Seventh-Day Adventists only; the evidence for 1 John 5:7 KJB

[The7thColporteur]

Seventh-Day Adventists only; the evidence for 1 John 5:7 KJB

This thread's stated purpose, READ before posting:

My stated goals, is to rescue the perishing, care for the dying, to snatch them in pity from sin and the grave; and so I weep over the erring one, and now must attempt to lift up the fallen, and re-tell them of the true and everlasting Jesus, who is mighty to save. Jesus is merciful, Jesus will save.

There are those these days denying the [1] eternality of the person/being the Son, and [2] the person/being of the Holy Spirit, teaching that there are only 'two beings' and 'three personalities'.

Such is grevious error, and against the most plainly stated texts within the scripture [the preserved word of God in english, the King James Bible [KJB], aka the common bible or AV] and against the SOP/TOJ and even certain pioneers, such as sister White in her personal materials, James White in his later mature materials, Jospeh Bates, A. T. Jones, and others.

Truth:

"... The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the eternal Godhead ..." - Ms 45, May 14, 1904, par. 16; May 14, 1904​

[Please note, that it does not say "the eternal God", but rather "the eternal Godhead". The word Godhead is used differently than the word God.]​

"... There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. ..." - Ms 21, 1906 (November 1905) par. 11

[please note the difference between merely "three" and "trio" [three working together in one accord, at-one-ment, "chord", etc], proof upon request of the differing definition.]
​

"... Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life—to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden “with Christ in God”—wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say: You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me, and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. Ms95-1906 (October 20, 1906) par. 29

And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. ..." - Ms 95, 1906 (October 20, 1906) par. 29 [there are multiple carbons of the original, this is untampered]

[please note the "three ... beings", not 'two beings', and capital "W" in "three great Worthies", which all of whom are called upon unitedly in a prayer by sister White.]
​

I have many, many more, all citations upon request, in their orderly years, and in all their known instances and forms, capitals, lowercase, varied forms, etc.​

One of the assaults, by such in error, upon the word of God today, is the doubt ["Yea, hath God said ..."; Genesis 3:1 KJB] instilled in others about the validity of 1 John 5:7 KJB. Instead of reading the text and accepting what it means contextually, there is instead an assult to remove it out of the way at the beginning, inspite of the soild evidence for it. It is claimed all in the name of good.

What follows is a lengthy evidence, take your time. It is a resource tool.

The biblical, logical, manuscriptural, historical, linguistical, evidence for 1 John 5:7 KJB continues from this point, beginning with the contextual.

2 Timothy 2:24 KJB - And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,

2 Timothy 2:25 KJB - In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

2 Timothy 2:26 KJB - And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

2 Timothy 2:15 KJB - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

Here is the Table of Contents for this post, for fast searching:

The Contextual evidence
The Biblical evidence
The Logical evidence
The Manuscriptural evidence
The Historical evidence
The Meaningful evidence
The SOP/TOJ evidence and absence of citation
The insertion of a false meaning​

The Contextual evidence:

1 John 5:1 KJB - Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 John 5:2 KJB - By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1 John 5:3 KJB - For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:4 KJB - For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:5 KJB - Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

1 John 5:6 KJB - 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.

1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 KJB - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:9 KJB - If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

1 John 5:10 KJB - He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

1 John 5:11 KJB - And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

1 John 5:12 KJB - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1 John 5:13 KJB - These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 John 5:14 KJB - And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

1 John 5:15 KJB - And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

1 John 5:16 KJB - If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

1 John 5:17 KJB - All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

1 John 5:18 KJB - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1 John 5:19 KJB - And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 John 5:20 KJB - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

1 John 5:21 KJB - Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.​

The Biblical evidence:

God has stated in His word, that He would preserve His words from generation to generation:

Psalms 12:6 KJB - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 KJB - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB - And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 KJB - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 KJB - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.​

These are more powerful than any Manuscriptural evidence.

The Logical evidence:

Divine inspiration without Divine preservation would be a Divine waste of time. This particular phrase whether in text or margin, quotations for varied persons in history, thus has been around a long time, and even with the Textus Receptus [TR], and moreso, in the King James Bible [the preserved word of God in English] for over 400 years. It is obviously being preserved by that which is greater than the human capability or mind.

The phrase is also unique to John, in that the text does not refer to the specific terms of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. The phrase "the word", in reference to the person of the Son, is unique to John's mind, among the gospel and epistle writers.

Just standing back and looking at it objectively, the phrase that is in dispute by critics [see wikipedia, etc], is actually quite large to have been purposefully inserted at some point in early history after the completion of the original text, but it would be far easier to drop it in transmission, transcribing.

Some may argue that the phrase is not in the majority of Koine Greek witnesses, and is therefore not to be retained. This is a logical fallacy. While it is true that it is not in the majority of Greek 'witnesses' [most of which are late mss, etc], that does not preclude its having been originally therein, nor of it's validity as standing in the texts of the other languages of the world, such as Latin, etc.

God never stated that He had to preserve His living word in any singular language, even dead [Koine Greek, Latin, etc] languages at that.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in just the 'early' works and fragments, or in just the 'late' works and fragments which are found in the dusty forgotten places of the world. He may use any combination thereof He chooses.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in the majority of texts. God is able to save by many, few or even just one. For instance, see the battles of Gideon and the 300 [Judges 6 KJB], or Jonathan and his armour bearer:

1 Samuel 14:6 KJB - And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few.
​

God is able to re-inspire a text that has been destroyed through various means [in fact, this is how DNA itself, which is a written language, works, when mutations, errors occur within itself. It has a self correcting mechanism.], for instance see the examples of Moses and Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 36:20 KJB - And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.

Jeremiah 36:21 KJB - So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.

Jeremiah 36:22 KJB -Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and [there was a fire] on the hearth burning before him.

Jeremiah 36:23 KJB -And it came to pass, [that] when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast [it] into the fire that [was] on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that [was] on the hearth.

Jeremiah 36:24 KJB - Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, [neither] the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.

Jeremiah 36:25 KJB -Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them.

Jeremiah 36:26 KJB -Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,

Jeremiah 36:27 KJB -Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Jeremiah 36:28 KJB - And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?
​

Notice Matthew 1:11 KJB:

Matthew 1:11 KJB - And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
​

Notice who is suddenly 'missing'?

Jehoiakim... (for it was Jehoiakim that begat Jechonias, and Josias the father of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34; Jeremiah 1:3, 22:18, 25:1, 26:1, 27:1, 35:1, 36:1,9, 45:1, 46:2) and was Jechonias' grandfather (1 Chronicles 3:16; Jeremiah 22:24, 24:1, 27:20, 28:4, 37:1; "Coniah" = "Jeconiah/s")), but why?

It was for what he did to the word of God; which was cutting it up into pieces and having it burned.

On another note, some 'skeptics' , or even so-called Bible scholars [like the 'lawyers, scribes, etc of Jesus' day], try to point out in scripture, like this location, and say, “See, your Bible cannot be trusted, as it has gaps in the Genealogies, and therefore who knows how many persons are missing, etc, etc.” Yet, the only reason we know that there are so-called “gaps” in certain places like Matthew or elsewhere in the first place, is because those so-called “gaps” are filled in elsewhere, which means, there are no actual gaps in scripture [KJB].

Also, this particular example is good, because of what else it shows. Namely, that even though Jeremiah wrote [through Baruch; Jeremiah 36:1-4 KJB] the original note/letter and sent it to the King, from God, the King cut up and burned the original copy. Therefore, that “original manuscript” is forever lost [except God bring it back through miracle]. This goes to show that those who claim to only believe the “original manuscripts” do not know what they are talking about.

The “original manuscripts” are long gone, destroyed, burned, faded, erased, or re-used [called a 'palimpsest', scrape over a lambskin, etc and rewrite on top], buried at sea and eaten, and so on.

God does not care so much about the “originals” as He does about simply “preserving” His word [see Psalms 12:6-7 KJB], generally through memory, copying, etc.

Well, since the King cut up and burned [Jeremiah 36:23 KJB] the “original” manuscript copy of the letter by Jeremiah/Baurch, how then do we have a copy of it in scripture to read [Jeremiah 36 KJB]? Did you take notice all of the times that “scribes” are near at hand, making copies of what is said, or written? What was more important, the “original” or preserving what was said by God?

Obviously preserving the words, not the “original” manuscript.

Yet, this is not all, for we even see that God had Jeremiah/Baruch, write an “original” manuscript number 2, to repeat what was in the first “original” with even more words, see Jeremiah 36:28,32 KJB. Therefore, we see, that if a piece of God's word be maliciously destroyed, God, through one means or another, preserves it. In this instance, Jeremiah and Baruch were to write such again, and add more to it.

Thus we now have “original” manuscript number 2.

Yet this “original” manuscript is taken and tied to a stone and cast into the Euphrates river [Jeremiah 51:63 KJB], thus eliminating “original” manuscript number 2, by decree of God, through an angel.

