Conflicted About 1 John 5:7

[ChristIsSovereign]

It is such a clear defense of the Trinity in the King James Version but in nearly all the newer versions, the part mentioning about how the 3 were 1 was removed. They said it was because they were trying to match he 'original' manuscripts.

Confused about the issue. The verse in the KJV feels awfully inspired to me. Makes the Trinity irrefutable.

Any opinions?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is such a clear defense of the Trinity in the King James Version but in nearly all the newer versions, the part mentioning about how the 3 were 1 was removed. They said it was because they were trying to match he 'original' manuscripts.

Confused about the issue. The verse in the KJV feels awfully inspired to me. Makes the Trinity irrefutable.

Any opinions?

My opinion is that even if that verse isn't original to the autographs, we still have plenty else in the New Testament by which to infer that in some mode or fashion, God is a Trinity in His nature.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

My opinion is that even if that verse isn't original to the autographs, we still have plenty else in the New Testament by which to infer that in some mode or fashion, God is a Trinity in His nature.

True. I heard there's evidence that early church fathers like Cyprian and Jerome used that same clause in their early Christian works, which refutes the claim that the first texts were in the 9th century.

 

[Willie T]

It is such a clear defense of the Trinity in the King James Version but in nearly all the newer versions, the part mentioning about how the 3 were 1 was removed. They said it was because they were trying to match he 'original' manuscripts.

Confused about the issue. The verse in the KJV feels awfully inspired to me. Makes the Trinity irrefutable.

Any opinions?

Do you know if it is the case that those words were "removed" from newer versions........ or possibly "added to" the KJV?

In your opinion, if those words were not in the "original" manuscripts, should they be included in "any" version?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True. I heard there's evidence that early church fathers like Cyprian and Jerome used that same clause in their early Christian works, which refutes the claim that the first texts were in the 9th century.

Yes, I think your right.

 

[Hank77]

True. I heard there's evidence that early church fathers like Cyprian and Jerome used that same clause in their early Christian works, which refutes the claim that the first texts were in the 9th century.

If this verse were in the original manuscripts [MSS] or even the early copies surely the church fathers that wrote against the heresy of Arians would have quoted this verse and used it often. But we not see it in their writings.

It's because it is not in so many of the oldest MSS, Syriac (most ancient), Arabic, Ethiopian, Greek, etc. that scholars don't believe that it is original.

 

[Doug Melven]

At the bottom of this page there is an article about this.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

Even if you take out the words after "There are three that testify" you still have the 3 that testify and the previous verse talks about the Spirit. To me that is just one of the many proofs of the Trinity.

 

[SpiritSong]

NKJV says:

1 John 5:7 New King James Version (NKJV)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

NKJV says:

1 John 5:7 New King James Version (NKJV)
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

KJV says the same thing. It's a Biblical doctrine and the critical scholars says there's no evidence for that verse. That's where Jehovah's Witnesses and Muslims get their fire to denounce the Trinity, is through the lack of a proper 1 John 5:7

 

[SpiritSong]

Man!

 

[Andy centek]

It is such a clear defense of the Trinity in the King James Version but in nearly all the newer versions, the part mentioning about how the 3 were 1 was removed. They said it was because they were trying to match he 'original' manuscripts.

Confused about the issue. The verse in the KJV feels awfully inspired to me. Makes the Trinity irrefutable.

Any opinions?

Hi Dough M

People love to make things read as they like them to read or mean. This is one of the BIG problems with Denominations. Why should there be disagreement between Them when the apostle Paul said to be in UNITY of the Spirit?
Anyone who truly has been blessed with the guidance of the Holy Spirit know what is man's doings and what is God's.
Not only that, there are disputes among the scholars as to who wrote what book in the so-called, New Testament. Those who truly pray and ask for help from the Holy Spirit are those to whom spiritual understanding is given.
If one decides to follow after man's ideas, then which Denomination is correct? Or are any of them correct, seeing that They have their own agendas.

Andy Centek

 

[Anto9us]

It is known as THE JOHANNINE COMMA - the clear reference to Trinity.

Later translations after KJV do not have this, it seems they had many earlier manuscripts to go by, and decided not to include it - in RSV NIV ESV etc

I believe in the Trinity, but do indeed think that the words in KJV and nowhere else may have been a "gloss"

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

It is known as THE JOHANNINE COMMA - the clear reference to Trinity.

Later translations after KJV do not have this, it seems they had many earlier manuscripts to go by, and decided not to include it - in RSV NIV ESV etc

I believe in the Trinity, but do indeed the words in KJV and nowhere else may have been a "gloss"

I am aware of its title. Interesting.

 

[Anto9us]

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia

I have an article about defending it, as well. (Note, TLDR)

 

[drjean]

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus so as to not offend moslems! This occurred just a few short years ago and was noticed world wide. “Son of God” Translation Controversy
If you have one of those, there are more than just that one verse they removed/altered. (I'd burn it, myself.)

 

[Anto9us]

Since I BELIEVE the words anyway, it doesn't seem a huge deal, however, when arguing with a non-Trinitarian, it is best not to lead with the chin and use that disputed verse.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus so as to not offend moslems! This occurred just a few short years ago and was noticed world wide. “Son of God” Translation Controversy
If you have one of those, there are more than just that one verse they removed/altered. (I'd burn it, myself.)

I chiefly use the KJV which preserves the entire verse but was just wondering why more than what I already know.

 

[Dave G.]

1 John 5:7 Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
7 because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

1 John 5:7 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
7 So there are three witnesses a]">[a]in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are One;

1 John 5:7 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

1 John 5:7 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)
7 For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the a]">[a]Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are b]">[b]one.

1 John 5:7 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 For there are three that testify:

I'm getting the idea of three here LOL !

 

[St_Worm2]

It is such a clear defense of the Trinity in the King James Version but in nearly all the newer versions, the part mentioning about how the 3 were 1 was removed. They said it was because they were trying to match he 'original' manuscripts.

Confused about the issue. The verse in the KJV feels awfully inspired to me. Makes the Trinity irrefutable.

Any opinions?

JW's, who still use the KJV as their 2nd translation, love it when we cite that verse in defense of the Trinity to them (which they do not believe in), because they know it wasn't part the earliest manuscripts.

Nevertheless, the rest of the Bible hardly lets them "off the hook" where the truth of the Trinity is concerned (as has already been mentioned above), so much so that their principle translation, the New World Translation, adds/subtracts words to soften the Holy Writ's teaching about the Trinity in verses like John 1:1. ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 'a' God" ~John 1:1 NWT ).

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - as an additional point of interest, it was proven in court that the language "scholar", who supposedly translated the NWT from the original languages for the JW's Watchtower Society, was wholly unfamiliar with three very important languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic