1 John 5:7
 

Is 1 John 5:7 a later addition to the bible? If it isn't how do you explain it in relation to oneness?

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Large number of scholars don't believe this was in the original manuscript, or that it was worded like the KJV does. The NIV, which doesn't use the TR, even words it differently.

Either way, it's not a stumbling block to godhead. The burden of proof is not on the Shema, it's on this newfound theology that holds to three separate persons.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Good job jeffery, you tell me it's not a problem and offer no explanation of why it isn't a problem.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

supposedly it does not appear in any MS that forms the TR but Erasmus added it because some early church father refers to it...something like that

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Up until the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453, the only Bibles available in Northern and Western Europe were based upon Jerome's translation of the original languages into Latin. Jerome's work was a boon for its time, Latin was increasingly surpassing Greek as the language of the world.

However, by the 15th century, Latin was pretty much the province of the clergy and the educated elite. There was a hunger for Bibles in the languages that were then common, and not the one from 1,000 years earlier.

When Constantinople fell, bands of refugees made their way into Europe bringing with them their possessions, and their Bibles. Europe was soon filled with excitement over the idea that a new translation could be made from the original languages - much like Jerome had done for his time ten centuries earlier.

The Dutch theologian and linguist Desiderius Erasmus produced a printed edition of the Greek New Testament that is known as the Textus Receptus (or "Received Text"). Erasmus went through scores of manuscripts, redacted the obvious copyist errors and such and compiled his First Edition which was a huge success.

However, there was a problem. The text for a portion of 1 John 5:7-8 was not found by Erasmus. Here's the difference:

5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The underlined and bolded part is not in the first two editions of Erasmus' Textus Receptus because he could not find the words in any Greek manuscript. Some say he was bullied and pressured relentlessly, until finally he promised to include the passage if "a single manuscript" could be found that had the missing words.

And, what do you know? Someone found one, and with surprising ease too, considering that Erasmus and his team had been scouring Europe for the manuscripts the whole time. However the "missing" element was supplied - not within the text itself, but in a margin. Bruce Metzger argues that the writing is rather "clearly" from the 16th Century, Erasmus' own time.

Others debate this hypothesis. A balanced article can be found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Well, it was a bit of an explanation, jfrog! :) Look at these different translations/versions of the same verses:

ASV:
1Jn 5:7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
1Jn 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.


NIV
For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.


The Message
6-8Jesus—the Divine Christ! He experienced a life-giving birth and a death-killing death. Not only birth from the womb, but baptismal birth of his ministry and sacrificial death. And all the while the Spirit is confirming the truth, the reality of God's presence at Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, bringing those occasions alive for us. A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.

English Standard Version
7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

Today's New International Version
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the [a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

You're a veritable storehouse of knowledge, pel!!! :)

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Wait a minute look at this from the New American Catholic bible.

Starting at verse six.
Jesus Christ it is who came through water and blood-not in water only,
but in water and in blod.
It is the Spirit who testifies to this,
and the Spirit is truth.
Thus there are three that testify,
The Spirit and the water and the blood-----
And these three are of one accord.
Don't burn me at the stake,but I do own and read a New American Catholic bible.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Interesting.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Yea, that's the impression I got from what all I was reading. I haven't investiaged all the claims yet, but it seems there are a few church fathers who quote this verse in their writings early on (I've not verified this yet). I've also read the greek grammer isn't consistent without verse 7 (I have no idea on greek grammer so I have no way to investiage this).

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

nah. Erasmus was one of those guys. That's why his story sort of sticks with me. He was truly amazing in many ways.

He was probably the first real Reformer since John Hus, but he never left the RCC. He said something along the line that he preferred to remain and be "nettlesome" and work for change and reform from within.

His contemporary, Martin Luther, was a different sort. Two guys, both saw the same problem and both tried to work at it in their own way. I always thought Erasmus had class.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Nah, he should have just left if he disagreed. ;) jkjk

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Yeah. "Build a bridge and get over it!" C'mon, who wants all that hassle?

"If your opinions have changed then be a gentleman and turn in your card." I remember hearing that at a GC business meeting. The part he left out was: "or if you do not agree with the changes the org. has made..."

Funny, "the org." never "changes." Despite all of the voting and resolutions and rewriting and redrafting of documents, amendments and changes to the Fundamental Doctrine and Articles of Faith: the org. never changes.