How then do we have those words in Jeremiah since the “original” manuscript 2 was purposefully destroyed at God's own command? Well, someone obviously made a copy of those words, either Jeremiah/Baruch, or a “scribe” in either the Temple or King's court, etc and thus we then have “original” manuscript number 3.

Yet, to be sure, “original” manuscript number 3 is more than likely, as the other two, long since been disintegrated. It is not the “originals” that are important, but rather it is the preservation [by God] of those words which were given by God [Acts 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21 KJB].

Consider also the original Tables of Stone written upon by the finger of God, were broken by Moses [Exodus 32:19; Deuteronomy 9:17 KJB].

Was the medium of the material important as much as the words, or were the words to be preserved instead on a new [though similar] medium [Exodus 34:1; Deuteronomy 10:2 KJB]?

God's words are still available today in the preserved word of God, in English, the King James Bible, and may be found in Exodus 20:1-17 KJB. No old fragment of an "original" is needed. God's word is "quick" ['living'; Hebrews 4:12 KJB], not dead.
​

The Manuscriptural evidence:

[1] Manuscripts [MSS]

Cursives [Greek lowercase]:

[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent.
​

Latin:

[01] c [aka Codex Colbertinus, aka 6, 12th/13th Cent. [1200]]
[02] dem [aka Codex Demidovianus, aka 59, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[03] div [aka Codex Divionensis, aka –, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[04] l [aka Codex Legionensis, aka 67, 7th Cent. [750]]
[05] m [aka Codex Speculum, aka –, 4th-9th Cent.]
[06] p [aka Codex Perpinianensis, aka 54, 12th/13th Cent. [1150]]
[07] q [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 7h Cent. [650]]
[08] r [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 5th/6th Cent.]
[09] Vulgate [Clementine edition]
[10] La Cava Bible [aka Codex Cavensis [9th Cent.]]
[11] Codex Ulmensis [9th Cent.]
[12] C [aka Codex Complutensis, 10th Cent.]
[13] T [aka Codex Toletanus, 10th Cent.]
[14] Θ [Codex Theodulphianus, 10th Cent.]
[15] S 907 [aka Codex Sangallensis 907, 8th Cent.]
[16] S 63 [aka Codex Sangallensis 63, 9th Cent.]

“testimonium dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spirtus.”
​

[2] “Church Fathers” [so-called]

[01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]

[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' ...”

[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]

[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine

[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]

[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.]

[07] Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage [circa. AD 484]

[08] Cassiodoris of Italy [circa. AD 480-570] in Complexiones in Ionis Epist. ad Parthos.

Thus: "... Clementine edition of Vulgate translation; Pseudo-Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris (V), also (these three with some variation) Cyprian, Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius, Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos, Cassiodorus Complexiones in Ioannis Epist. ad Parthos. ..." - Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia

“… “at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight ‘Church Fathers’ (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later.”1 …” - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - 1 John 5:7 Scams

“… Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan’s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.

...

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.” - http://www.scionofzion.com/1 john 5 78.htm
​

[3] Lectionaries

[01] “some minority variant readings in lectionaries.”
​

The varied Manuscripts [MSS] codices, papyri, palimpsests, etc are not the foundation of proof [for all things require faith in God's word as foundation], but merely further evidence for confirmation.

The Historical evidence:

For quick details see - Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible

For quick details see - 1 John 5:7

The following is cited in detail as it represent the short historical accounting - 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three are One" (Trinity/Godhead)

"... 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." —1Jo 5:7

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714. ..."
​

The following is cited in detail as it represents the great detailed historical accounting - A Defense of 1 John 5:7

"... Excerpted from the book THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE available at www.wayoflife.org. See end of report for details.

________

1 John 5:7-8 in the King James Bible reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The capitalized words, called the Johannine Comma, are omitted in the modern Greek texts and English versions. (The term “comma” described “a group of words isolated as a single group.”)

It would seem, in fact, that modern textual critics despise the traditional Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 more than any other passage in the Received Text.

Bruce Metzger called it “spurious” (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 101). Kurt and Barbara Aland had no doubt that it is inauthentic, speaking of “the impossibility of its being at all related to the original form of the text of 1 John” (The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions, p. 311). This is typical of how 1 John 5:7 is treated by textual critics.

Beginning with the publication of the English Revised Version of 1881, the Johannine Comma has been omitted from practically every modern English translation, including the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, Living Bible, the Message, New Living Translation, the CEV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

ANSWER:

This is one of the most important verses in the Bible on the doctrine of the Trinity and one of the most important witnesses to the full Deity of Jesus Christ; and for the following reasons I am convinced that 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Greek Received Text and the King James Bible is divinely inspired Scripture.

We must not be overawed by textual scholars. They do not possess secret knowledge nor do they have secret wisdom. I do not want to speak disrespectfully, for I do not despise learning (though I do despise the thing that David Otis Fuller called “scholarolatry”). but it is true nonetheless that they are only men and not gods. The very fact that they almost never mention the fundamental issue of faith (Hebrews 11:6) or the promise of divine preservation or the Spirit of God in the context of these matters is most fearfully telling.

Consider, first, THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. “The strength of forgery or interpolation is similarity and not uniqueness. The Trinitarian formula, ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’ is unique not only for John but for all NT writers. The usual formula, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ would have been assuredly used by a forger. [Incidentally, this argument is an antidote for rationalists who repudiate the authenticity of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Peter uses a unique spelling for his name (Sumeon), which is also the first word of the Epistle, to demonstrate his mark of authorship. What forger would pass three dollar bills? Only the authority, the government, would attempt such a unique action.]” (Dr. Thomas Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, 1980).

Another consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. “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 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 1 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)” (Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate).

The grammatical argument has been treated lightly by modern textual critics, but its importance was understood by GREGORY NAZIANZUS (Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: “On the Holy Spirit,” A.D. 390; see Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8), FREDERIC NOLAN (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815), ROBERT DABNEY (“The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” 1891), THOMAS MIDDLETON (The Doctrine of the Greek article: applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament, 1833), MATTHEW HENRY (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706), EDWARD F. HILLS (The King James Bible Defended: a Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith, 1956), LOUIS GAUSSEN (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1934), to name a few. I take my stand with these men.

Consider, too, THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF JOHN’S WRITINGS AND OF THE NATURE OF THOSE TIMES.

“Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in John 10:30, when Jesus says, ‘I and my Father are one.’ This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John’s Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ’s divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma. If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

“It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in John 10:30. [The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.] Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, ‘The Lord says “I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.”’ [The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.] The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John’s Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

“The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This ‘unethical intellectualism’ had begun to make inroads among churches in John’s day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. [Robertson, 6:200] Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge. Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge and so were called Gnostics.] One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

“The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John’s mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginosko (to know). [1 John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2] This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while 1 John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. [Robertson, 6:201] He goes on to say, ‘Certainly both ideas appear in both books.’ If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John’s polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. John 1:1). The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to ‘he that came by water and blood,’ even Jesus Christ (1 John 5:6). This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism” (Jesse M. Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8,” 1999, "And These Three Are One" A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8).

Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636).

When considering the Greek manuscript evidence for or against the Johannine Comma, it is important to understand that there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that even contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995). None of the papyrus contains this portion of Scripture.

Further, it is important to understand that some Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Bible, produced by several Catholic scholars, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included 1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession. Further, Robert Stephens, who produced several editions of the Greek Received Text, obtained ancient Greek manuscripts from the Royal Library at Paris. He refused to allow even one letter that was not supported by what he considered to be the best Greek manuscripts. When he compared these manuscripts to the Complutensian, he found that they agreed. In the margin of the 3rd edition of his Greek N.T. he said seven of the 15 or 16 Greek manuscripts in his possession contained the Johannine Comma. Theodore Beza borrowed these manuscripts from Robert Stephens’ son Henry and further testified that 1 John 5:7 is found in “some ancient manuscripts of Stephens.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that was before them.

It is probable that some of this evidence has been lost. Consider the following important statements:

“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128).

“Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla [he collated the Latin against the Greek in the 15th century], of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, and of Theodore Beza, without believing, that they found this passage in several valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. ... Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

Consider, too, THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK LECTIONARIES AND PRINTED BIBLES. It is a fascinating fact that though the majority of extant Greek manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7, many of the lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church do contain it, as do the printed Greek Bibles. The lectionaries are Scripture passages organized to be read in the churches.

The printed lectionaries in the Greek Orthodox Church since the 16th century have often included 1 John 5:7. This is an important fact, because it is not reasonable to believe that the Greek Orthodox Church would “correct” its own text from Latin.

1 John 5:7 was in the Apostolos or Collection of Lessons (5th century), “read in the Greek Church, out of the Apostolical Epistles, and printed at Venice, An. 1602. Velut ab Antiquis seculis recepta Lectio, says Selden de Synedriis, l.2, c.4. Art. 4. This Lectionary is as old as the fifth century. Vide Millii Prol. 1054, and Mr. Martin’s Dissertation, Part I. c. 13” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 129).

