1 John 5:7 KJV Is Original Scripture

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...508415DA/Why-1_John_5_7-8_is-in-the-Bible.pdf

 

How come the text 99% of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John do not have that text, ". . . in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, . . ."? And of the 1% there are no manuscrpts of 1 John with that very reading before before the 14th century. Why?

 

In otherwords, you add those words that were not from John but were an addition to the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate and never apart of the original Greek Bible. Roman Catholics bullied Didmus Erasmus into adding the words from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate into his 3rd edition Greek Testament, so adding the words of men to the English Bible.

Delete the words between the brackets for the original word of God through John as he wrote in Greek, not latin

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 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 Johannine Comma

 

The true readiing of 1 John 5:6-8, "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
John 19:33-35, ". . . But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." He wrote 1 John 5:6-8.

 

Because the evidence says the words were never there in the first place. The words were never a part of the Greek Bible, which is the language John wrote in, not Latin, where the words were added from. Here is the evidence.

The Text of the Gospels: Comma Johanneum

 

Hard to say.
The writings and extra-biblical witnesses of its existence as far back as the 3rd and 4th centuries more than convince me of its place in my Bible.
1 John 5:7 - Textus Receptus

Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

 

I agree.

To me, without it being there, something is missing in the "flow"...
Context is broken.

Therefore, I can only conclude that "someone" took it out of the vast majority of today's Bibles in an effort to make people believe that it was never there...
But my Bible has it, and it has had it since long before I was even born.

 

Since Textus Receptus defenders would maintain that it was God who preserved, protected, and kept His words, how or why did God permit someone to remove supposedly an entire verse from a majority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

Would such reasoning suggest that God failed to preserve all His words in the majority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts?

If it is sometimes suggested that the making of copies or the process of copying the original-language Scriptures was by inspiration, how did an entire verse get removed during that process?

 

That's a good question.
Here's one for you:

How or why does God permit false teachers and tares ( false brethren ) among the wheat ( true brethren )?
For His own purposes, I would say.

But, Christ's sheep hear His voice and they follow Him regardless, despite any difficulties.
Their faith also overcomes the world, the flesh and the devil.

Not at all.
To me, God "failing" to do anything isn't even a concern of mine, since I know that whatever He decides to do, will be done.

That the majority of existing Greek manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7, doesn't concern me in the least;
I have the Bible I'm going to use for the rest of my earthly life, and "textual criticism" doesn't make me doubt my Lord's words one bit.
I know His words and I recognize them when I read them or hear them preached.

Have you never had that happen for you,
where, during the preaching of His word, something just leaped inside of you when you heard His words read aloud?
I have.

They simply resonated with my spirit.

 

Some might suggest that, but I would not.

I simply point to preservation, not inspiration, as the means by which the Lord keeps His words and delivers them to His children so that they can both learn by them and take hope in them ( Romans 15:4 ).

I also look at the Scriptures that tell me about the Lord's power and how He can put it into the hearts of men ( even unbelievers ) to do anything that He wishes, and I believe that He does indeed furnish His words to all of His children, no matter what language they speak...so that they can indeed have His words as a miracle of His providence.

To me, that's easy enough to explain.
All "one" has to do is to employ unbelieving scholars and false believers to do the work of gradually corrupting certain Greek manuscripts over a long period of time, and the process should explain itself.

Fast-forward to now, and here we are in the 21st century,
with people arguing on internet forums right and left about which words are actually God's words, apostasy growing by leaps and bounds, more and more pastors of once-sound churches revealing that they don't even believe whole parts of the Bible anymore, and the whole "lump" is pretty much leavened ( Matthew 13:33 )...
and right in the midst of it all, there are some people who confidently know His words and take comfort in them.

Interesting, isn't it?

I can only ascribe that to faith...
The evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ), my friend.
Faith in His words, faith in His love for His children and their spiritual welfare.

But without that preserved word, we wouldn't have a Rock to fall on.
Psalms 11:3.

I'm glad He is so close to coming again.

 

In effect you may be trusting an inconsistent, subjective textual criticism that has not been demonstrated to be based on any textual measures/standards applied consistently and justly. It is a fact that the making of the KJV involved some textual criticism decisions from textually-varying sources.

At times you seem to be putting your personal experience over scriptural truth just as blind followers of blind leaders may do.

Believing any assertions that are not true would seem to involve blind faith just like that of blind followers since the Scriptures warn and teach that believers can deceive themselves or can be deceived by men. Believers can sincerely believe something and be sincerely wrong when what they believe something that is not true. You seem to be unwilling to have your assertions examined and tested by a just application of scriptural truth.

 

As are you at liberty to believe as you so understand to be true.
It is my understanding there are not even two witnesses (other than recent direct copies) which give the same words twice for that longer reading in 1 John 5:7-8. Even in the old Latin.

 

While God does speak to the hearts of believers through His word, perhaps believers should be careful not to suggest mysticism, which may result in an undermining of the authority of God's word.

A mystical view of Bible translation may be similar to a mystical view of inspiration. Wally Beebe described and condemned this mystical view of inspiration. Beebe noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." Beebe added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration. David Norris maintained that mysticism “is found in the neo-orthodoxy of Barth and Brunner, ‘the bible is God’s word when it speaks to me’ brigade” (Big Picture, p. 95). David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256). David Norris asserted: “The Bible, though often apparently in a central position, is in fact sidelined in all mysticism (p. 96). H. D. Williams claimed that “contemplative mysticism about the Words of God is a product of modernism, neo-orthodoxy, and trust in man” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 106).

While many KJV defenders or KJV-only advocates correctly may reject a mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly condemn what in effect would be a mystical view of Bible translation? A mystical view of translation would also make man or his experience the authority. Do not some of the statements of some imply that they only acknowledge as from God the one translation that they subjectively feel touches their own hearts? Do some in effect suggest that the authority of a Bible translation is determined subjectively by the reader? Since they believe or assume that no modern English translation can deliver God's Word to their hearts, their self-fulfilling mystical predication comes true. H. D. Williams maintained that “belief in a perfect translation ‘given by inspiration of God’ is the result of a tendency towards ‘mysticism’” (Miracle of Biblical Inspiration, p. 106).

 

In effect, I think I'm trusting the Lord ( Psalms 118:8, Proverbs 3:5-7 ).

The reality of it is, I'm not interested in today's attempts by scholars to try and apply textual measures / standards consistently and justly, because I don't think that they are capable of such things.

I agree.
But I also hold that what was performed back then was done with the correct texts, despite their varying sources.

I disagree.
In fact, I believe that if I'm following anyone "blindly", it's the Lord...
Which I am perfectly willing to do.

To some, faith in the preservation of God's words ( and the Lord and His promises ) can and does look to be "blind"...
To others, it isn't.

In addition, which "Scriptures" would those be that you're referring to, since this very thread exists because many people seem to not know ( or constantly argue ) that "the Scriptures" are subjective and seemingly relative?

Lastly, God's children start out as being carried about with every wind of doctrine and being susceptible to deceit...
But they don't stay there permanently, nor is it a matter of being dependent upon the right men or group of men to show them the error of their ways.