Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should 1 John 5:7 be in the KJV Bible?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should 1 John 5:7 be in the KJV Bible?

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

    This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?

  • #2
    my NKJV has it...
    The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you,And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,And give you peace.” Numbers 6:24-26

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by timmyb View Post
      my NKJV has it...
      That's because it is a KJV Bible. Do you have a NIV Bible? It doesn't.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ron Brown View Post
        That's because it is a KJV Bible. Do you have a NIV Bible? It doesn't.
        1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
        7 - For there are three that testify:
        We are his body, We are his representative, We are the extension of God to the earth. Every action should be a extension of God's love.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bladers View Post
          1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
          7 - For there are three that testify:
          And then it leaves out the rest of the verse, and jumps to verse 8.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ron Brown View Post
            And then it leaves out the rest of the verse, and jumps to verse 8.
            Here is the CLV rendering:

            6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit--Jesus Christ--not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth,

            7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,

            8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into for the one thing

            It would seem the KJV has taken some liberty in trying to make the Trinity doctrine appear here. But what the Spirit is testifying to is the birth or perhaps baptism of Jesus, His death and resurrection. This is the testimony of God that is greater than any testimony of man. (v9)

            I'm inclined to think water means baptism since that was when the voice of God spoke from heaven.

            (Mat 3:17 KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

            John the Baptist had received the prophecy that he would know the Lamb of God when the Spirit ascended upon Him as a dove. And he bore this testimony, but God's testimony was greater, since He is the One who raised Jesus from the dead. The sending of the Spirit also provided a greater testimony that Jesus was the Christ than John's.
            Last edited by Mograce2U; Jul 27th 2008, 12:59 AM.
            Robin

            Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal
            And Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
            Discernment is not needed in things that differ, but in things that appear to be the same. - Miles Sanford
            Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them. - C.H. Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ron Brown View Post
              1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

              This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?
              The subject phrase does not appear in every manuscript. In my view it appears to be a later addition, and if I were doing a translation, I would not put it in the main body but reference it in the margin.

              The main reason I believe it doesn't belong has to do with the flow of thought and what John is trying to say. Here is the passage in the NASB.

              This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
              If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
              The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.


              Notice the main theme: believing the testimony of men and God, especially God. John's point is to say that we can trust the testimony of men, but we can trust the testimony of God more, and if we believe what God says about Jesus, we will get eternal life. Without the subject verse, John appears to list three sources of testimony: spirit, water and blood. Since we know that substances like water and blood don't literally speak, we are to understand John is being symbolic.


              The King James version appears to make a distinction between two different sources of testimony: heaven and earth, giving the formula twice. Notice how the translators prefix the first series of three with "heaven" and prefix the second series of three with "earth".

              This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

              In this reading, we have two groups of three: a group in heaven and a group on earth. The group in heave are people: the father, the word, and the Holy Spirit. The group on earth appear to be substances again, though "the Spirit" might be a person. Even in this construction, two of the earthly witnesses are substances, which bring us back to the idea that John must be speaking symbolically of the water and the blood.

              In reality, the water and the blood are not symbolic, per se, but occations when God testified from heaven. The first occasion was at Jesus baptism. This is an occasion where God spoke directly from heaven to testify that Jesus is his son.

              After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

              Ta Da! Jesus came by water and when he did, God spoke verbally and audibly from heaven.

              Another occasion came just before the crucifixion of Jesus.

              "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. "Father, glorify Thy name." There came therefore a voice out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

              This is where Jesus came "by blood". He went to the cross to save us from our sins and just before he did, God spoke from heaven to testify that Jesus is speaking for God.

              Comment


              • #8
                Aah there is one more - on the mount of transfiguration the disciples heard God speak:

                (Mark 9:7 KJV) And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Luke 9:35)

                Which is a direct confirmation of Deut 18:15 concerning the Prophet who was to come.

                That makes 3 witnesses from God Himself!
                Robin

                Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal
                And Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
                Discernment is not needed in things that differ, but in things that appear to be the same. - Miles Sanford
                Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them. - C.H. Spurgeon

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mograce2U View Post
                  Aah there is one more - on the mount of transfiguration the disciples heard God speak:

                  (Mark 9:7 KJV) And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Luke 9:35)

                  Which is a direct confirmation of Deut 18:15 concerning the Prophet who was to come.

                  That makes 3 witnesses from God Himself!
                  So, this is the actual occasion of the testimony of the Spirit, just as the other two occasions described by BroRog are the testimony of the water (at Jesus' baptism) and the testimony of the blood (at the cross)! Thus the scripture in 1 John 5:6-8 refers to 3 actual incidents! VERY cool. Thanks Mograce2U and BroRog for illuminating this discussion!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And John 12:23+ was said after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. If we can't see that Jesus came to bring eternal life in the 1st advent AND accomplished that goal, then we aren't seeing the hope that is in the gospel we preach when we say this is still in the far off future because it is tied to His 2nd coming rather than His first.
                    Robin

                    Truth is so obscure in these times and falsehood so established that, unless one loves the truth, he cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal
                    And Jesus saith unto him [Thomas], I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
                    Discernment is not needed in things that differ, but in things that appear to be the same. - Miles Sanford
                    Those who compromise with Christ’s enemies may be reckoned with them. - C.H. Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ron Brown View Post
                      1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

                      This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?
                      Many years ago, when I was studying (lower) textual criticism I had a question along the same lines. In a series of on-line exchanges with the seminary professor, he gave me one of the fairest evaluations of the Johanine Comma I've seen.

