My take on Trinity

[Johann!@#]

In regards to Isaiah 9:6.
Is Yahshua his own Father?
That does not even agree with the Trinity doctrine.

Isaiah 9:6 describes the special child, Immanuel.

government will rest on His shoulders; the special child, the hope of a righteous Davidic seed (cf. 2 Samuel 7) returns into view
His name (the character of His God)
Wonderful Counselor, this denotes a divine plan, cf. Isa. 14:26,27; 19:17
Mighty God, cf. Isa. 10:21
Eternal Father
Prince of Peace, Mic. 5:5
The first name could be two separate titles, but the other three are two word combinations. The fivefold names may reflect current practice in Egypt, where the new Pharaoh was given five new throne names at his coronation.

There are four compound titles. These are probably the child's new names when coronated king. The term Immanuel in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8-10, as well as the term "Mighty God" in Isa. 9:6, does not automatically imply Deity, but reflects the ideal king. The names reflect God's character which hopefully characterized the Davidic King. It must be remembered that these titles deal with (1) the area of administration, (2) military power, (3) pastoral care, and (4) the quality of the reign.

The Deity of the Messiah is also implied, though not specifically, in Dan. 7:14; Jer. 32:18. It must be remembered that the Jews were not expecting the Messiah to be the physical incarnation of YHWH because of Israel's unique emphasis on monotheism! The Deity of Jesus and the personality of the Spirit are real problems for monotheism (i.e., Exod. 8:10; 9:14; Deut. 4:35,39; Isa. 40:18,25; 46:5).

Only "Progressive Revelation" teaches this truth (cf. John 1:1-14; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:2-3). If the NT is true then OT monotheism must be nuanced (i.e., one divine essence with three eternal personal manifestations). The hyperbolic OT language has become literal! But the literal fulfillment of OT prophecies about geographical and national Israel have been universalized to include "the nations." See Special Topic: Why Do OT Covenant Promises Seem So Different from NT Covenant Promises? Genesis 3:15 is realized and summarized in John 3:16; 4:42; 1 Tim. 2:4; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:1; 4:14).

Isaiah 9:7 describes His reign (see Special Topic: OT Titles of the Special Coming One

eternal and universal government (cf. Mic. 5:4)
eternal and universal peace (cf. Mic. 5:5a)
reigns on Davidic throne (cf. Isa. 16:5; 2 Samuel 7)
establishes justice and righteousness forever (these two nouns often used together, cf. Isa. 32:16; 33:5; 59:14)
the zeal of YHWH is the guarantee of its reality
Isaiah 9:7 certainly sounds like an eternal reign (cf. Dan. 2:44; 4:3,34; 6:26; 7:13-14,27; Ezek. 37:25; Mic. 4:7; 5:4; 2 Pet. 1:11), not a limited millennial reign (see my notes in the Revelation Commentary, "Crucial Introduction" and Introduction to chapter 20 at www.freebiblecommentary.org ). This promise is the essence of the concept of a new age of the Spirit! The total and complete reversal of the Fall. The reinstatement of God's ideal (i.e., the fellowship of the Garden of Eden).

Special Topic: The Deity of Christ from the OT
Utley

For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
“The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, *Father See note at Deut. 32.6. a peaceable ruler”—


J.

 

[Johann!@#]

The Greek word "TON" is translated 1583 times as "the;" And 18 times as "the -one." It is used before nouns to mean a {certain-one-person-s,} or place, or thing. However, different translations of Greek do not always agree. That is the reason for my interpretation of John 1:1 as "the only Divine Eternal." In English the word “one” can also be translated as “only.” TON: The only. THEON: Divine Eternal.

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force.

Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).

That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.

John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Daniel B. Wallace

 

[Free]

You keep saying that, but I see no evidence.

Then you didn't look. Ton is the masculine accusative case for "the." And why is that? Because theon is the masculine accusative case of theos. In koine Greek, the case and gender of the article has to match the case and gender of the noun.

This information has been given to you before and it is not hard to find:

https://greekdoc.github.io/lessons/lesson04.html

You never did provide any source to back up your claim regarding ton. Do you have any you can provide now?

 

[7thMoon]

I never mention punctuation.


For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

• there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

The scripture says three.

You keep referring to two.


The Father and the Word and the Holy Spirit are one.





JLB

But only two are mentioned. The Father the word and the holy spirit.

 

[7thMoon]

The fact that the NT writers used kurios in place of YHWH when quoting the OT alone shows that LORD is a legitimate replacement for YHWH. You say "not every LXX uses the term KURIOS," so YHWH is falsely translated as LORD. But your statement agrees that at least some LXX do, in fact, translate YHWH as LORD. So, on what basis do you say that LORD is a false translation?