They said pretty much the same thing to Wycliffe, Hus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all the rest.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I never realized you were that old. New him well did you? :ursofunny

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I posted this yesterday.. In the Martin Luther 1545 bible it wasn't in there. The Spirit Water and blood are one. Geist, wasser und das blut

6 Dit es dee, dee derch Wota en Bloot kjeem, Jesus Christus; nich bloos derch Wota, oba derch Wota en Bloot.

7 En daut es de Jeist dee Zeichness jeft, wiel dee Jeist es de Woarheit.

8 Dan doa sent dree dee Zeichness jaewe: de Jeist en daut Wota en daut Bloot: en dise dree stemme toop.

Plattdeutsch version

(low german)

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I'm sorry.

It is my opinion that accepting the TR and/or Erasmus version of the text does not conflict with the Shema, that God is one and there are no other gods beside him. "Bearing record" has to do with the testimony of God at work. A pure modalist would explain these records of testimony as proof that the godhead is about the One, eternal God, manifesting himself to His creation, and that these relationships are further defined and to be made sense in light of the next verse "blood, water, and Spirit."

I personally don't accept that rendering of the passage, but only because it doesn't seem to fit.

Here's the ESV

Testimony Concerning the Son of God
6This is he who came(K) by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And(L) the Spirit is the one who testifies, because(M) the Spirit is the truth. 7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. 9(N) If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God(O) that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God(P) has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God(Q) has made him a liar,(R) because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us(S) eternal life, and(T) this life is in his Son. 12(U) Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Here's the Message (more of a commentary/paraphrase than a translation)
6-8Jesus—the Divine Christ! He experienced a life-giving birth and a death-killing death. Not only birth from the womb, but baptismal birth of his ministry and sacrificial death. And all the while the Spirit is confirming the truth, the reality of God's presence at Jesus' baptism and crucifixion, bringing those occasions alive for us. A triple testimony: the Spirit, the Baptism, the Crucifixion. And the three in perfect agreement.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I own a message but I really don't care for it.But I love the ESV,ASV,NASB,NKJV besides the KJV those are my faves.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I'm big on ESV, KJV, NIV, and NLT (for paraphrase). I primarily use the Message for bathroom reading. :lol

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I like the literal translations,I do use the Amplified for study as well.
I'm not a big NIV fan but it's ok.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Sorry bro, but NIV, KJV and ESV are not paraphrases, they are translations with varying degrees of differences -- some from the school of word-for-word, and some from the school of thought-for-thought.

Good book for choosing what you need: http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...&item_no=78766

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Re Translating: withh literal, you sacrifice losing the meaning. With paraphrase, you lose the accuracy. NIV is a wonderful blend of the two, as is ESV.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

An interesting book to read on the subject of discussion is by Bart D. Ehrman
titled, " Misquoting Jesus" , The story behind who changed the bible and why.

He really dives into why some of the scribes changed and or added to the text they were to copy.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

For a time, then that "quickening" thing happened and I found myself a tayisi in Mongolia fighting for my life.

I hate when that happens.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I think he meant the parenthetical to just refer to the NLT.

There's probably some Union rule that prevented him from making two sentences out of it. :razz

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

how could you!!!!

ROFL

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

The NLT is not a paraphrase either. It was intended to be but the group quickly decided to translate early on.

However, it's not a "Literal Translation", mostly....word for word. Literal translations can lose the meaning of the overall focus of a verse, whereas "thought" translations preserve the intent of the writing.

The NLT is, by far, my favorite and has greatly transformed my bible reading, desire, learning, and inspiration.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Jeff, I meant that I use the NLT for my paraphrase. lol

The KJV and ESV are an attempts at formal equivalency while the NLT is dynamic. The NIV is a mixture of both given the passage in question.

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

LOL

Gotta love ya pel. lol

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

Ah...there can only be one :thumbsup

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

I'm still keeping my NASB,and no NASB does not stand for NASTY.
I'm not throwing my Revised Standard bible away either.
Try to come and burn those ,you might get hands laid on you and you might get burned.
HE HE HE HE

Re: 1 John 5:7
 

But the New Living Translation is NOT a paraphrase. I don't understand why that keeps being said.