1 John 5:7 was in the lectionary Ordo Romanus (A.D. 730) (Twells, II, p. 133). The Trinitarian text was to be read between Easter and Whitsuntide, “as we learn from Durandus, a writer of the fourteenth century, in his Rationale of Divine Offices.”

The Greek Orthodox Church’s printed New Testaments, both ancient and modern, contain 1 John 5:7. Again, it not possible to believe that they would include this on the basis of anything other than evidence from Greek. Being keepers of the Greek language, they would despise the Latin.

Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LATIN MANUSCRIPT RECORD. The majority of Latin New Testament manuscripts from the past 900 years contain 1 John 5:7. Further, some of the most ancient also contain it. “It is not true, that the most ancient Latin MSS. Of the New Testament want the celebrated passage of 1 John 5:7. For the Bible of Charlemagne revised and corrected by the learned Alcuin, has that text by the confession of our adversaries, and they have not been able to produce an older MS. Where it is missing. The only pretended one of this sort, is Mabillon’s Lectionary, which after all is not strictly a MS. of the New Testament, nor written in Latin but in a mixed language, called Teutonick-French, or Gallo-Teutonick” (Twells, II, p. 153).

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WRITINGS OF ANCIENT CHURCH LEADERS. Following are some quotations that refer to the Johannine Comma from church writings dating to the first eight centuries of the church age:

Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) -- “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one,--not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number” (Against Praxeas, II, Ante-Nicene Fathers). “We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, not much more than an hundred years after this Epistle was written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine, though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerous novelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christians in those early times” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) -- “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church], The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325). Here Cyprian quotes from John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. Nowhere else in Scripture do we find the words “and these three are one.” “It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, but, as Scrivener (1883) remarks, it is ‘surely safer and more candid’ to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript ‘than to resort to the explanation of Facundus’” (Edward Hills, p. 210). Leonard Twells adds, “This noble testimony invincibly proves, that the passage now under debate, was in approved copies of the third century” (A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 134).

Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.) quotes 1 John 5:7 at least three times in his works (R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, Epistles of John, 1982, p. 782). “Among the works of Athanasius which are generally allowed to be genuine, is a Synopsis of this Epistle. In his summary of the fifth chapter, he seems plainly to refer to this verse, when he says, ‘The Apostle here teaches, the unity of the Son with the Father’ [Du Pin, Art. “Athanasius,” London Edition, vol. 8, p. 34]. But it would be difficult to find any place in this chapter where this unity is taught, save in the seventh verse” (Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

Priscillian (380 A.D.), who was beheaded in 385 by Emperor Maximus on the charge of heresy, quoted 1 John 5:7. “As John says ‘and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus’” (Liber Apologeticus).

Idacius Clarus (380 A.D.), Priscillian’s principal adversary and accuser, also cited 1 John 5:7 (Hills, p. 210).

Jerome (382 A.D.) -- Jerome not only believed that the Johannine Comma was Scripture but he testified that “irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices” (Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s “The King James Version Debate”). Jerome said further in his Prologue: “...these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one” (Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Ben David, Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7, London, 1825).

Theodorus (4th century) -- In “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” he stated that John, in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity (Ben David, “Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7,” London, 1825). Ben David observes: “This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century.”

Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century) -- “What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers). “Metzger claims that ‘the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers.’ Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage)” (Jesse Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8,” 1999, "And These Three Are One" A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8).

Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.) -- “... in a tract, called Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae, c. 11, para. 3, 4. sets down both the seventh and eighth verses of the fifth chapter of St. John’s first epistle, in the same order as our printed editions have them, precluding thereby the common cavil, that the seventh verse is only a mystical explication of the eighth” (Twells, II, p. 135).

Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.) -- “... twice in his books concerning the Trinity, printed among the Works of Athanasius (viz. Book first, and seventh) and also in his Tract against Varimadus the Arian, under the name of Idacius Clarus, cites 1 John 5:7” (Twells, II, p. 135).

Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.) -- “... contemporary with Vigilius, writes the History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favourer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented Anno 484, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from 1 John 5:7, giving thereby the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So that the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in reputing that passage authentic” (Twells, II, pp. 135, 136).

Eugenius at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) -- “...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one’” (Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae, quoted from Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 43). We will see say more about the significance of this quotation.

Fulgentius Ruspensis (507 A.D.) -- “... another orthodox writer of the same country, cites the controverted words in three several places of his Works. Which further evinces, that the Arians about Hunneric, had not been able to disprove that text. For if they had, no writer for the Catholic side of the question, would have dared to use a baffled testimony, whilst the memory of that defeat was yet recent” (Twells, II, p. 136).

Cassiodorius (550 A.D.) -- “... a patrician of Rome, a person remarkable for zealously recommending the choice of ancient and correct copies of the Bible to the monks under his direction, for their constant use, copies purged from error by collation with the Greek text; and that, in doubtful places, they should consult two or three ancient and correct books. So affectionately concerned was he for the purity of the sacred text, that whilst he left the correcting of other books to his Notaries, he would trust no hand but his own in reforming the Bible. Further, he himself declares, that he wrote his Treatise of Orthography, purposely to promote the faithful transcribing of the Scripture. It must therefore be of considerable importance, in the present dispute, to know that the reading of his copy, 1 John 5:7. And of all his Tracts, none was so likely to satisfy our curiosity as that entitled Complexiones, which were short and running notes, on the apostolical epistles and Acts, and the Revelation. ... But Cassiodorius’s Complexiones were given up for lost, among other treasures of ancient literature, when, soon after the learned and judicious Mr. Martin had ended his labours upon this subject, that piece was unexpectedly found in the Library of Verona, and published at Florence by Scipio Maffeius [Francesco Scipione Maffei (1675-1755)], An. 1721. And from thence we have all the satisfaction we can desire, that the contested passage was in Cassiodorius’s copy. For in his comment on 1 John 5:1 and following verses, he concludes with these words: Testificantur in Terra tria Mysteria, Aqua, Sanguis, & Spiritus: quae in Passione Domini leguntur completa: in Caelo autem Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi tres unus est Deus. [The three mysteries testify (bear witness) on earth, the water, blood and the spirit, which are read in full in the passion of (our) Lord: likewise, in heaven, the Father, and Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three, one is God.] After which he proceeds to cite and explain the ninth verse of that chapter” (Twells, II, pp. 136, 137).

Maximus, a Greek writer (645 A.D.), author of the Disputes in the Council of Nice (among the works of Athanasius) cites therein 1 John 5:7 (Twells, II, p. 129).

Isiodore Mercator (785 A.D.) “is supposed to have forged the Decretal Epistles published by him. In the first of Pope Hyginus, 1 John 5:7,8 are cited, though the present order of them is inverted, as it was probably in Cassiodorius’s copy also. The spurious character of these epistles no way hurts their authority, for the contested text being in the copies of those times” (Twells, II, p. 137).

Ambrosius Authpertus (8th century), “of the same age, wrote a commentary upon the Revelations yet extant, in which the words of 1 John 5:7 are brought in as explicatory of Revelation 1:5” (Twells, II, p. 138).

In the Glossa Ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (9th century), “a work universally approved, we see the passages of the three Witnesses in Heaven, both in the text and the commentary” (Twells, II, p. 138).

“Lastly, we find no one Latin writer complaining of this passage (which appears to have been extant in many copies from the fifth century inclusive) as an interpolation, which is a very good negative evidence, that no just objection could be made to its genuineness. The Preface of Jerome blames some translators for omitting it, but till the days of Erasmus, the insertion of it was never deemed a fault” (Twells, II, p. 138).

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE. As we have seen, Eugenius, spokesman for the African bishops at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.), quoted 1 John 5:7 in defense of the deity of Jesus Christ against the Arians. The bishops, numbering three to four hundred, were from Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearick Isles, and they stood in defense of the Trinity. They “pawned their lives as well as reputation, for the verity of that disputed passage” (Twells, II, p. 147). Eugenius said: “...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one’” In spite of claims to the contrary by those who oppose the Johannine Comma, the fact that 1 John 5:7 was quoted at the fifth century Council of Carthage is a nearly irrefutable argument in favor of its apostolic authenticity. “Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae [Part II, A Short Historical Outline of the Disputes Respecting the Authenticity of the Verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses of 1 John, 1807], offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized. Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ’s deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (the Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, THE ARIANS COULD HAVE RIGHTLY ACCUSED THEM ON THE SPOT OF FOLLOWING A SPURIOUS PASSAGE AND BEING GUILTY OF PALPABLE FALSEHOOD. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited 1 John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God’s Word as their first line of defense. THE AFRICAN BISHOPS MUST HAVE HAD WEIGHTY TESTIMONY TO THE COMMA IN THEIR MANUSCRIPTS. AS A RESULT, THEY WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EMPLOY THE PASSAGE AS THEY DEFENDED THEIR FAITH BEFORE THE ARIAN ACCUSERS” (Jesse Boyd, And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis, 1999).