It doesn't have the same meaning. Legitimate replacement isn't relevant enough to give it special meaning.

 

[7thMoon]

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father [God], the Word [Jesus], and the Holy Spririt: and these three are one.

This reference?

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father [God] the Word [i.e. YHWH], and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

 

[7thMoon]

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1 c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force.

Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father).

That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father.

John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (Orthodoxy).
Daniel B. Wallace

καὶ θεὸς ἦν (reality)?

 

[Johann!@#]

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father [God] the Word [i.e. YHWH], and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

What translation are you reading from?

For there are three that bear record in heaven,.... That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,---
For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (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 last clause belongs to 1Jn_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.
RWP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5:7 There is some confusion in the English translations as to where 1 John 5:6,7, and 8 begin and end. The portion of 1 John 5:7 that is found in the KJV which says "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is not found in the three major ancient uncial Greek manuscripts of the NT: Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), or Sinaiticus (א), nor in the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It appears in only four late minuscule manuscripts.

MS 61, dated in the 16th century
MS 88 dated in the 12th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
MS 629, dated in the 14th or 15th century
MS 635, dated in the 11th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand

This verse is not quoted by any of the Early Church Fathers, even in their doctrinal debates over the Trinity. It is absent from all ancient versions except one late Latin manuscript family (Sixto-Clementine). It is not in the Old Latin or Jerome's Vulgate. It appears first in a treatise by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, who died in A.D. 385. It was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy in the 5th century. This verse is simply not part of the original inspired words of 1 John.

The biblical doctrine of one God (see Special Topic: Monotheism) but with three personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not affected by the rejection of this verse. Although it is true that the Bible never uses the word "trinity," many biblical passages speak of all three persons of the Godhead acting together:

at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
the great commission (Matt. 28:19)
the Spirit sent (John 14:26)
Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:33-34)
Paul's discussion of flesh and spirit (Rom. 8:7-10)
Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-6)
Paul's travel plans (2 Cor. 1:21-22)
Paul's benediction (2 Cor. 13:14)
Paul's discussion of the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4-6)
Paul's prayer of praise to the Father (Eph. 1:3-14)
Paul's discussion of the Gentiles' former alienation (Eph. 2:18)
Paul's discussion of the oneness of God (Eph. 4:4-6)
Paul's discussion of the kindness of God (Titus 3:4-6)
Peter's introduction (1 Pet. 1:2)
Utley.

J.

 

[7thMoon]

What translation are you reading from?

For there are three that bear record in heaven,.... That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,---
For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (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 last clause belongs to 1Jn_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.
RWP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5:7 There is some confusion in the English translations as to where 1 John 5:6,7, and 8 begin and end. The portion of 1 John 5:7 that is found in the KJV which says "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one," is not found in the three major ancient uncial Greek manuscripts of the NT: Alexandrinus (A), Vaticanus (B), or Sinaiticus (א), nor in the Byzantine family of manuscripts. It appears in only four late minuscule manuscripts.

MS 61, dated in the 16th century
MS 88 dated in the 12th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand
MS 629, dated in the 14th or 15th century
MS 635, dated in the 11th century, where the passage is inserted in the margin by a later hand

This verse is not quoted by any of the Early Church Fathers, even in their doctrinal debates over the Trinity. It is absent from all ancient versions except one late Latin manuscript family (Sixto-Clementine). It is not in the Old Latin or Jerome's Vulgate. It appears first in a treatise by the Spanish heretic Priscillian, who died in A.D. 385. It was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy in the 5th century. This verse is simply not part of the original inspired words of 1 John.

The biblical doctrine of one God (see Special Topic: Monotheism) but with three personal manifestations (Father, Son, and Spirit) is not affected by the rejection of this verse. Although it is true that the Bible never uses the word "trinity," many biblical passages speak of all three persons of the Godhead acting together:

at Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
the great commission (Matt. 28:19)
the Spirit sent (John 14:26)
Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:33-34)
Paul's discussion of flesh and spirit (Rom. 8:7-10)
Paul's discussion of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-6)
Paul's travel plans (2 Cor. 1:21-22)
Paul's benediction (2 Cor. 13:14)
Paul's discussion of the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4-6)
Paul's prayer of praise to the Father (Eph. 1:3-14)
Paul's discussion of the Gentiles' former alienation (Eph. 2:18)
Paul's discussion of the oneness of God (Eph. 4:4-6)
Paul's discussion of the kindness of God (Titus 3:4-6)
Peter's introduction (1 Pet. 1:2)
Utley.

J.

I look at the Greek, and there is not a trinity, and there is a father who is a word which I think is YHWH. The passage is found in many Latin and Syrian manuscripts. I suspect many lectionaries and cursives have the verse in a different form.

