All Discussion PAGE 428

Hello DiggyDoggy,

I understand where you are coming from. You were not , however, present for this conversation to know the lead of the Holy

Spirit on me. After leaving them off, I prayed for God to open their hearts to Him and that he would send others into their lives to lead them further in the way of salvation in Jesus Christ. I trust that God will continue to work in the lives of these two and bless them with further knowledge of God in Christ.

Thanks Chris,

You have explained this well.

My trip was great! The Lord was with us and He brought several people into our sphere who were friendly and helpful. Look forward to going there again. My friend and her husband will be moving there after their house is built in Florence area.

I much preferred the mountains to the valley. But each has its own beauty. The different climate zones was very interesting to see how the topography, vegetation, and temperature varied so much at different elevations. Such a treat to be able to experience all this.

Thank You, S. Spencer.

My friend and I had a wonderful time going through the mountains, exploring Payson and Show Low, the Mogollon Rim and a few lakes up there. We went to the Thompson botanical gardens in Superior on our way back into the valley for our last day before flying out. We met up with her son and family for a late lunch before we headed to the airport. All went well in all our adventures. We were exhausted every day by the time 8:00 p.m. arrived and fell dead asleep. Never a dull moment! God blessed us in our travels and we met some wonderful people.

p2 Jesse again thank you for your response. You said "And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) ( 1 Tim. 4:1) and ( Jer. 23:36) have nothing to do with bible translations. You are also misapplying those verses".

( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) v3 Tells us "For the time will come when they will not endure (sound) ((doctrine))

v4 Tells us "And they shall turn their ears ((from the truth))

The word (sound) is #5198; it means to be uncorrupt (TRUE IN DOCTRINE)

The word (doctrine) is #1319; it means instruction (the function or the information) doctrine, learning, teaching.

Where do we get our ((instruction)) or our ((information)) from the LORD? In the Bibles we read, and learn from, and teach from. Right?

That is our doctrine.

The time ((will come)) (future tense, as in today) when they will not endure sound doctrine but will turn from the truth as ( 2 Tim. 4:4) tells us.

If the KJB is that truth then all modern versions are causing many to turn from that truth.

( 1 Tim. 4:1) Tells us in the latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and ((doctrines of devils)) The latter times would be the time we live in right now, Right?

(doctrines) would be where we get our ((instruction)) from our God. It is the Bibles we use today.

So according to this verse some doctrines, or Bibles many use today would be doctrines of devils.

As for you saying ( Jer. 23:6) has nothing to do with Bible translations, I completely disagree.

Would you please explain what the meaning of that verse is if it has nothing to do with Bible translations?

I have provided Scripture with an explanation to everything I believe to be true on this subject as to show why I believe it to be the truth. We must keep Scripture in context to find the Truth, the above Scriptures are in context.

This is Not just my opinion Jesse.

Thank you again, and God Bless you.

TO ALL MOMS...HAVE A BLESSED & HAPPY MOMS DAY.!!! If you woke up, your breathing therefore your blessed & be happy knowing Jesus loves you.! Take a deep breath, relax, soak up His wisdom.. & spread the love.!

S Spencer Would that be the Holy Ghost which is the Comforter? ( Jn. 14:26)

I've got a question for you Spencer.

In a couple of verses it would seem the (Comforter) and the (Spirit of truth) could possibly be the same ( Jn. 14:16-17) and ( Jn. 15:26)

Then we have ( Jn. 15:27) and ( Jn. 16:13-15) which leads me to believe they are not the same.

What is the Spirit of truth?

Could it be the Words of the LORD?

Could it be the KJB?

And to your post about ( 1 Jn. 5:7), whether it belongs in the KJB or not?

If ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) is showing us how God used holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Ghost to translate the KJB then whatever is written in the KJB was, and is Inspired by God.

I believe the KJB is the only Bible translation that is Inspired by God. The prophecy came not in (old time), old time would be (1611) when the KJB (the prophecy) was translated (came) in the English language so it could be preached to all nations.

