Comma Johanneum

Hi Maestroh

This is a great question, and it took a newcomer to ask it.
Thank you.

A good example would be the apocrypha. If I had a choice to buy a Bible with or without the apocrypha, I would always choose the one without.
(So would every other Spirit filled Christian.)

The result would be, that future publications of the Bible, would not include the apocrypha.
--------------------------------------------------
The same is true for 1John 5:7.
It has been under attack, from before 1611, so it has always been an issue.

So what we had, were a few egghead scholars who said it isn’t suppose to be there, and the millions if Spirit filled Christians, who studied the Bible every day, including 1John 5:7.

If indeed this verse isn’t part of God’s Holy Word, the Holy Spirit within all those millions of believers, would have impressed upon their hearts, that those egghead scholars were right.

Therefore, over the next 300 years, of Bible publishing, it would have been removed from the KJB!
--------------------------------------------------
Instead, in 1881, two of these egghead scholars concocted their own version of the Greek New Testament, and they left it out.

Then over the next few years, more and more pressure was put on all scholars, to act “scholarly” and to accept the work of these two egghead, so most of them did.

Therefore today, the “in thing”, is to argue that the KJB is wrong, for including it.

 

Hello

Which question is that? I only asked one, and I'm not quite sure how your response answers it.

So then you would never buy a 1611 KJV? You do know it had the Apocrypha, right? (May as well play along here).

I don't know about this.

No, it hasn't always been an issue. You can't show it to me anywhere in the Greek manuscript tradition until after the tenth century. The mere fact it was not cited in any of the Trinitarian controversies also begs the question of "why," do you not think?

Also - to say it has been under "attack" is to use the rhetoric of the One Version Onlyists. There is one sense in which it has been AFTER it was added; could I not just as easily point out that to ADD to God's Word is to ATTACK it?

I dare say that the VAST MAJORITY of Christians prior to 1521 never saw this passage in their Bibles, and it sure didn't seem to make that much of a difference.

So in other words, you can predict how God the Spirit should or would have acted?

That's incredible to say the least.

By whom? And how?

I figure if you can tell me the Spirit of God would have done something then you surely should be able to tell me HOW He would have done it.

Except to say this is reality is to ignore EVERYTHING that was written on this subject between 1611 and 1881. And even then most of those arguing in favor of this passage were doing so on THEOLOGICAL grounds, not TEXTUAL ones.

Was Warfield an egghead?

What about A.T. Robertson?

What about Bruce Metzger?

And are you calling them eggheads solely because you don't like their textual choices?

That might be because of those 500 manuscripts of John that are unanimous in their first millennium of testimony.

Folks don't just pick this stuff out of the air, sir.

 

Hello Maestroh

I answered your question, because I thought you were "asking a question".

But now I see, you were only making a statement.

--------------------------------------------------
You first said......

I did know that, but it was removed, right. Point proven!
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

Why not? Does your KJB have one?
--------------------------------------------------
Next you sarcastically said.......

Did I say, that it has “always” been an issue? No?
I said........

The context of this statement, clearly means, that by “always” I was limiting it to recent history, just prior to 1611.
--------------------------------------------------
You continue........

First of all, would you not call this thread, an attack upon it? I do.
As for “adding to God’s Word”. You prove my point once again.
God's people would not sit still, for anybody “adding” to God’s Word.
(1John 5:7 was not added.)
--------------------------------------------------
And you said........

You would have to dare, to say that, being that you can’t support what you are saying.

Your statement......“it sure didn't seem to make that much of a difference”, demonstrates that you fail to understand, that we are not talking about one of the works of Shakespeare here, we are talk about the Bible.

God’s people, can not be fooled so easily, because God is still on His throne and is protecting them.
--------------------------------------------------
Also you said.......

It’s not incredible for a Christian. I have God’s Holy Spirit within me.
--------------------------------------------------
You also ask.......

Well, Bibles did not magically fall down out of heaven. They were printed, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

If God’s people, repeatedly complained about the misprint of 1John 5:7, than Bible publishers(who were already being pressured by some Bible scholars), would have given in to the pressure that Bible readers were exerting.

But no such pressure materialized, because God’s people were perfectly happy, with God’s Word the way it was.
--------------------------------------------------
A very interesting question........

All I know about the Spirit of God, is that He is the one who spoke God’s Words into the ears of those men who originally penned the New Testament.

Therefore, when God’s Spirit filled people, who were studying the Bible, came to 1John 5:7, he would have spoken to their hearts and said,....“I didn’t write this”!

Now this may seem far fetched to you, but this is how the Spirit of God works.
--------------------------------------------------
The next words that came out of your mouth were.......

You need to repeat this, because I don’t know what you are getting at.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you ask three questions........

BB Warfied?......YES, YES, YES,...the biggest one of all.