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ASSEMBLY GATHERED BY CHARLEMAGNE. “About the close of the eighth century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men that were to be found in that age, and placed Alciunus, an Englishman of great erudition, at their head; instructing them to revise the manuscripts of the Bible then in use, to settle the text, and to rectify the errors which had crept into it, through the haste or the ignorance of transcribers. To affect this great purpose, he furnished them with every manuscript that could be procured throughout his very extensive dominions. IN THEIR CORRECTORIUM, THE RESULT OF THEIR UNITED LABOURS, WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN PUBLIC TO THE EMPEROR, BY ALCIUNUS, THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE (HEAVENLY) WITNESSES IS READ WITHOUT THE SMALLEST IMPEACHMENT OF ITS AUTHENTICITY. This very volume Baronius affirms to have been extant at Rome in his lifetime,* in the library of the Abbey of Vaux-Celles; and he styles is ‘a treasure of inestimable value.’ [* He was born in or about A.D. 1538, and died in A.D. 1607. Du Pin confirms this account of Baronius, v. vi. p. 122. Travis p. 24.] It cannot be supposed, that these divines, assembled under the auspices of a prince zealous for the restoration of learning, would attempt to settle the text of the New Testament, without referring to the Greek original; especially since we know, that there were, at that time, persons eminently skilled in the Greek language. THEY MUST HAVE HAD ACCESS TO PERUSE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HAVE LONG SINCE PERISHED; AND THEIR RESEARCHES MIGHT IN ALL PROBABILITY EXTEND EVEN TO THE AGE OF THE APOSTLES. Here, then, is evidence, that this verse has been acknowledged as a part of Scripture, during more than a thousand years” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

THE ARGUMENT FROM ITS PRESERVATION AMONG BIBLE BELIEVERS. The Lord Jesus Christ indicated that His Words would be preserved through the process of the Great Commission, as the Scriptures were received, kept, taught, and transmitted to the next generation by Bible-believing churches (Matt. 28:18-20). This is guaranteed by the Christ’s power and His continual presence among the churches. When we look at church history in this light, the issue of 1 John 5:7 becomes plainer. Consider the versional evidence in favor of this verse:

1 John 5:7 is found in some of the Syriac manuscripts, though not the majority (The New Testament Translated from the Syriac Peshito Version, James Murdock, 1852, note on 1 John 5:7). 1 John 5:7 was printed in Gutbier’s Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci (1664); it is obvious, therefore, that Gutbier found this important verse in Syriac manuscripts with which he was familiar. It was also printed by E. Hutter in 1599 in the Syriac portion of his polyglot (e-mail from Michael Maynard, May 11, 2005).

1 John 5:7 was in the old Latin that was used by Bible believers in Europe. Dr. Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) spent 28 years tracing the history of the European Italic or Old Latin version and in 1815 published his findings in 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. Nolan believed that the old Latin got its name Italic from the churches in northern Italy that remained separated from Rome and that this text was maintained by separatist Waldensian believers. He concluded that 1 John 5:7 “was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate” (Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, pp. xvii, xviii).

1 John 5:7 was in the Latin “vulgate” that had a wide influence throughout the Dark Ages. The Catholic Church used it, but so did many non-Catholic believers. Bruce Metzger observes that the oldest manuscript of the Jerome vulgate, Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), does not include the Johannine Comma; but this fact is overwhelmed by other evidence. For one, we have seen that Jerome himself believed 1 John 5:7 was genuine Scripture and testified that heretics had removed it from some manuscripts. Second, 1 John 5:7 is found in the vast majority of extant Latin manuscripts, 49 out of every 50, according to Scrivener. Third, 1 John 5:7 is found in many of the most ancient Latin manuscripts, such as Ulmensis (c. 850) and Toletanus (988). The Johannine Comma is found “in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts” (Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 343).

1 John 5:7 was in the Romaunt or Occitan New Testaments used by the Waldenses dating back to the 12th century. This was the language of the troubadours and men of letters in the Dark Ages. It was the predecessor of French and Italian. The Romaunt Bibles were small and plain, designed for missionary work. “This version was widely spread in the south of France, and in the cities of Lombardy. It was in common use among the Waldenses of Piedmont, and it was no small part, doubtless, of the testimony borne to truth by these mountaineers to preserve and circulate it” (J. Wylie, History of Protestantism, vol. 1, chapter 7, “The Waldenses”). I examined the copy of the Romaunt New Testament located at the Cambridge University Library in April 2005, but it does not have the Epistles of John. The following is from Justin Savino , May 11, 2005: “The Zurich codex I have that is similar to the Dublin a Grenoble (or so I am told) does have 1 John 5:7. The direct quote is "Car trey son que donan testimoni al cel lo payre e lo filh e lo sant spirit e aquesti trey son un." Translated, "but three are there that five testimony in heaven the father and the son and the holy spirit and these three are one.”

1 John 5:7 was in the Tepl, which is an old German translation used by Waldenses from the 14th through the 15 centuries. Comba, who wrote a history of the Waldenses, said the Tepl was a Waldensian translation (Comba, Waldenses of Italy, pp. 190-192). Comba sites two authorities, Ludwig Keller and Hermann Haupt, for this information. Comba also states that the Tepl was based on old Latin manuscripts rather than the Jerome vulgate. The Tepl’s size identifies it with the small Bibles carried by the Waldensian evangelists on their dangerous journeys across Europe.

1 John 5:7 was in the old French translations. A translation of the whole Bible in French first appeared in the 13th century, and “a much used version of the whole Bible was published in 1487 by Jean de Rely” (Norlie, The Translated Bible, p. 52).

1 John 5:7 was in the old German translations, which first appeared in the 13th and 14th centuries. A complete German Bible appeared before the invention of printing (Norlie, p. 53). There were at least 12 different editions of the Bible into German before the discovery of America in 1492. The first printed German Bible appeared in 1466 (Price, The Ancestry of Our English Bible, 1934, p. 243). These were Latin-based versions.

1 John 5:7 was in the Spanish Bibles, beginning with the one printed in Valencia in 1478 by Bonifacio Ferrer (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 191).

It is probable that 1 John 5:7 was in the Bohemian or Czech Bible printed by the Brethren in 1488.

1 John 5:7 stood uncontested in English Bibles for 500 years. The first English New Testament, completed by John Wycliffe and his co-laborers in 1380, contained this verse. The Johannine Comma was in the Tyndale New Testament of 1526, the Coverdale of 1535, the Matthew’s of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva of 1557, the Bishops of 1568, and the King James Bible of 1611. The first English Bible of any importance to remove the verse was the Revised Version of 1881 and the first English Bible which had any chance of superseding the KJV to remove 1 John 5:7 was the New International Version of 1973 and this version has still not taken over the sales of the King James Bible. From the time of the British Empire to the present, English has been a prominent world language. It is the international language in these modern times, the language of commerce, aviation, and science. The witness of the English Bible, therefore, has great significance.

Thus we see that the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7 comes down to us by the hands of Bible believers and churches that held the apostolic faith at great cost through the Dark Ages, through the Protestant Reformation, up to our very day. In light of Matthew 28:19-20, this is a strong witness to its apostolic authenticity.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE NATURE OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY. Some textual critics believe the Johannine Comma entered the manuscript record accidentally from a marginal note, but I do not consider this likely. It is much more likely that one of two things has occurred in regard to the Johannine Comma. Either it was removed by heretics or it was added by “orthodox” Christians. In light of the Bible’s teaching, which of these is more probable? The Bible teaches us that true believers are zealous for the words of God. They receive God’s Word (Jn. 17:8; 1 Thess. 2:13), keep it (Jn. 14:23; 17:6), hide it in their hearts (Ps. 119:11), proclaim it (2 Tim. 4:2), and contend for it (Jude 3). They keep it without spot (1 Tim. 6:14), referring to the smallest details. They have a “jots and tittles” attitude toward it (Mat. 5:18). They are taught to pass it along to the next generation in its completeness (Mat. 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2). Heretics, on the other hand, have no fear of God’s Word and are willing to corrupt it (2 Cor. 2:17). Thus, the possibility that true Bible believers added anything to the apostolic Scriptures is less than slim, while the possibility that heretics attacked the Scriptures is a certainty.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE TIMES. The following is excerpted from Robert Lewis Dabney, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, p. 350-390). This first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871: “We must also consider the time and circumstances in which the passage was written. John tells his spiritual children that his object is to warn them against seducers (2.26), whose heresy was a denial of the proper Sonship and incarnation (4.2) of Jesus Christ. We know that these heretics were Corinthians and Nicolaitanes. Irenaeus and other early writers tell us that they all vitiated the doctrine of the Trinity. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was not miraculously born of a virgin, and that the Word, Christ, was not truly and eternally divine, but a sort of angelic ‘Aion’ associated with the natural man Jesus up to his crucifixion. The Nicolaitanes denied that the ‘Aion’ Christ had a real body, and ascribed to him only a phantasmal body and blood. It is against these errors that John is fortifying his ‘children’ and this is the very point of the disputed 7th verse. If it stands, then the whole passage is framed to exclude both heresies. In verse 7 he refutes the Corinthian by declaring the unity of Father, Word and Spirit, and with the strictest accuracy employing the neuter HEN EISIN to fix the point which Cerinthus denied--the unity of the Three Persons in One common substance. He then refutes the Nicolaitanes by declaring the proper humanity of Jesus, and the actual shedding, and application by the Spirit, of that water and blood of which he testifies as on eyewitness in the Gospel.