                      I've posted part of his reply, omitting his name for privacy purposes. The first part of his reply is highly technical...so I've omitted it for clarity's sake

                      So, here then is my question (bolded) and his answer (Italicized):

                      How is it then, (and I am asking your opinion) that the comma is not more in evidence in those manuscripts that are extant today? It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), that the majority of of MSS that we have today omit the comma (which I personally think is a shame).....Yet the question remains as to why.


                      Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

                      So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

                      There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

                      1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

                      2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

                      3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

                      4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

                      5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

                      6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

                      If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

                      As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

                      But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

                      The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text.
                      (Underlined for clarity).

                      (Although in the original the Greek phrases are in fact in Greek fonts...somehow it got transliterated into English fonts when I copied and pasted from my records.)

                      Hope this helps rather than confuses!!!
                      Ιησούς Χριστός ο κυριος μου και ο θεος μου



                      ****When the Lord opens a door, don't walk through it....run full speed; if it's the wrong one He'll let ya know...sometimes He just wants to see if you'll move at all!****


                      A Minister of God Ministry - Support and understanding for a Christian serving in the military

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mcgyver View Post
                        Many years ago, when I was studying (lower) textual criticism I had a question along the same lines. In a series of on-line exchanges with the seminary professor, he gave me one of the fairest evaluations of the Johanine Comma I've seen.

                        I've posted part of his reply, omitting his name for privacy purposes. The first part of his reply is highly technical...so I've omitted it for clarity's sake

                        So, here then is my question (bolded) and his answer (Italicized):

                        How is it then, (and I am asking your opinion) that the comma is not more in evidence in those manuscripts that are extant today? It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), that the majority of of MSS that we have today omit the comma (which I personally think is a shame).....Yet the question remains as to why.


                        Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

                        So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

                        There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

                        1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

                        2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

                        3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

                        4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

                        5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

                        6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

                        If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

                        As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

                        But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

                        The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text. (Underlined for clarity).

                        (Although in the original the Greek phrases are in fact in Greek fonts...somehow it got transliterated into English fonts when I copied and pasted from my records.)

                        Hope this helps rather than confuses!!!
                        This just confirms what I already believed. 1 John 5:7 is correct in the KJV bible, and the non-KJV versions of the Bible have it wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ron Brown View Post
                          This just confirms what I already believed. 1 John 5:7 is correct in the KJV bible, and the non-KJV versions of the Bible have it wrong.
                          Not necessarily - the exact word for word is different with the KJV possibly adding for clarity's sake. This doesn't make it any more or less infallible or inspired - the addition, whether in the original epistle or later added by a scribe in order to clarify what John was saying has little effect on the truth of the passage.

                          Personally, I prefer the KJVs interpretation of this passage because of the added clarity, but we can't deny that the earliest manuscripts omit this part. Now, it should be noted that some early church writings from around 200AD reference this writing, meaning some manuscripts did have this portion in there. Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.

                          It seems that though we no longer have the earliest manuscripts that quote it, it was present in some of them. It makes more grammatical sense to include it than to exclude it because one minor manuscript omits it.

                          Regardless, the meaning remains the same with or without it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                            Regardless, the meaning remains the same with or without it.
                            But the Latin Vulgate translation is much more blatant trinitarian in nature, then the Greek one is.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
                              Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.
                              Actually and historically the Waldensian Bible (Roumant Version) was made from the Vulgate (c. AD 1180) – much later than you suggest.
                              The Truth About the Waldensian Bible
                              and the Old Latin Version

                              By Doug Kutilek

                              [Reprinted from Baptist Biblical Heritage 2:2, Summer, 1991]

                              Mr. J. A. Wylie, in his book, History of the Waldenses (1870, 4th ed.), reported, "The 'Lingua Romana,' or Roumant tongue, was the common language of the south of Europe from the eighth to the fourteenth century . . . .Into this tongue--the Roumant--was the first translation of the whole of the New Testament made so early as the twelfth century. This fact Dr. Gilly has been at great pains to prove in his work, The Roumant Version of the Gospel according to John [1848]. The sum of what Dr. Gilly, by a patient investigation into the facts, and a great array of historic documents, maintains, is that all the books of the New Testament were translated from the Latin Vulgate [emphasis added] into the Roumant, that this was the first literal version since the fall of the empire, that it was made in the twelfth century, and was the first translation available for popular use . . . .it was made, as Dr. Gilly, by a chain of proofs, shows, most probably under the superintendence and at the expense of Peter Waldo of Lyons, not later than 1180," (pp. 12, 13).

                              Here, then, is the conclusion of the acknowledged expert in the field: the Waldensian Bible was made from the Vulgate. An examination of Gilly's work directly provides a little more detail to the picture. Gilly plainly states about the translators of the Roumant version that, "They used the Vulgate of Jerome for their text" (p. xcix), while at the same time he points out that that Vulgate text was of an occasionally mixed character.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X