Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
S
Solo
Guest
mutzrein said:
Was that the Word of God walking around in the fire, since it was before Jesus Christ was born.
Solo said:
As I've indicated Solo, God has not revealed everything to me. But what He has revealed to me thus far is sufficient for His plan and purpose for my life to this day. And who knows what tomorrow may bring. I only know that I am in the hands of my Lord and no man can change that.
S
Solo
Guest
I would propose to you the the Word of God is more than spoken, and is in fact a person.mutzrein said:
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. Revelation 19:11-13
I
Imagican
Guest
Solo said:
Solo,
And even if there IS relevance in what you offer, we still KNOW that The Word was 'given to Christ' BY God. That His power was 'given' Him BY God, and that His VERY EXISTENCE was 'given' Him BY God. For Christ HIMSELF has stated that THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN HE. He SITS at 'the RIGHT HAND OF GOD'.
You may OFFER that YOU believe that to 'call' Christ 'The Word of God' makes Him God HIMSELF, but to insist that this IS what IS is nothing more than what you 'choose' to believe. This has NOT been revealed to me. I take what Christ stated AS The Word of God. But I ALSO KNOW that quite often what 'I' offer YOU IS The Word of God as well. And I am CERTAINLY NOT Christ even though He and I ARE ONE.
MEC
S
Solo
Guest
The Word is God according to the scriptures, and Jesus is God according to the scriptures. Your unbelief has been very clear, and your position is suspect. Jesus created ALL things in heaven and in earth; and they were created for HIS pleasure. Read the whole Bible sometime without your alien views concerning the deity of Jesus Christ. You have been deceived into believing a lie.Imagican said:
I
Imagican
Guest
Solo,
I HAVE read the WHOLE Bible over and over again and THIS IS why I have come to the understanding of what I offer. I DON'T know the EXACT relationship of God and Christ. But I DO know that Christ IS The Son of God and that God IS His Father. I have offered NOTHING other than this.
It is YOU that chooses to follow what 'other men' have created. For I had NO preconceived 'notions' of God OR His Son upon my 'beginning' of understanding. For I had followed NO church to my understanding. I simply followed what I was offered through The Word and The Spirit. If that has been 'false teaching' then I ONLY have MYSELF to blame and answer for. At least I will not be forced to say upon judement; 'But THAT'S what they taught me, I was simply following them'.
And I KNOW who and what I was previous to what I have been offered. And I KNOW who and what I am NOW that I have accepted Christ into my heart. If that's NOT enough then I guess there is NOT enough. For I KNOW in MY heart that MUCH of what I have been offered has come STRAIGHT from Our Father. Otherwise I would be following 'other men' like the sheep that do. I choose instead to follow God through The Word and The Spirit. And if their teaching contradicts what I believe then I am more than willing to 'throw out' MY understanding for theirs. And this I find to be a difficult task for those to perform that choose instead to follow 'other men' and their teachings.
MEC
MEC
I HAVE read the WHOLE Bible over and over again and THIS IS why I have come to the understanding of what I offer. I DON'T know the EXACT relationship of God and Christ. But I DO know that Christ IS The Son of God and that God IS His Father. I have offered NOTHING other than this.
It is YOU that chooses to follow what 'other men' have created. For I had NO preconceived 'notions' of God OR His Son upon my 'beginning' of understanding. For I had followed NO church to my understanding. I simply followed what I was offered through The Word and The Spirit. If that has been 'false teaching' then I ONLY have MYSELF to blame and answer for. At least I will not be forced to say upon judement; 'But THAT'S what they taught me, I was simply following them'.
And I KNOW who and what I was previous to what I have been offered. And I KNOW who and what I am NOW that I have accepted Christ into my heart. If that's NOT enough then I guess there is NOT enough. For I KNOW in MY heart that MUCH of what I have been offered has come STRAIGHT from Our Father. Otherwise I would be following 'other men' like the sheep that do. I choose instead to follow God through The Word and The Spirit. And if their teaching contradicts what I believe then I am more than willing to 'throw out' MY understanding for theirs. And this I find to be a difficult task for those to perform that choose instead to follow 'other men' and their teachings.
MEC
MEC
S
Solo
Guest
Imagican,Imagican said:
I understand that a person can read the Bible 15 time a year for his entire life, and until the Holy Spirit dwells within him, he will not understand the truth one iota.
