only crowd that we do NOT have an exact word for word perfect copy of the originals. If you are unwilling to conced that the copies of the Biblical manuscripts we have contain some errors (somewhere between 5 tp 2% error) you are lying to yourself.
Jesus Christ predicted that the perfect transcription of the written word would come to an end when He said: Matthew 5:18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
To understand this double conditional sentence you practically have to diagram it. It comes down to what He means by "all is accomplished." This passage comes in the middle of the Beatitudes, His first public sermon. And as Isaiah predicted, Jesus INTENTIONALLY hid the truth behind parables, and in this case, a double conditional. It seems at first glance He is saying that the Earth and Heaven would pass away before a single mark would go errant in the written word, but that is not true. In fact what has to be accomplshed prior to either the erros creeping into the written word, or the passing away of Earth and Heaven, is that "all be accomplished."
And that is, until all the Sermon on the Mount, all those conditions for which it is IMPOSSIBLE for any sinner to accomplish is accomplished. That is, until the covenant requirements of God be met PERFECTLY by a human being. Which is what the "it is finished" is about at the Cross. There Jesus FULFILLED all the Law of God for all the elect.
AFTER the cross, then, errors of a missing letter, and additional sentence ect WOULD creep into the written word. Thus at the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD whatever perfect copies remained of the original manuscripts of Moses, Joshua ect where lost to us. So now we have an imperfect Bible, in that there are questionable words and passages.
That does NOT detract from the inerrancy of the Bible, for none of the questionable passages, including the Johanine comma, change even peripheral doctrine. It is easy to arrive at a Nicene formula from the current Bible. Chalcedon, well, I am not all sure I even understand Chalcedon and I think that's a strech. How exactly the "to natures" of Christ interact, assuming there even is 2 natures or that anyone even understands what the "nature" of something is, well, it's still beyond me.
Anyway, it does not help to cover the noonday sun with your thumb and say it's nightime.
JR
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
Does Truth Matter?
Kutilek may give a "simple" outline; the problem is, it is not a 'truthful' outline.
This is the link that takes you to Kutilek's outline.
A Simple Outline regarding I John 5:7
This is an excerpt of that outline:
"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)."
The problem is this:
1) The first point about the Greek MS that contain the comma is misleading because, the Greek MSS not containing the comma are also late MSS according to UBS standards (post 9th century AD.), but Kurilek fails to mention this.
2) The assertion that "Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words." Is simply not true.
And finally,
3) "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"
Not true.
So yes, if you want a simple outline of the history of 1 John 5:7 that leaves out most of the important facts; by all means, Doug Kutilek has your outline.
Jack
Upvote
0
C
CredoBiblicist
Guest
It's not in the Critical or Majority Text but is in the TR. Most likely it is an addition, Erasmus didn't include it in the TR at first.
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
I need to make a point at this juncture of this discussion. Doug Kutilek has clearly given a three point outline on the evidence of 1 John 5:7.
What I now want you to consider is simple: what happens when the points of this outline are proven to be false? The first thing that would have to be established is the standard for declaring each point to be false. Therefore let us examine each claim briefly; and then determine what would make it false.
1) "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."
I have already stated that while the above statement is true, it also insinuates that the Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5 that do not contain the comma are from a much earlier date; of course, this however is not true. Again, this at best is misleading; at worst it is deliberately deceitful.
2) "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."
Notice the first sentence: "Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. "
The first sentence is a reference of course to the Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Latern Council in 1215.
This sentence has two 'absolutes'. The first is "no Greek-speaking writer"; and the second is the year, "1215". Hence, in order to prove this statement false, one needs only to present 1 (not 2, not 10, not 100, just 1) document containing the words of the comma, written in Greek prior to 1215. That is all that is necessary to prove this false. If anyone was to present any established Greek document, dated 1214, or 1210, or even 1205; the above statement would be false.
Would any of my opponents like to 1) agree to the above terms; and 2) challenge me to produce such a document; with of course the condition that IF I can produce a document that Doug Kutilek says doesn't exist, you would have to admit that he has lost his credibility.