As for A.T.Robertson & Bruce Metzger, I won’t be as hard on them.
--------------------------------------------------
You continue(You already knew my answer)..........

I called Warfield an egghead, because he was one.
A.T.Robertson and Bruce Metzger, may have just been some weak willed scholars, who caved to the pressure, academia was putting on them.

And no, I don’t call W&H or BBW, eggheads, because I don't like their textual choices:
I call them that because they either really thought that they were smarter than God, or they were deceived and being used by Satan.
--------------------------------------------------
Finally you said........

As I have said before, my stand is one of faith.
I trust God, to have kept His Word for me. Just as millions of other true believers have trusted God to do the same.

I do not trust what scholars say, over God’s Word.

This reminds me of that old hymn.......

“My hope is built on nothing less, than Scholars words and doing their best,
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on what they say,.....”

 

This Is What I Find Amusing About This Discussion

This may be the classic definition of a "half truth." The problem is you've got the wrong half.

You are correct - just because a reading was not found in Aleph or B means nothing IN AND OF ITSELF. If that were the case then this might be a strong argument.

The problem is that it's not found in ANY Greek mss. for over 1,000 years. Nadda. Not one. At some point you MUST explain how preservation is possible if the CJ is original with John.

Now I must confess that this old Burgonian canard never ceases to amaze me. This is not evidence; it is SPECULATION that is used to EXPLAIN AWAY inconvenient evidence.

Keep in mind that you stated this as a dogmatic fact. The reason the oldest manuscripts survived is because they were not read or studied by Christians.

I'm curious then - WHO read and studied them? And how does this inane theory explain the FACT that Aleph was worked on by TEN CORRECTORS. For 12 years I've been asking KJVO advocates this question - and none has yet to satisfactorily answer it:

Since the ten correctors working on Aleph decisively prove that the manuscript was used, please explain how a mss can be both USED and UN-USED at the same time?

You cannot say, "It was used by heretics" because some of the readings are brought into alignment with what you would call the "right" manuscripts.

Furthermore, this argument died when P75 was collated back in the 1950s.

After all - since there are SO FEW Alexandrian text-type mss from the later centuries, should we then assume that THEY were used and wore out and the Byzantine owe their survival to non-use?

No. We are told the CJ was added later because it isn't found for 1,000 years in the Greek tradition, and it's only appearance is in the LATIN.

 

One Error After Another

I don't think so; that book rivals Riplinger for error-per-page average.

 

Burgon's Only Comment

1) Who is this "some," the Dean Burgon (But Should Be Named Edward Hills) Society?

2) Burgon never explicitly rejected it, but he did sort of mock his opponents with it and the lack of support in passing.

3) Of course, he also never explictly ENDORSED it, which pretty much speaks volumes. A guy writes 76 pages on I tim. 3:16 and doesn't write a single page on I John 5:7?

 

All of which begs the obvious question: IF the claim is true that the originals were copied so frequently that they wore out, you HAVE TO EXPLAIN how in the world EVERY SINGLE ONE of these early multiple copies (plus ALL of their ancestors) DELETED this so that it vanishes without a trace.

The ONLY way to explain that data is that it was not in the first written copy by John. Even if you want to say that the first generation copies was where the corruption occurred, how do you explain it vanishing from EVERY one of these multiple copies at the same time?

And don't argue preservation for Erasmus; I can just as easily say that Westcott and Hort were under God's guidance to "restore" the text if you use that argument.

 

At the end of the following dissertation in Appendix B you will find the Seven Tests of Burgon applied to 1 John 5:7.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

HankD

 

No I Didn't

I found a KJV Onlyist MISAPPLYING Burgon's uncomplicated method, also known as "seven different ways of saying the majority is right merely because it is the majority" - without any explanation as to why it's the majority of the 15th century rather than the 3rd.

Burgon did NOT do this, he did not make this argument. If he did, you'd be able to show me the page where he did.

Furthemore, the 9 to 1 analogy fails in light of the count of the SAME MATERIALS standing at 492-8 or whatever it is.

I should point out that a person could take ANY reading from either the TR or the CT and argue for its genuiness using this guy's misapplication. After all, aren't the KJVOs always telling us about how "the worst corruptions occurred in the first 200 years?" So any corruption that appears in more than one manuscript could easily be argued.

 

Maestro, the author of the paper does not appear to be a KJVO follower as he uses many non-KJVO writers which is rare among KJVO defenders.
He also provides a bibliography and footnotes, another rarity among the KJVO publishers.

Second, I was responding to your request to provide the "some" who use the Seven Tests of Burgon as applied to the Johannine Comma.
Neither you nor I stipulated that it had to be a convincing demonstration.

Also, I already admitted that I could not find a place that Burgon even mentions the Comma, so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to prove.

Personally, I believe by faith that 1 John 5:7 is inspired in spite of the meager Greek evidence.

HankD