When I was lost, I knew Jesus as the Son of God, and God as the Father, and the Spirit as that intangible, invisable "power" of God. After I was born again, my understanding came to understand the fullness of God in his revelation. I had no teachers teaching me in a Church. I was reading the Bible at home, and had many of my misconceptions cleared up by God himself. I now understand salvation sealed unto the day of redemption by the Holy Spirit. I understand that the Word is God and that God became man to overcome sin and bring us into his kingdom for eternity.
Michael
Witness to the Trinity: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost in I John 5:7
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed in the NIV
[also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"] it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading:
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Whosoever ignores this: it's time for you to be born again - again!
I John 5:7 -- Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed in the NIV
[also deleted from the Jehovah's Witness "Bible"] it says,
"For there are three that testify:"
Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah's Witness reading:
"For there are three witness bearers,"
What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Whosoever ignores this: it's time for you to be born again - again!
Free,
it is also commonly accepted that God is inconsistent and is not able
to preserve a perfect Bible. That's why we "need" Bible correctors.
Of course non of the above is actually true, but this is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. John 1:1
We live by and through the abiding Word that was from the beginning.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and
that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
Jesus is God by origin, as was the Word.
regarding the bible translations we need to consider this: One is the
Word OF God, others talk ABOUT God. Which one is inspired?
Which one would God preserve? Which ones would not agree with
that at all and neither among themselves? The key to understand this:
God is consistent and perfect and knows the end from the beginning.
it is also commonly accepted that God is inconsistent and is not able
to preserve a perfect Bible. That's why we "need" Bible correctors.
Of course non of the above is actually true, but this is:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. John 1:1
We live by and through the abiding Word that was from the beginning.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and
that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
Jesus is God by origin, as was the Word.
regarding the bible translations we need to consider this: One is the
Word OF God, others talk ABOUT God. Which one is inspired?
Which one would God preserve? Which ones would not agree with
that at all and neither among themselves? The key to understand this:
God is consistent and perfect and knows the end from the beginning.
Geo,
I am not arguing that Jesus isn't God, that's a given, but that doesn't change the fact that the KJV has altered 1 John5:7. I wish it were correct but it isn't. As for biblical inspiration, the original autographs were inspired, not the translations or a translation - at least not in the same sense.
Anyway, let's not get into a discussion on bible translations as that is off topic.
I am not arguing that Jesus isn't God, that's a given, but that doesn't change the fact that the KJV has altered 1 John5:7. I wish it were correct but it isn't. As for biblical inspiration, the original autographs were inspired, not the translations or a translation - at least not in the same sense.
Anyway, let's not get into a discussion on bible translations as that is off topic.
D
D46
Guest
Free said:
The King James didn't alter what God wanted in his book to us...your Alexandrain "scholars" are the ones that deleted it.
1 John 5:7-8 (KJV) 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.
These verses are chopped up in different ways in different versions. Some take part of verse 6 to make verse 7. These two verses are the heavenly and earthly witness of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is why they are destroyed in the new versions. There are many mss both cursive and uncial that have those verses.
Without getting into a lot of detail, as this has been discussed many times, one needs to ask themselves whether they are to believe the KJB added to or the modern versions (NASB, NIV, NCV, NWT, NAB, etc) took away from God's word. It's all in whether you believe the underlying text behind these versions are of God. I certainly wouldn't trust anything that came from Alexandria (the school of Gnostics) or from Westcott and Hort. If you trust the modern versions, that's who your trusting.
I don't think this is off topic as it pertains to the diety of Christ, but; I'll say no more since people will believe what they will.
Summary: The Word
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. I John 5:7
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. John 1:1
We live by and through the abiding Word that was from the beginning.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,
and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
Jesus is God by origin. The Word made flesh.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth. John 1:14
The Word was from the beginning and then made flesh.
De facto the Holy Scripture proves itself: I John 5:7 is correct.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. I John 5:7
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. John 1:1
We live by and through the abiding Word that was from the beginning.
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands,
and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
Jesus is God by origin. The Word made flesh.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth. John 1:14
The Word was from the beginning and then made flesh.
De facto the Holy Scripture proves itself: I John 5:7 is correct.
You not proven the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in the slightest. You have only shown that if 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV were true, that there are other verses that agree. But this in no way proves that the verse is correct in the KJV.Geo said:
S
Solo
Guest
The Johannine Comma: 1 John 5:7
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)
Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)
At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.
He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the
..............................."Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".
I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.
Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.
The Test of Antiquity
Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.
The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.
Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):
9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.[/list:u:6e74f]From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...
The Test of the Consent of Witnesses
By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.
The Test of the Variety of Evidence
By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.