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE SILENCE OF 1500 YEARS OF CHURCH HISTORY. “It is an observation, we apprehend, of considerable importance, on this part of the subject, that till we descend to modern times, no objection was ever advanced against the authenticity of the verse in question. Jerome complains of the omission of it by unfaithful translators; and declares, that the best Greek manuscripts of his time contained it; for he appeals, as we have seen, in behalf of his version, to the authority of these manuscripts. Jerome died A.D. 420, and ever since his days, the verse has not only maintained its place in the Scriptures, but has been uniformly quoted and referred to, by writers of the first eminence for learning and integrity, in every succeeding age. If we should suppose for a moment, that it is spurious, is it not wonderful that this was never discovered till modern times? Is it not wonderful, that during the period of one thousand four hundred years, which intervened between the days of Praxeas and the age of Erasmus, not a single author can be mentioned who ever charged this verse with being an interpolation or forgery. Had it been, in any of those ages, even suspected to be spurious, would its adversaries, especially the Arians, have been merely silent when it was produced against them? Would they not have exclaimed aloud against those who quoted it? Would they not have filled the Christian world with invectives against them, for their falsehood and impiety, in thus attempting to corrupt the Word of God? That the Arians in those times never pretended to deny the authenticity of the verse in question, is a phenomenon which should be accounted for by those who contend that it is spurious” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John).

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE FACT THAT IT WAS HERETICS AND UNBELIEVERS WHO WERE AT THE FOREFRONT OF THE CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF 1 JOHN 5:7 IN THE 17TH TO THE 19TH CENTURIES. We have seen that there was no serious challenge to the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 throughout the church age until the 19th century, but who was it in the 19th century that was calling so loudly for its removal from the Bible? It was theological modernists and Unitarians who were at the forefront of the call for the removal of “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16 and the Johannine Comma from 1 John 5:7. Does this not speak loudly in favor of these passages? We have documented this history in our 477-page book For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present. We have documented this even more extensively in The Modern Bible Version’s Hall of Shame.

Terence Brown, the former editorial secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society of London, England, made this observation: “The last century has witnessed a steady drift away from the deity of Christ and towards ‘unitarianism’. It is not surprising that scholars who have been caught up in this tide of unbelief should welcome the support of these unreliable documents” (Brown, God Was Manifest in the Flesh, Trinitarian Bible Society, nd).

One of the first to attack 1 John 5:7 was an Arian named Sandius, in 1670.

The next attack came from the pen of Roman Catholic priest Richard Simon in the book Histoire Criticque du Vieux Testament (Critical History of the Old Testament), published in 1678. Simon was a forerunner of German higher criticism, denying that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch.

Another attack upon 1 John 5:7 came from the pen of the famous historian Edward Gibbon (1737-94) in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776, 1788). He argued that Christians added the Trinitarian statement and other things to the New Testament centuries after it was first written. Gibbon was a skeptic after the fashion of Voltaire and did not believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

A reply was given to Gibbon’s charges by George Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, who published Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., author of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; in defence of the authenticity of the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of St. John. (Chester, 1784; other editions were published in 1785 and 1794).

At this juncture Greek classical scholar Richard Porson (1759-1808) of Cambridge entered the fray on the side of unbelief. In 1790 he published Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his defence of the three heavenly witnesses, I John v.7. It is instructive to understand that Porson was a skeptic in regard to the Trinity (Lynn Winters, Our Judaic-Christian Heritage, section III, chapter 3). Porson was also a great lover of liquor, saying, “I would sooner drink ink than not drink at all.”

The Unitarians loved the critical Greek text from the days of German modernists Johann Semler (1725-91) and Johann Griesbach (1745-1812) onward.

Semler himself published an attack upon 1 John 5:7 entitled, Historical and Critical Collections, relative to what are called the proof passages in dogmatic theology, Vol. I. on 1 John v. 7.

Prominent Unitarian leader Joseph Priestly attempted to publish a new English version based on the Greek text of Griesbach, and the project was well advanced when the manuscript was destroyed in a fire in 1791. Priestly’s successor, Thomas Belsham, continued to make this project his primary objective.

When the Unitarian Book Society was formed, one of its main objects was the translation of a new English version based on the Griesbach critical text. In 1808, instead of making its own translation, it published an “improved” edition of the 1796 translation by William Newcome of Ireland “chiefly because it followed Griesbach’s text” (Earl Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism in Transylvania, England, and America, 1952, p. 339; see also P. Marion Simms, The Bible in America, pp. 255-258). The complete title was “The New Testament, an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome’s new translation with a corrected text and notes critical and explanatory.” It was published in London by Richard Taylor & Co., in 1808 and the following year in America by William Wells of Boston. This publication “drew the fire of the orthodox by omitting as late interpolations several passages traditionally cited as pillars of Trinitarian doctrine” (Wilbur, A History of Unitarianism, p. 339), such as “God” in 1 Tim. 3:16 and the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7.

Officials at Harvard College in 1809 published an American edition of Griesbach’s critical Greek N.T., because its text criticism was “a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration” (Theodore Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, p. 2). This was about the time that Harvard capitulated to Unitarianism. Thus, the enemies of Biblical inspiration understood in that day that modern textual criticism weakens key doctrines and undermines the authority of the Bible.

The Universalist Abner Kneeland published a New Testament in Greek and English in 1823. The Greek was Griesbach’s and the English was a revised edition of Belsham’s. Kneeland was the minister of the First Independent Church of Christ, called Universalist, in Philadelphia. Kneeland later became a deist.

The Unitarian John Gorham Palfrey published an English New Testament in 1828 based on Griesbach’s Greek. His work appeared anonymously.

In 1869 the American Unitarian Association of Boston published The New Testament, translated from the Greek text of Tischendorf, edited by George R. Noyes.

In 1902 the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower Bible & Tract Society began publishing the Emphatic Diaglott by B.F. Wilson. This private interlinear was first published in 1865 and was based on the Griesbach critical Greek New Testament and “the various readings of the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library.” Wilson was affiliated with the Disciples of Christ, which held the heresy of baptismal regeneration, and was also associated with a cult called the “Restitution Church of God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses have printed several hundred thousand copies of the Emphatic Diaglott.

Many of the foundational modern textual critics were Unitarians or theological modernists who denied the deity of Jesus Christ, including Johann Semler (1725-91), Edward Harwood (1729-94), Johann Griesbach (1745-1812), George Vance Smith (1816-1902), Ezra Abbot (1819-1884), Joseph Henry Thayer (1828-1901), William Sanday (1843-1920), Caspar Gregory (1846-1917), and Henry Vedder (1853-1935).

In the 17th to 19th centuries the lines were clearly drawn, and those who believed the Bible and stood for evangelical Bible doctrine were on the side of 1 John 5:7, while those who were heretical in doctrine and/or agnostic in faith that were aligned against it. There were exceptions, but this was definitely the rule.

The battle was only lost in the 20th century when “Christianity” was dramatically weakened by the onslaught of end-time heresy and compromise.

WHY DID ERASMUS ADD THE JOHANNINE COMMA TO HIS 3RD EDITION GREEK NEW TESTAMENT? There are two popular myths regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are parroted by modernists, evangelicals, and even fundamentalists today who defend the modern versions against the KJV.

The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” He has also 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, de Jonge wrote:

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 (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “...it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2). The problem is that this myth continues to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.

WHY DID THIS TRINITARIAN TESTIMONY DROP OUT OF MOST EXTANT GREEK MANUSCRIPTS? The omission in the Greek manuscripts was probably brought about by the heresy of Sabellianism or Arianism.

Dr. Hills argued that the omission arose during the Sabellian controversy. “In the second place, it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack), the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians, because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God. It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe. Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great” (Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 212, 213).

It is also possible that the Arians corrupted this passage of Scripture. “It is well known, that the Arians are expressly accused by many of the Latin fathers, of having corrupted the Scriptures, of expunging passages, and of strangely mutilating them, during the time that they were in power. [This was particularly objected to them by Hilary of Poitiers, Hilary the deacon, Ambrose, and Salvianus.] Socrates, Greek ecclesiastical historian who flourished in the fifth century, directly accuses them, of having garbled this very Epistle; for the purpose of separating, between the Divinity and humanity of Christ. ... When we consider further, that Arianism became for a season the reigning religion, especially in the East, where it obtained much more than in the West, may we not in this way be able to account, in some measure, for the silence of the Greek fathers with respect to this verse? The Western Church never became so generally Arian, as the Eastern; of course it might be expected, that the verse was more likely to be found in the writings of Latin, than of Greek fathers; and accordingly we perceive that this is the case” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

CONCLUDING POINT: THERE IS A STRANGE HYPOCRISY TO THE CLAIM BY TEXTUAL CRITICS THAT 1 JOHN 5:7 HAS SLIGHT TEXTUAL AUTHORITY. Whereas the Received Text does contain a few readings that have small support in the Greek manuscripts (but are represented broadly in the Latin), the Critical Greek Text contains HUNDREDS of readings that have small support in both the Greek and the Latin manuscripts! One of the principles of Westcott and Hort was this: “A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45).

