I have a King James Bible and I've heard this verse does not belong, is this true?

[Matt Faith]

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)?


So should I get a different translation of the bible?

 

[food4thought]

Ultimately, I don't think we can know for sure on that one. This is a bit of a complicated subject, but to put it simply:

In the last couple centuries, we have found some ancient manuscripts of the Bible in certain areas that are somewhat older than the manuscripts used to make the King James. In most of these more older texts the passage in question was not there. The question becomes are the older manuscripts necessarily better? Some would say yes because they are less likely to be flawed because they are closer in time to the original writings (thus it was copied fewer times, and less opportunities for copying errors to creep into the text). Others argue that the area that most of these texts come from (North Africa and the surrounding area) was known in ancient times for it's many departures from accepted doctrine, and thus the reason that this particular passage is not in is because it was removed by those that denied the Deity of Christ.

Truth is, we don't know which of these two opinions is correct. Fortunately, we do not need this particular verse to prove the Deity of Christ, and the debate is more about trying to give us the most accurate translation of the Bible possible, not about any particular doctrine. The cool thing about the Bible is that even with all the different textual variations we find, none of the major doctrines of Christianity are in question from them.

 

[food4thought]

BTW: I use the NKJV (which is based upon the same manuscripts as the KJV), and I also use the NASB and NIV (both of which are based upon the updated text). If you understand and enjoy the KJV, by all means keep using it for devotional reading. But if you wish to do serious study of the Bible, I highly recommend that you also use one of the more modern translations.

 

[SeventhValley]

KJV is the best!

Textus Receptus is based on the vast
majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek
manuscripts in existence. That is why it is
also called the Majority Text .
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with
deletions, additions and amendments, as is
the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest
versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old
Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible
(AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced
some 200 years before the Minority Texts
(like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the
Roman Catholic Church.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast
majority of the 86,000+ citations from
scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian
philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the
fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith: the creation account in Genesis, the
divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth,
the Saviour's miracles, his bodily
resurrection, his literal return and the
cleansing power of his blood!

From: Textus Receptus

 

[SeventhValley]

If you want a modern reading the NKJV is good.

 

[1watchman]

The KJV is generally sound, and if one has a good quality rendering (like the Old Scofield Edition) they will see good footnotes and commentaries to help one in study. The NKJV is also fairly good, but usually does not have good corrections in the margins. All versions of the Bible have errors because men fail in their works.

The verse: 1 Jn. 5:7 was added by the Translators and was not in the original manuscripts, according to most Bible scholars.

 

[98cwitr]

Also

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13 KJV...blatant contradiction there

 

[concretecamper]

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)?


So should I get a different translation of the bible?

From theHaydock biblical commentary:

And there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.[3] This is a repetition of what was before said, v. 6, to be expounded in the same manner. But when it is added, these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. Wi. — As the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, all bear witness to Christ's divinity; so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony.

 

[godenver1]

Also

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13 KJV...blatant contradiction there

Never noticed that...

Is this a case of the same word with dual meanings?

 

[food4thought]

Also

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13 KJV...blatant contradiction there

This is a good point to refute King James Onlyism, but has nothing to do with the Hebrew text used. It was just a poor translation by the King James scholars of Genesis 22:1... same Hebrew word in both the KJV with Strong's numbers and the NASB with Strong's numbers, but the KJV translates it as "tempt" while the NASB, NKJV, and NIV all translate it as "test". Just one more good reason to have multiple translations to look at.

 

[OzSpen]

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)?

So should I get a different translation of the bible?

The earliest manuscripts (MSS) used for the KJV were about the 10th century and were compiled in Erasmus's Greek text, known as the Textus Receptus. He could only find about a half dozen MSS.

Earlier MSS has now been found that exclude 1 John 5:7-8 and a few other verses.

I'd recommend using the English Standard Version (formal equivalence translation philosophy) or the New International Version (dynamic equivalence translation philosophy). For new Christians, I find the New Living Translation to be a wonderfully simple dynamic equivalence translation. The New American Standard Bible is an excellent formal equivalence translation. All of these translations use the earlier NT MSS.

For my own reading, I use the ESV, NIV and NLT.

In Christ,
Oz

 

[SeventhValley]

The western church through all history is based off the majority text. If we allow other texts to be used for things other than footnotes then we say God did not protect his word.

Plus the couple of verses in question are found in many early manuscripts including Latin and Syriac ones that predate many Greek texts

 

[SeventhValley]

Also

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13 KJV...blatant contradiction there

It is a good translation but languages do change hence the NKJV. Comparing those verses like you are is liberal tactic to cause people to question inerrancy.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I wouldn't use that verse myself to support the trinity because it is suspect and there is enough other verses to support the trinity without mentioning it so those who reject the trinity can't discount your argument on that basis alone.

 

[1watchman]

Also

Genesis 22:1 vs James 1:13 KJV...blatant contradiction there

Blatant is a strong word to use. The verse in Genesis 22:1 should have been translated as "tried" --tested; and James 1:13 is "tempted" --to draw away. It was an error by the Translators in Genesis, and is corrected in the margins of good renderings of the KJV.

Most of the new versions of the Bible have no corrections of their errors, for they have not stood "the purifying test of time". One should see Bible scholars on this subject and not be quick to attack the Word.