Truth about 1 John 5:7

[Godistruth1]

Since there are versions of the bible which acknowledge that the Verse that describes the trinity the best is actually a footnote and not a real verse raises questions on how easy it is to add or remove and change the bible even now. You can see the difference even now by checking the translations below
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

What do you think about this?

 

[Neogaia777]

Since there are versions of the bible which acknowledge that the Verse that describes the trinity the best is actually a footnote and not a real verse raises questions on how easy it is to add or remove and change the bible even now. You can see the difference even now by checking the translations below
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

What do you think about this?

Come on they all mean the same thing basically, maybe your still stuck in Babylon though...

Besides 1 John 5:8 (right after it) clearly says what the three persons are...

God Bless!

 

[HTacianas]

Since there are versions of the bible which acknowledge that the Verse that describes the trinity the best is actually a footnote and not a real verse raises questions on how easy it is to add or remove and change the bible even now. You can see the difference even now by checking the translations below
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

What do you think about this?

It's a later emendation that does no harm, other than providing fodder to non-trinitarians.

 

[Godistruth1]

Come on they all mean the same thing basically, maybe your still stuck in Babylon though...

Besides 1 John 5:8 (right after it) clearly says what the three persons are...

God Bless!

How does adding a verse to the bible mean the same? You did not comment on the addition itself

 

[Godistruth1]

It's a later emendation that does no harm, other than providing fodder to non-trinitarians.

It does great harm but letting u know how easy it is to change the bible

 

[miknik5]

Since there are versions of the bible which acknowledge that the Verse that describes the trinity the best is actually a footnote and not a real verse raises questions on how easy it is to add or remove and change the bible even now. You can see the difference even now by checking the translations below
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:

What do you think about this?

The verse itself does not stand by itself. Rather it is a further declaration and/or clarification and recap of a previous verse

“For there are three...” means that what was previously said, cryptically, is clarified by this statement

Please let us review the verses 1 through 6 prior to 7 and the truth which states “this is HE who came not by “water” only”

What does “water” signify?

 

[HTacianas]

It does great harm but letting u know how easy it is to change the bible

It is not easy to change the bible. Especially in modern times. But people in full light of history have changed the bible by removing entire books from it as late as 100 years ago.

 

[Godistruth1]

The verse itself does not stand by itself. Rather it is a further declaration and/or clarification and recap of a previous verse

“For there are three...” means that what was previously said, cryptically, is clarified by this statement

Please let us review the verses 1 through 6 prior to 7 and the truth which states “this is HE who came not by “water” only”

What does “water” signify?

My question is not whether the meaning remains the same or not but how easy it is to add and remove verses from the bible. There are other verses too that and now considered an addition to the bible with no originals.

 

[Godistruth1]

It is not easy to change the bible. Especially in modern times. But people in full light of history have changed the bible by removing entire books from it as late as 100 years ago.

Maybe it's not easy but it surely has happened. So how can we trust. It's possible the Greek manuscripts itlsef were forged. It's not like they were written by Jesus and we could analyse his handwriting. My question what's the process in Christianity to know if the verses in bible are authentic?

 

[HTacianas]

Maybe it's not easy but it surely has happened. So how can we trust. It's possible the Greek manuscripts itlsef were forged. It's not like they were written by Jesus and we could analyse his handwriting. My question what's the process in Christianity to know if the verses in bible are authentic?

One "process" is reading the writings of the Church fathers. The entirety of the new testament can be written based on the quotes found in their commentaries.

 

[ananda]

One "process" is reading the writings of the Church fathers. The entirety of the new testament can be written based on the quotes found in their commentaries.

What's the process to know if your preferred "church fathers" are authentic?

 

[HTacianas]

What's the process to know if your preferred "church fathers" are authentic?

All those commentators recognized by the Church. The new testament itself consists of all those books recognized by the Church as authentic. One possible exception to that is the Revelation. It was disputed enough that even after its acceptance it is not read liturgically by the Eastern Churches.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Come on they all mean the same thing basically, maybe your still stuck in Babylon though...

Besides 1 John 5:8 (right after it) clearly says what the three persons are...

God Bless!

Actually John 5:8 in the Greek translation says

1 John 5:8

The Spirit and the water and the blood and the three in the agreement are.

 

[BNR32FAN]

My question is not whether the meaning remains the same or not but how easy it is to add and remove verses from the bible. There are other verses too that and now considered an addition to the bible with no originals.

Yes The Lord’s Prayer also has additions. The addition is the part that says “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever Amen.

 

[ananda]

All those commentators recognized by the Church. The new testament itself consists of all those books recognized by the Church as authentic. One possible exception to that is the Revelation. It was disputed enough that even after its acceptance it is not read liturgically by the Eastern Churches.

What's the process to know if your preferred Church is authentic?

 

[HTacianas]

What's the process to know if your preferred Church is authentic?

Trace it back through apostolic succession to the beginning. My Church is the Orthodox Church. All of the letters of the new testament were written from or to the Orthodox Church.

 

[Godistruth1]

One "process" is reading the writings of the Church fathers. The entirety of the new testament can be written based on the quotes found in their commentaries.

Can u give me a broader picture

 

[HTacianas]

Can u give me a broader picture

John Chrysostom lived circa 350-407 AD, and was bishop of Constantinople for a time. He was a prolific writer and commented extensively on the new testament. His commentaries on Matthew can be read here:

CHURCH FATHERS: Homilies on Matthew (Chrysostom)

 

[ananda]

Trace it back through apostolic succession to the beginning. My Church is the Orthodox Church. All of the letters of the new testament were written from or to the Orthodox Church.

What's the process to know if your records of apostolic succession are authentic?

 

[HTacianas]

What's the process to know if your records of apostolic succession are authentic?

They needn't be. It is the position of successor that is important, not any particular person in the position.