This is where the discussion gets interesting. An outline has been presented as evidence against the validity of 1 John 5:7. The question is, do you have enough faith in your source (Doug Kutilek) to stand on his outline?
Yes, or no?
Jack
What I now want you to consider is simple: what happens when the points of this outline are proven to be false? The first thing that would have to be established is the standard for declaring each point to be false. Therefore let us examine each claim briefly; and then determine what would make it false.
1) "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."
I have already stated that while the above statement is true, it also insinuates that the Greek manuscripts of 1 John 5 that do not contain the comma are from a much earlier date; of course, this however is not true. Again, this at best is misleading; at worst it is deliberately deceitful.
2) "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."
Notice the first sentence: "Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. "
The first sentence is a reference of course to the Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Latern Council in 1215.
This sentence has two 'absolutes'. The first is "no Greek-speaking writer"; and the second is the year, "1215". Hence, in order to prove this statement false, one needs only to present 1 (not 2, not 10, not 100, just 1) document containing the words of the comma, written in Greek prior to 1215. That is all that is necessary to prove this false. If anyone was to present any established Greek document, dated 1214, or 1210, or even 1205; the above statement would be false.
Would any of my opponents like to 1) agree to the above terms; and 2) challenge me to produce such a document; with of course the condition that IF I can produce a document that Doug Kutilek says doesn't exist, you would have to admit that he has lost his credibility.
This is where the discussion gets interesting. An outline has been presented as evidence against the validity of 1 John 5:7. The question is, do you have enough faith in your source (Doug Kutilek) to stand on his outline?
Yes, or no?
Jack
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
I may as well make this a bit more interesting.
Again, point two of Doug Kutilek's outline:
2) "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."
Notice this time the last sentence above: "The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D."
It is important to understand that even though the NT was originally written in Greek; Greek was neither the official or common language of the Roman Empire in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries AD., Latin was. Therefore it would be only reasonable that, even though there are not early Greek MSS; there are many early Latin MSS.
Therefore, if someone was to show evidence if ANY Latin writ, prior to 450AD. containing the comma, this statement would also be proven false.
What say you?
Jack
Again, point two of Doug Kutilek's outline:
2) "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."
Notice this time the last sentence above: "The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D."
It is important to understand that even though the NT was originally written in Greek; Greek was neither the official or common language of the Roman Empire in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries AD., Latin was. Therefore it would be only reasonable that, even though there are not early Greek MSS; there are many early Latin MSS.
Therefore, if someone was to show evidence if ANY Latin writ, prior to 450AD. containing the comma, this statement would also be proven false.
What say you?
Jack
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
If I put a link to someone I believe had an outline that would give a simple answer to the issue at hand, I would have enough faith in that person to stand behind their evidence. Apparently that is not the case here. This is exactly why I am not afraid to challenge those who criticize God's word.
Here is the way it works. Students go to Bible college and learn that the Bible is full of errors. They are 'parroted' teachings which become their answers in a discussion such as this. So when I asked, "Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?", I was given a 'parroted' (Polly want a cracker) answer. That answer is not the result of research and study by the student; it is a 'programmed' response taught by a teacher. The problem is, the teacher also received that very same answer from his or her teacher in like manner.
When someone like me comes along who knows this information is false, and challenges the "Polly want a cracker"; no one knows what to do, so they either sit back in silence, or call me a 'cultist', simply because they have no other response.
This is what I was taught: "Learn why you believe, what you believe". If I am going to take a particular stand, I'm going to learn and know why I take that stand.
I have evidence that shows that 1 John 5:7 has been around since at least the second century, and therefore belongs in God's word. Textual critics have as much ability to find this information as I do, they simply choose to suppress it.
Jack
Here is the way it works. Students go to Bible college and learn that the Bible is full of errors. They are 'parroted' teachings which become their answers in a discussion such as this. So when I asked, "Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?", I was given a 'parroted' (Polly want a cracker) answer. That answer is not the result of research and study by the student; it is a 'programmed' response taught by a teacher. The problem is, the teacher also received that very same answer from his or her teacher in like manner.
When someone like me comes along who knows this information is false, and challenges the "Polly want a cracker"; no one knows what to do, so they either sit back in silence, or call me a 'cultist', simply because they have no other response.
This is what I was taught: "Learn why you believe, what you believe". If I am going to take a particular stand, I'm going to learn and know why I take that stand.
I have evidence that shows that 1 John 5:7 has been around since at least the second century, and therefore belongs in God's word. Textual critics have as much ability to find this information as I do, they simply choose to suppress it.
Jack
Upvote
0
Don't let anyone's silence lead you to believe that no one has a well-studied response. They simply refuse to buy a ticket for the KJVO merry-go-round.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
Indeed, it is so logical; why didn't I think of that?
I have a well studied out answer; but instead I will use a link to an outline that is misleading, deceitful, and has false information to answer the question. Yes, that's makes perfect sense!
Jack
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
Excuse me but ...
Your answer simply stated that since the KJV has 1 John 5:7 along with other "known errors"; I should simply get a better Bible, and move on! That was the jest of your answer!
Your tactic was to avoid the question, and then tell me I'm part of a cult.
You just claimed to know so much; are you willing to put your credibility behind the outline in question against the comma?
Jack
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
This is your attempt to change the subject of the OP. The specific question that was asked in the OP was, "Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?"
What you are attempting to do by talking about translations, and translation methods, is change the subject from 1 John 5:7 to the KJV. I am asking a specific question that you are doing your best to avoid answering by changing the point if focus. Nice try, but that isn't the way it works.
You are trying to 'group' the 'error' of 1 John 5:7 in with all your other so called known "errors" so that you can then get me running on 100 rabbit trails.
I am asking about one text ... 1 John 5:7. I'm not asking how it was translated, or anything in that arena. My question remains the same ... Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible?
The point of a forum of this nature is to give your answer, and then give supportive evidence (that you hope someone won't prove to be false).
I never asked in this thread how the KJV (or any other Bible for that matter) was translated, or what were the languages that it was translated from? What I am asking to be provided is CREDIBLE evidence that the comma should NOT be in the Bible. I have yet to see that evidence.
Jack
Upvote
0
Pteriax
Someone to hate
False. It is an important aspect of the very subject of the OP.
False. The fact is, you want me to be attempting that so you can ignore my posts. That does not change the reality that this issue directly relates to whether the passage in question should be in the Bible or not.
False. I am addressing the issue in a way that puts your stance in a negative light and you don't much care for that. But I am on topic and I am correct.
How it is translated has everything to do with whether it belongs in the Bible or not. Next.
Again, the translation has everything to do with whether this passage belongs or not. I provided evidence and the real fact is that you just don't like it.
Upvote
0
J
Jack Koons
Guest
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.
I would like you to count the following words: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.
15 words, that is what this thread is about. Did John write the equivalent of these 15 words in his Epistle, yes or no?
Here they are in Greek
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Did John write this...
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
Or did John write this
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
If John did not write the longer version above; they should not be in any Bible. By the same token; if John did write these words, they should be in every Bible.
Before you can translate anything, you must determine the words to be translated. I will ask the same question a different way ... Does anyone have credible evidence that John did NOT write the words ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Yes, or no?
Jack
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
I would like you to count the following words: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and theses three are one.
15 words, that is what this thread is about. Did John write the equivalent of these 15 words in his Epistle, yes or no?
Here they are in Greek
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Did John write this...
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
Or did John write this
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
If John did not write the longer version above; they should not be in any Bible. By the same token; if John did write these words, they should be in every Bible.
Before you can translate anything, you must determine the words to be translated. I will ask the same question a different way ... Does anyone have credible evidence that John did NOT write the words ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Yes, or no?
Jack
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
My answer: yes, it belongs in Scripture, but only as Ketuvim.
Most mainstream Christians today have forgotten that the various books of Scripture was traditionally seen as holding three levels of authority - that of Torah/Law being preeminent, Neviim/Prophets being second, and Ketuvim/Writings a distant third. This division was forgotten over centuries, and all books came to be seen as equal.
Any edifying word spoken or written which is not in disagreement with Torah or Neviim can be considered Ketuvim. So either reading of 1Jn 5:7 is acceptable in this regard.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
