Disciple539:
I would like to jump in here with one verse that I believe sums it up but I understand that if you are a true trinitarian you will disagree.
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.
Notice the verse states that these three are one not in one.
The following is from my own studies and condensed from a larger study from a file on my computer. It may also be found at several places on-line:
1 John 5:7 (Received Text)
A few Bibles follow the KJV tradition and add ““For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one [ἓν in Greek]” at 1 John 5:7.
But the use of the neuter ἓν does not mean what trinitarians want it to mean.
There is no way that Jesus would pray at Jn 17:22 that Christians may be
one [
ἓν or
hen in NT Greek] “just as we (Jesus and the Father) are one” if he were truly God. In that case he would be praying that these Christians become “equally God” with him and the Father!
Instead the neuter
hen (
ἓν) is understood to mean that all those were to be united in
will or
purpose.
But even more important is the fact that John did not write the words found at 1 Jn 5:7 in the KJV! And we must consider why trinitarian scholars and copyists felt compelled to add it to the Holy Scriptures.
Highly respected (and highly trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
"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 [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the
fifteenth century, 34 of the
sixteenth century [1520 A.D.] in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it [in his next edition of 1522] if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 [
1520 A.D.] was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The
spurious addition is:
en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this
spurious addition." - p. 240, Vol. VI,
Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows:
"That these words [1 John 5:7 as found in the Received Text and translated in the
KJV] are
spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is
certain in the light of the following considerations.
“(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a
sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a
twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written
in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a
fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an
eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written
in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
“(2) The passage is quoted by
none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in
1215.
“(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
“The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled
Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. .…”
The respected trinitarian reference work,
The Expositor's Greek Testament tells us about this verse:
"A Latin interpolation,
certainly spurious. (I) Found in no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by none of the Gk Fathers. Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The following modern trinitarian Bibles do not include the spurious words found in the
KJV at 1 Jn 5:7:
Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions);
Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
WHY do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to “preserve” this clearly dishonest
King James Version tradition in not only the most-used
King James Version itself (which has been revised many times with thousands of changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (
NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)?