The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, the latest edition of the Westcott-Hort text, repeatedly questions and omits verses with far less textual authority than the Trinitarian statement of 1 John 5:7. Most of the significant omissions are made on the authority of Aleph and B (sometimes both together; sometimes one standing alone), and a bare handful of similar manuscripts and versions.

For example, the word “fasting” is removed from Mark 9:29 in the Westcott-Hort text, the Nestles’ text, the UBS text, and all of the modern versions on the “authority” of its omission in Aleph, B, two minuscules (0274, 2427), one Old Latin, and the Georgian version.

The entire last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark are omitted are seriously questioned on the “authority” of only three Greek manuscripts, Aleph, B, and the minuscule 304 (plus some slight witness by versions that were influenced by the Alexandrian Text).

The UBS text puts Matthew 21:44 in brackets on the “authority” of only one uncial (the terribly unreliable D), one minuscule, plus 7 Old Latin and one Syriac manuscripts. This is flimsy textual authority, to say the least.

Sometimes, in fact, the modern textual critics don’t have even this much “authority” for their changes. 104 times in the book of Matthew, the 3rd edition of the UBS Greek N.T. prints a reading that either is “found in no manuscript (34 times) or is found in only one Greek manuscript of the more than 5,300 existing” (Wilbur Pickering, Some Relevant Considerations for New Testament Textual Criticism).

I, for one, believe the apostle John wrote the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 under divine inspiration.

A recommended resource for further study is Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity (Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995).
______

The above is excerpted from the book THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE. ISBN 1-58318-088-5. This book provides diligently-researched, in-depth answers to more than 80 of important questions on this topic. A vast number of myths are exposed, such as the myth that Erasmus promised to add 1 John 5:7 to his Greek New Testament if even one manuscript could be produced, the myth that the differences between the Greek texts and versions are slight and insignificant, the myth that there are no doctrines affected by the changes in the modern versions, and the myth that the King James translators said that all versions are equally the Word of God. It also includes reviews of several of the popular modern versions, including the Living Bible, New Living Bible, Today’s English Version, New International Version, New American Standard Version, The Message, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 423 pages. ..."
​

The Meaningful evidence:

What does 1 John 5:7 KJB, actually mean in context?

Every person who believes what the scriptures [KJB] teach, believes in the Deity and eternality of the person/being of the Father, the person/being of the Son [Jesus] and the person/being of the Holy Spirit.

Those who thus believe the scriptures [KJB] fully agree with every text of scripture [KJB] which say that there is "One LORD" [Deuteornomy 6:4; Zechariah 14:9; Mark 12:29; 1 Corinthians 8:6 KJB], or "One God" [1 Corinthians 8:6 KJB, which is an expansion of Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29, etc KJB] or other texts such which say there is "no" other "God beside" JEHOVAH Elohiym [Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10, 44:6,8, 45:5,21 KJB].

Those who believe the scripture [KJB] agree fully with what they teach in that there is no other JEHOVAH Elohiym, but JEHOVAH Elohiym; though some may have a slight misunderstanding of what that specifically entails. The matter will fall into what the scripture [KJB] teaches about the persons/beings of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost/Spirit, and the word "one".

JEHOVAH [name, character, singular] Elohiym [3 persons, multiple]. At-one-ment. Not a single person, but 3 eternal persons/beings.

Not a three-headed hydra.

Not one person masquerading as three persons. Not one being with three personalities. Not two persons pretending to be a third person. Not two beings with three personalities.

Not a ventriliquist.

There are three persons/beings. Working in perfect musical harmony, symphony, and in a singular "chord" [thus 'one accord']. We may see this in Matthew 28:19 KJB:

Matthew 28:19 KJB - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Matthew 28:19 GNT TR - πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος​

The name of God, represents His character:

Exodus 33:18 KJB - And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.

Exodus 33:19 KJB - And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.

Exodus 33:20 KJB - And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Exodus 33:21 KJB - And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

Exodus 33:22 KJB - And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

Exodus 33:23 KJB - And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

Exodus 34:1 KJB - And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Exodus 34:2 KJB - And be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me in the top of the mount.

Exodus 34:3 KJB - And no man shall come up with thee, neither let any man be seen throughout all the mount; neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount.

Exodus 34:4 KJB - And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

Exodus 34:5 KJB - And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.

Exodus 34:6 KJB - And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,

Exodus 34:7 KJB - Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Exodus 34:8 KJB - And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshipped.
​

Connected with His name/HIs glory/His character is in the Ten Commandments, the written transcript of His very perfect character:

Exodus 20:5 KJB - Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exodus 20:6 KJB - And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.​

The very name [singular], being the character and Glory of God, JEHOVAH, is shared amongst the persons [multiplicity] of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.

[the singular name]

[KJB] “... in the name ...”

[GNT] “... εἰς τὸ ὄνομα ...”

This is singular and definite [article], yet there is seen plurality of persons which all share/have it. Three distinct definite [article] persons to be specific, each joined by the “and” [“kai”] construct:
​

[1st “person”]

[KJB] “... of the Father, ...”,

[GNT TR] “... του πατρος ...”


[KJB] “... and ...”,

[GNT TR] “... και ...”
​

[2nd “person”]

[KJB] “... of the Son, ...”,

[GNT TR] “... του υιου ...”


[KJB] “... and ...”,

[GNT TR] “... και ...”
​

[3rd “person”]

[KJB] “... of the Holy Ghost ...”,

[GNT TR] “... του αγιου πνευματος ...”​

The doctrine of Godhead, as taught in Matthew 28:19 KJB, is revealed all throughout the King James Bible, a small sampling:

Matthew 28:19 KJB - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Genesis 1:1 KJB - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:2 KJB - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:3 KJB - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:7 KJB - And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Genesis 1:26 KJB - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 KJB - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 19:24 KJB -Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;​

[Jesus, the LORD [JEHOVAH Jesus, JEHOVAH E/Immanuel] who came down with the two covering cherubs, the two angels that are beside the LORD, is standing upon the earth [Genesis 18-19, especially 18:25 “Judge of all the Earth”] and calling down fire from His Father above, the Holy Spirit being included by the Fire also, for God is a consuming fire, and Sodom and Gomorah are said to have been destroyed by the vengeance of eternal fire, or in other words the vengeance of God]

Ephesians 4:4 KJB - There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Ephesians 4:5 KJB - One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Ephesians 4:6 KJB - One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

2 Timothy 1:18 KJB - The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

Psalms 110:1 KJB - [[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

[Jesus [JEHOVAH Jesus, JEHOVAH E/Immanuel] speaking not only to David, but God the Father, speaking to the Son also [David being a type pointing to Christ], as seen in the NT, since the whole of Scripture testifies of the the Son [John 5:39 KJB]]
​

Matthew 22:44 KJB - The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Luke 20:42 KJB - And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Acts 2:34 KJB - For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

1 Corinthians 8:6 KJB - But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Samuel 23:2 KJB - The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

Psalms 22:1 KJB - [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.]] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

Matthew 27:46 KJB - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 KJB - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Zechariah 3:2 KJB - And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

Isaiah 48:16 KJB - Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.

John 14:16 KJB - And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 KJB - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 KJB - But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 KJB - Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Colossians 2:2 KJB - That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;

Colossians 2:3 KJB - In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Ephesians 2:18 KJB - For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Ephesians 5:20 KJB - Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Colossians 3:17 KJB - And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

1 Thessalonians 3:11 KJB - Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

John 10:30 KJB - I and my Father are one.

Hosea 1:4 KJB - And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.

Hosea 1:5 KJB - And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.