The Test of Continuity
By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.
The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses
Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.
The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage
This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.
The Test of Internal Considerations
This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.
As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.
The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.
From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.
Anonymous Author
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)
Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)
At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.
He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the
..............................."Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".
- 1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness
I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.
Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.
The Test of Antiquity
Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.
The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.
Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):
- 1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:[list:6e74f]
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.[/list:u:6e74f]From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...
The Test of the Consent of Witnesses
By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.
The Test of the Variety of Evidence
By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.
The Test of Continuity
By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.
The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses
Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.
The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage
This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.
The Test of Internal Considerations
This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.
As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.
The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.
From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.
Anonymous Author
Good point, I like to add something I noticed reading the KJ,
whenever 'Word' is used starting with a capital letter it refers to the person
of Jesus, the last time it's used is in:
Revelation 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.
14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,
clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite
the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the
winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,
KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Now I understand if someone doesn't submit to simple logic, and thinks
the obvious is not valid for some academic reason, then it's bound to become a
KJ validity question. Prove the KJ wrong if you have to, I wasn't able to do it,
yet have no problem at all to prove any other translation inconsistent in multiple
areas, and can also develop the motive for all their exisiting deletions and alterations.
P.S. Still willing and able to study this, and not yet hardened the heart?
One good starting point is: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
whenever 'Word' is used starting with a capital letter it refers to the person
of Jesus, the last time it's used is in:
Revelation 19:13  And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.
14  And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses,
clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
15  And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite
the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the
winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written,
KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Now I understand if someone doesn't submit to simple logic, and thinks
the obvious is not valid for some academic reason, then it's bound to become a
KJ validity question. Prove the KJ wrong if you have to, I wasn't able to do it,
yet have no problem at all to prove any other translation inconsistent in multiple
areas, and can also develop the motive for all their exisiting deletions and alterations.
P.S. Still willing and able to study this, and not yet hardened the heart?
One good starting point is: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
S
scorpia
Guest
All things are possible with God but do listen with what God are teaching the whole world today, see the following teachings that we learn from God:Imagican said:
4. BAKIT SINASABING TATLO ANG DIYOS?
4. WHY DOES IT SAY THAT THE GOD IS THREE?
***IISA LANG ANG DIYOS, NGUNIT GAYA NG MGA TAO, KUNG ANG
***GOD IS ONLY ONE, BUT SAME WITH THE PEOPLE, IF
ISANG TAO AY MAY PANGALANG JOSE, SIYA RIN AY MAY PALAYAW
ONE MAN HAS A NAME OF JOSEPH, HE MAY ALSO HAS A NICKNAME
MAAARING JUSENG, USE O KUNG ANU ANO PA. GAYON LAMANG DIN ANG
MAYBE JOSHUENG, USHE OR WHATEVER IT IS SAME IS ALSO WITH THE
DIYOS. ANG AMA, ANAK AT ESPIRITU SANTO AY IISA LAMANG, ANG
GOD, THE FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT IS ONLY ONE, THE
DIYOS NA MAKAPANGYARIHAN SA LAHAT. TINAWAG NIYANG ANAK
ALMIGHTY GOD HE CALLED SON
ANG NAGKATAWANG TAO SA LUPA UPANG TUBUSIN ANG MGA
THE ONE WHO TOOK THE FORM OF THE FLESH IN EARTH TO REDEEM THE
KASALANAN NG TAO, TINAWAG NAMAN NIYANG ESPIRITU SANTO ANG
SINS OF THE PEOPLE, HE THEN CALLED HOLY SPIRIT THE
GABAY SA MGA TAO. SAPAGKAT SA TAONG MABABAW ANG KAISIPAN,
GUIDE TO THE PEOPLE BECAUSE TO THE PEOPLE WITH A SHALLOW MIND
HINDI SIYA MANINIWALANG ANG DIYOS AY NASA LAHAT NG PANIG NG
HE WILL NEVER BELIEVE THAT THE GOD IS IN ALL THE PARTS OF
SANSINUKOB, KAYA’T BINIGYAN NIYA NG PANGALAN ANG ANAK AT
WHOLE WORLD, HENCE HE GAVE NAMES TO THE SON AND
ESPIRITU SANTO NGUNIT INISIP NAMAN NG IBA NA TATLO ANG DIYOS.
THE HOLY SPIRIT BUT OTHER THINK THAT THE GOD ARE THREE.
NOTE: The original language was uttered by the Lord in Tagalog, one of the Filipino dialects and the English translation is in red.