 

[Johann!@#]

I look at the Greek, and there is not a trinity, and there is a father who is a word which I think is YHWH. The passage is found in many Latin and Syrian manuscripts. I suspect many lectionaries and cursives have the verse in a different form.

-which you think is YHVH? Have you read my post dealing with this topic?
J.

 

[7thMoon]

-which you think is YHVH? Have you read my post dealing with this topic?
J.

Which one and how much?

Going over it and checking what you said about Erasmus doesn't jibe. There is a legend Erasmus was unitarian but that he thought the verse to be trinitarian. There are also difference which fit the original Greek better.

 

[Johann!@#]

Which one and how much?

post #69

 

[7thMoon]

post #69

Going over it and checking what you said about Erasmus doesn't jibe. There is a legend Erasmus was unitarian but that he thought the verse to be trinitarian. There are also differences which fit the original Greek better. Erasmus found it in a good, Greek copy and it fits verse 8 like glue.

 

[Johann!@#]

Going over it and checking what you said about Erasmus doesn't jibe. There is a legend Erasmus was unitarian but that he thought the verse to be trinitarian. There are also difference which fit the original Greek better.

Vai in pace, fratello
J.

 

[7thMoon]

Vai in pace, fratello
J.

This is how it is in the Greek, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ πατήρ λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον

 

[Johann!@#]

This is how it is in the Greek, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ πατήρ λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν


1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father [God], the Word [Jesus], and the Holy Spririt: and these three are one.


1Jn 5:8 τὸG3588|T-NSN|the ΠνεῦμαG4151|N-NSN|Spirit καὶG2532|CONJ|and τὸG3588|T-NSN|the ὕδωρG5204|N-NSN|water καὶG2532|CONJ|and τὸG3588|T-NSN|the αἷμαG129|N-NSN|blood — καὶG2532|CONJ|and οἱG3588|T-NPM|these τρεῖςG5140|A-NPM|three εἰςG1519|PREP|in τὸG3588|T-ASN|- ἕνG1520|A-ASN|one εἰσινG1510|G5719|V-PAI-3P|are.

1Jn 5:7 Because there are shloshah giving solemn eidus:
1Jn 5:8 the Ruach Hakodesh and the mayim and the dahm, and the shloshah are for solemn eidus.

1Jn 5:7 For three are the ones bearing witness in the heaven -- the father, and the word and the holy spirit; and the three in one are. And three are the ones witnessing upon the earth..

Joh 1:1 In the beginning [of the ages] was [already pre-existent] the Word [Christ], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Gen_1:1)



You noticed the three Definite Articles?




the Word: Joh_1:14; 1Jn_1:1-2, 1Jn_5:7; Rev_19:13
with: Joh_1:18, Joh_16:28, Joh_17:5; Pro_8:22-30; 1Jn_1:2
the Word was: Joh_10:30-33, Joh_20:28; Psa_45:6; Isa_7:14, Isa_9:6, Isa_40:9-11; Mat_1:23; Rom_9:5; Php_2:6; 1Ti_3:16; Tit_2:13; Heb_1:8-13; 2Pe_1:1 *Gr: 1Jn_5:7, 1Jn_5:20

 

[7thMoon]

You noticed the three Definite Articles?

But those articles are nonexistent in the Byzantine cursives. Erasmus introduced them by intent or mistake to 1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus tradition.

 

[7thMoon]

In koine Greek, the case and gender of the article has to match the case and gender of the noun.

It doesn't have to match the case if the article is a dual. And sometimes a masculine dual article followed by a feminine is a neuter.

 

[Free]

It doesn't have the same meaning. Legitimate replacement isn't relevant enough to give it special meaning.

It's still not a false translation. Or are you saying that God got it wrong in the NT? It really is a non-issue that JWs want to make an issue of, only to argue that God's name was removed from the Bible and their version restored it, despite "Jehovah" being a 13th century word.

It doesn't have to match the case if the article is a dual. And sometimes a masculine dual article followed by a feminine is a neuter.

Do you have sources for this?

Not that it matters in this case, as the argument has been refuted.

 

[Johann!@#]

This is how it is in the Greek, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ πατήρ λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον

But those articles are nonexistent in the Byzantine cursives. Erasmus introduced them by intent or mistake to 1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus tradition.

1Jn 5:7 Because there are three who bear witness: Footnote: As per early Gk. text. Later MSS contain additions. See Explanatory Notes, ‘Comma Johanneum’.
1Jn 5:8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. And the three are in agreement.

1Jn 5:7 Omitted Text.

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. Is also the subject of much debate.

It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it. *Incorrect Translation: 1Jn 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "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 italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. *Correct Translation:

The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible.

It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of G1522. 1Jn 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century (Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus). Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy. The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!

Yes?