Hosea 1:6 KJB - And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

Hosea 1:7 KJB - But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
​

I will even cite them from the NWT for the WTS, Jehovah Witnesses reading:

Hosea 1:4-7 NWT - 4 Then Jehovah said to him: “Name him Jezʹre·el,* for in a little while I will hold an accounting against the house of Jeʹhui for the acts of bloodshed of Jezʹre·el, and I will put an end to the royal rule of the house of Israel.j 5 In that day I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley* of Jezʹre·el.” 6 She conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. And He told him: “Name her Lo-ru·haʹmah,* for I will no longer show mercyk to the house of Israel, because I will certainly drive them away.l 7 But I will show mercy to the house of Judah,m and I will save them by Jehovah their God;n I will not save them by bow or by sword or by war or by horses or by horsemen.”o - [NWT]

Sidenote: In the NWT reference 'bible', in vs 6, "He*" "*He - Jehovah."​

The Hebrew OT:

Hosea 1:4 HOT - ויאמר יהוה אליו קרא שׁמו יזרעאל כי־עוד מעט ופקדתי את־דמי יזרעאל על־בית יהוא והשׁבתי ממלכות בית ישׂראל׃

Hosea 1:5 HOT - והיה ביום ההוא ושׁברתי את־קשׁת ישׂראל בעמק יזרעאל׃

Hosea 1:6 HOT - ותהר עוד ותלד בת ויאמר לו קרא שׁמה לא רחמה כי לא אוסיף עוד ארחם את־בית ישׂראל כי־נשׂא אשׂא להם׃

Hosea 1:7 HOT - ואת־בית יהודה ארחם והושׁעתים ביהוה אלהיהם ולא אושׁיעם בקשׁת ובחרב ובמלחמה בסוסים ובפרשׁים׃​

The Hebrew OT Translit.:

Hosea 1:4 HOT Translit. - waYomer y'hwäh ëläyw q'rä sh'mô yiz'r'el Kiy-ôd m'a† ûfäqad'Tiy et-D'mëy yiz'r'el al-Bëyt yëhû w'hish'BaTiy mam'l'khût Bëyt yis'räël

Hosea 1:5 HOT Translit. - w'häyäh BaYôm hahû w'shävar'Tiy et-qeshet yis'räël B'ëmeq yiz'r'el

Hosea 1:6 HOT Translit. - waTahar ôd waTëled Bat waYomer lô q'rä sh'mäH lo ruchämäh Kiy lo ôšiyf ôd árachëm et-Bëyt yis'räël Kiy-näso eSä lähem

Hosea 1:7 HOT Translit. - w'et-Bëyt y'hûdäh árachëm w'hôsha'Tiym Bayhwäh élohëyhem w'lo ôshiyëm B'qeshet ûv'cherev ûv'mil'chämäh B'šûšiym ûv'färäshiym​

LXX [*so-called] -

Hosea 1:4 LXX* - καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν Κάλεσον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ιεζραελ, διότι ἔτι μικρὸν καὶ ἐκδικήσω τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Ιεζραελ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ιου καὶ καταπαύσω βασιλείαν οἴκου Ισραηλ·

Hosea 1:5 LXX* - ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ συντρίψω τὸ τόξον τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι τοῦ Ιεζραελ. --

Hosea 1:6 LXX* - καὶ συνέλαβεν ἔτι καὶ ἔτεκεν θυγατέρα. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Κάλεσον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Οὐκ--ἠλεημένη, διότι οὐ μὴ προσθήσω ἔτι ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ, ἀλλ᾿ ἢ ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι αὐτοῖς.

Hosea 1:7 LXX* - τοὺς δὲ υἱοὺς Ιουδα ἐλεήσω καὶ σώσω αὐτοὺς ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ σώσω αὐτοὺς ἐν τόξῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ οὐδὲ ἐν πολέμῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ἅρμασιν οὐδὲ ἐν ἵπποις οὐδὲ ἐν ἱππεῦσιν. --​

How many JEHOVAH are in those verses [4,6,7]?

JEHOVAH said, "... I ["JEHOVAH ... God", vs. 4,6] will save them by JEHOVAH their God [vs. 7], ..."​

Now, consider the definition of “one” in regards God, the disciples, marriage, covenant and atonement:

Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

Deuteronomy 6:4 HOT [read from Right to Left] - שׁמע ישׂראל יהוה אלהינו יהוה אחד׃

Side note:

The Hebrew word [H259] “אחד”, “'echâd” is not, [H905] “בּד”, “bad” nor, [H3173] “יחיד”, “yâchı̂yd”.​

Side note, in the so-called LXX [*Septuagint, the work of Origen in his Hexapla, not the work of 70 or 72 Jewish scholars from the twelve tribes, and definitely not written before AD 100]

Deuteronomy 6:4 LXX* - “... Ἄκουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν·”
​

The Deuteronomy 6:4 KJB passage is quoted in the New Testament itself:

Mark 12:29 KJB - And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

Mark 12:29 GNT - ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ ὅτι πρώτη πάντων ἐντολὴ· ἄκουε, ᾿Ισραήλ, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστι·​

This is clearly explained in more detail in 1 John 5:7,8 KJB, the "are one" is defined by the next verse, "agree in one", meaning they three are one in purpose, etc, not person:

1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:7 GNT - ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος και τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεύμα, καὶ οὗτοι οι τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·

1 John 5:8 KJB - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:8 GNT - καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οι μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.​

Marriage, in the King James Bible, uses these very same words to describe the at-one-ment of two persons of man-kind, a male and female in covenant relationship with God:

Genesis 2:24 KJB - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Genesis 2:24 HOT - על־כן יעזב־אישׁ את־אביו ואת־אמו ודבק באשׁתו והיו לבשׂר אחד׃

Side note, in the so-called LXX [*Septuagint, the work of Origen in his Hexapla, not the work of 70 or 72 Jewish scholars from the twelve tribes, and definitely not written before AD 100]

Genesis 2:24 LXX* - ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.
​

See how “they”, being before “twain”, that is to say two persons, one male and one female, are to be after the marriage covenant, “one”:

Matthew 19:5 KJB - And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:5 GNT TR - καὶ εἶπεν, ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν;

Matthew 19:6 KJB - Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Matthew 19:6 GNT TR - ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.

Mark 10:6 KJB - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mark 10:6 GNT TR- ἀπὸ δὲ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ὁ Θεός·

Mark 10:7 KJB - For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mark 10:7 GNT TR - ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ,

Mark 10:8 KJB - And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark 10:8 GNT TR - καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ μία σάρξ·

Mark 10:9 KJB - What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Mark 10:9 GNT TR - ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς συνέζευξεν ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.

1 Corinthians 6:16 KJB - What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

1 Corinthians 6:16 GNT TR - ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ὁ κολλώμενος τῇ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν; ἔσονται γάρ, φησίν, οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν·

1 Corinthians 6:17 KJB - But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:17 GNT TR - ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ Κυρίῳ ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστι.

Ephesians 5:31 KJB - For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31 GNT TR - ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.​

They, which are entered into the marriage covenant, are to be one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person. This is how Jesus Christ even spoke of Himself and the Father, along with Himself and the Disciples, and even with the disciples amongst themselves, togetherness in mind, in purpose, in harmony, but not in person:

John 10:30 KJB - I and my Father are one.

John 10:30 GNT TR - εγω και ο πατηρ εν εσμεν

John 17:11 KJB - And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:11 GNT TR - καὶ οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, καὶ οὗτοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰσί, κἀγὼ πρὸς σὲ ἔρχομαι. πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς.

John 17:21 KJB - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:21 GNT TR - ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσι, καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἓν ὦσιν, ἵνα ὁ κόσμος πιστεύῃ ὅτι σύ με ἀπέστειλας.

John 17:22 KJB - And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

John 17:22 GNT TR - κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἢν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν ἐσμεν,​

This is what prophecy said would be:

Ezekiel 11:19 KJB - And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

Ezekiel 11:19 HOT - ונתתי להם לב אחד ורוח חדשׁה אתן בקרבכם והסרתי לב האבן מבשׂרם ונתתי להם לב בשׂר׃​

Other passages which also speak of togetherness of multiplicity:

Genesis 1:26 KJB - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:27 KJB - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 11:4 KJB - And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Genesis 11:5 KJB - And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

Genesis 11:7 KJB - Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

Nehemiah 8:1 KJB - And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

Isaiah 6:8 KJB - Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

Joshua 9:2 KJB - That they gathered themselves together, to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord.

Matthew 18:19 KJB - Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

John 1:1 KJB - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:2 KJB - The same was in the beginning with God.

John 1:3 KJB - All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 3:11 KJB - Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Acts 1:14 KJB - These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 2:1 KJB - And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Acts 2:46 KJB - And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 4:24 KJB - And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

Acts 5:12 KJB - And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

Acts 7:57 KJB - Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

Acts 8:6 KJB - And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

Acts 12:20 KJB - And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king's chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king's country.

Acts 15:15 KJB - And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Acts 15:25 KJB - It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

Acts 18:12 KJB - And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

Acts 19:29 KJB - And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul's companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.

Romans 12:16 KJB - Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

Romans 15:6 KJB - That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:10 KJB - Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

2 Corinthians 13:11 KJB - Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Ephesians 4:3 KJB - Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Ephesians 4:4 KJB - There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Philippians 1:27 KJB - Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Philippians 2:2 KJB - Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Philippians 4:2 KJB - I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:8 KJB - Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 KJB - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​

As seen, even the wicked can be in a similar state:

Revelation 17:13 KJB - These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Revelation 17:13 GNT TR - οὗτοι μίαν γνώμην ἔχουσι, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐξουσίαν αὐτῶν τῷ θηρίῳ διδόασιν.

Revelation 17:17 KJB - For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

Revelation 17:17 GNT TR - ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς ἔδωκεν εἰς τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν ποιῆσαι τὴν γνώμην αὐτοῦ, καὶ ποιῆσαι μίαν γνώμην καὶ δοῦναι τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτῶν τῷ θηρίῳ ἄχρι τελεσθῶσιν οἱ λόγοι τοῦ Θεοῦ.​

The Bible [King James Bible for English] is a specific example of this “at-one-ment”, itself not only being a work of God and man-kind [even as Jesus is God and man], it is also “one” book, being many books, many prophets, many people, that all agree in one, even as the “law” and the “testimony” agree together with one mind, one purpose, though they are God's “two witnesses” [plural] agreeing together in witness [singular].

The 4 Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, though each a differing personal witness, all agree together when compared prayerfully:

Isaiah 8:20 KJB - To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

John 8:17 KJB - It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Acts 10:43 KJB - To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Acts 15:15 KJB - And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Romans 3:21 KJB - But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

2 Corinthians 13:1 KJB - This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Etc.​

These are God's own standard for testimony, or witness. This is why there must always be 2 or 3 persons to witness. Jesus Himself stated that this is the way it was to always be:

John 5:31 KJB - If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

John 8:13 KJB - The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

John 8:14 KJB - Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, [yet] my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

John 8:18 KJB - I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.​

Christ Jesus, the Son, was sent of the Father to witness and testify of the Love and character of God the Father:

John 14:7 KJB - If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

John 17:6 KJB - I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.​

Therefore, Jesus can only testify of the very character [name, etc] of JEHOVAH God the Father, if He [Jesus] Himself had been eternal, and JEHOVAH Jesus God, ever being “with” [John 1:1-3, etc KJB] the Father and Holy Spirit from everlasting.

If Jesus were not God, even JEHOVAH the Son, neither Eternal, neither self-existant having Life within Himself, being original, unborrowed, underived, neither having His own Will, He could never testify of the True eternal character of the Father unto men, or any being, for how could He ever actually know in verity?

Think about this for a moment.

If Jesus, as some erroneously and perhaps ignorantly, through lack of knowledge, teach, came into existence at some point in eternity past from nothing by the will of the Father, not only would John 1:3 KJB - “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”, be broken, but then He [Jesus] could never be “the True Witness” [Revelation 3:14 KJB], for a True Witness can only testify of what He has seen/heard/experienced. Yet it is written:

John 3:11 KJB - Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
​

Even John Gill understood these things in regards 1 John 5:7 -

"... "There are three that bear record in heaven"

... When he says, "These three are one", he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, "for one". But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one. ..." - John Calvin, Commentaries on the catholic epistles, tr. and ed. by John Owen, 1855, p. 258.
​

A pioneer T. M. Preble understood this text of 1 John 5:7 this way, though he was in error in other ways:

".. Because it is said of Christ that he and his Father are one; it does not mean that Jesus was his own Father! And because they are one in attributes or power; they are not one, numerically! for there are three that bear record in heaven, and these three are one-these three agree in one! 1 John 5:7, 8. TTA 18.3 ..." - The Two Adams, page 18.3

Some pioneers agreed with the 'critical' position [such as W. W. Prescott; Uriah Smith citing Adam Clark [a Methodist, more skeptical than some in regards certain texts, a criticial scholar of his day]; but please note that Uriah Smith believed that the Son came into existence at some point, and that the Holy Spirit/Ghost was not another person/being], and simply excluded it, when studying the matter out, or demonstrated that it did not teach that the Father, Son [Word] and Holy Ghost were one being/person:

"... John 10:30. “I and my Father are one.” The objector contends that Christ and his Father are one person, and in proof of his position quotes 1 John 5:7. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” This is claimed as very strong proof in support of the trinity. The three persons are spoken of as God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Ghost. I believe I may safely say that, aside from scripture, no such license would be allowable. Men have been so used to perverting scripture, and taking advantage of terms, and pressing them into their service, that they do not realize the magnitude of the crime as they otherwise would. The same expression is frequently used about man and wife; yet no person doubts that a man and his wife are two separate persons, inasmuch as they may be separated by hundreds of miles. ..." - Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald, vol. 14 November 10, 1859, page 194 par. 1 (Uriah Smith)
​

The SOP/TOJ evidence and absence of citation:

There is no known instance of the SOP/TOJ directly citing 1 John 5:7 KJB.

Some utilize this as evidence for its invalidity, uninspiredness. This is a logical fallacy. Absence of citation is not evidence for invalidity. Otherwise, the same could be stated of other passages in scripture [KJB], but also not found in the SOP/TOJ.

This same logical fallacy is often used for those 'church fathers', etc. which also do not cite the text. Again, that is not evidence for invalidity, for there are those who do cite the text. Shall such that cite the text be accused of adding it? If so, where is the heated arguments in the earliest known appearance of the text that such a thing happened? Shew me the one/s accused. Secondly, if it truly is an addition, how did a single addition get into all the locations and languages in which it is in? Thirdly, even if, in the end of all things, it is found to be an addition, at what point did it disagree with anything that was written before it, when seen in its context? It is safer to include it, even when in doubt about its authenticity, especially when it is not against any previous testimony before it, and found to be in perfect agreement with it.

A final argument is that some did not cite the phrase because they did not believe in its validity. This would be upon those persons to take such responsibility, but even so, it would not make the text automatically invalid, simply because someone believed it so, and even if they had certain evidences upon which they based that belief. Many disbelieve all manner of texts, but it doesn't automatically disqualify those texts. The same would go in the opposite.​

The insertion of a false meaning:

I pray you do not think I adhere to the errors of Romanism ... I do not believe the following definition [there are multiple definitions of this word] of said word 'trinity' [not that I really use the word anyway, I prefer the scriptural "Godhead", but never-the-less]:

"... 237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God".58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit. ...

... 253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85 ...

... 261 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life. God alone can make it known to us by revealing himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

262 The Incarnation of God's Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

263 The mission of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) and by the Son "from the Father" (⇒Jn 15:26), reveals that, with them, the Spirit is one and the same God. "With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified" (Nicene Creed).

264 "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father as the first principle and, by the eternal gift of this to the Son, from the communion of both the Father and the Son" (St. Augustine, De Trin. 15, 26, 47: PL 42, 1095).

266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).

267 Inseparable in what they are, the divine persons are also inseparable in what they do. But within the single divine operation each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, especially in the divine missions of the Son's Incarnation and the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Father
* "We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]" [Online Roman Catholic Library; Credo of the People of God; Promulgated by Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968] - http://www.newadvent...docs_pa06cr.htm

"...that the Paraclete "is not to be considered as unconnected with the Father and the Son, for He is with Them one in substance and divinity"...

... Proceeding both from the Father and the Son, the Holy Ghost, nevertheless, proceeds from Them as from a single principle. ... Hence it follows, indeed, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the two other Persons, not in so far as They are distinct, but inasmuch as Their Divine perfection is numerically one. Besides, such is the explicit teaching of ecclesiastical tradition, which is concisely put by St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.14): "As the Father and the Son are only one God and, relatively to the creature, only one Creator and one Lord, so, relatively to the Holy Ghost, They are only one principle." This doctrine was definded in the following words by the Second Ecumenical Council of Lyons [Denzinger, "Enchiridion" (1908), n. 460]: "We confess that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not by two spirations, but by one single spiration." The teaching was again laid down by the Council of Florence (ibid., n. 691), and by Eugene IV in his Bull "Cantate Domino" (ibid., n. 703 sq.). ...

..."the Holy Ghost comes from the Father and from the Son not made, not created, not generated, but proceeding" ... " [Online Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, Holy Spirit; sections throughout] - http://www.newadvent...then/07409a.htm

"The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son.

These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes.

“Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.” Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle. ..." The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV by Pope Eugene IV - http://catholicism.o...ate-domino.html
​

That teaches 'singularity', a 'single 'being'', which is error.

This was one of the errors and definitions of the word 'trinity' that so many could not agree to, for instance [blue is the correct, red is the error]:

"... In accordance with the doctrine that three very and eternal Gods are but one God, how may we reconcile Matthew 3:16, 17. Jesus was baptized, Spirit of God descended like a dove, and the Father’s voice heard from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, etc. The Father in heaven, the Son on earth, the Spirit of God descending from one to the other. Who could ever suppose for a moment that these three were one person without body or parts, unless it was by early training. See other texts which appear equally absurd, if such doctrine be true. Matthew 28:18; Acts 10:38. “How God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost,” etc. First person takes the third person and anoints the second person with a person being at the same time one with himself...." - Advent Review, and Sabbath Herald, vol. 9 March 12, 1857, page 146 par. 20 (Uriah Smith)
​

Therefore, do not abuse 1 John 5:7 to teach this error, as contextually [locally and globally] it cannot.​