God worked through many men, prophets during the OT to keep His Words pure.

God came to the earth in a flesh body as Jesus Christ ( Jn. 1:1-3,14) Don't you think God would want EVERY WORD that He spoke ( Deut. 8:3) ( Prov. 30:5-6) ( Mt. 4:4) ( Mt. 24:35) to be translated perfectly into the language that would preach or publish His good news unto all nations? ( Mt. 24:14) and ( Mk. 13:10)

Thus (holy men of God spake (as they were moved) by the Holy Ghost) to keep His Words pure, unadulterated, uncontaminated, sound in doctrine in the translation of the KJB.

Modern versions have changed the words of the living God ( Jer. 23:36) the word (perverted) is #2015; it means to change.

I think today many people put to much faith in (men) being in control of the translations of ((all)) Bibles.

Clearly the Holy Ghost was in control in ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) who brought us the prophecy from old time.

I believe the Spirit of truth is the KJB.

This can be a really deep subject Spencer, but it is an important one.

Thank you for your post.

Blessings to you Spencer.

The Bible

There has been a great deal of dialogue on this site recently regarding the authority of various translations of the Bible. Following is my understanding and belief:

1. Every single word and phrase in the original Hebrew and Greek is exactly the word and phrase that God chose to be included as His Holy Word. In other words, God is the One and Only Author of the BiblePaul, Jeremiah, Mark, Isaiah, etc. were inspired scribes taking what can be characterized as "dictation" from God Himself. Any other view has the result of diminishing the absolute authority of the Bible, no matter how we would argue that point.

2. God has guided and preserved the manuscripts that we currently have, and that were used by the King James translators (maybe others) and are 100% faithful to the original Words of God Himself.

3. The job of the translator, while not inspired as the original scribes like Paul and Jeremiah, etc., is to be as faithful as possible to a WORD FOR WORD translation. This is why the King James translators used italics to represent words that they added in order to make the sentence structure flow more easily in the translation.

4. In the English language, God has graciously given us in recent times, concordances and interlinear Tools so that we can check out the King James translation with the original Hebrew and Greek. That is what was to be done by the churches, and anyone that claims to be a teacher of the Bible.

5. Unfortunately, Very little intensive serious Bible study has been done by the churches and denominations after establishing their initial confessions and creeds. Sadly, this is the reason there were and are so many different understandings of various doctrines being taught in the churches. The Bible has lost it's Authority in the churches.

6. God has sealed up certain truths in the Bible that are being revealed only in our day as we approach the end. Daniel 12:9

7.THE BIBLE ALONE AND IN ITS ENTIRETY IS THE WORD OF GOD.

I tried to be very careful when I say but he knows everything he created me he knew I was going to text you I've known about the Lord 1996 I remember they used to sell stickers 10 cents a piece pull the sticker off and I would put it on a phone booth it would say Jesus loves you I can say a lot good and bad I was always between feeding the spirit and being the flesh take the narrow road in life instead of the White road I was always in the middle but he's always been there I know that the last 10 years I took care of my son he's 18 he moved out no communication he knows about Jesus Christ but I'm 18 I don't have to listen to you anymore his mom found out she's in a nursing home I can't go there no more she's mad at me cuz my son moved out since those two people in my life are gone it's been a year I know I have Jesus Christ but I can't forget him you're stuck in my head so what's happening the light is fading now and I can't forgive myself I wish I would have done better for him please forgive me for all the text hopefully somebody sees his tax maybe they'll do better than me take care

All the bibles in the world cd accomplish what Jesus did at Calvary by his blood.....Thats y the father is saying if any man was not found written in the book of life he was cast in the lake of fire....Its the living word we need to focus on the book in the RIGHT hand of the father that Jesus wrote with his own blood at Calvary...That Book of life which is the New COVENANT....THE LIVING WORD....GTG GBU.....Bibles answer to the lesser light a night light....But nothin can grow at night...but mush rooms.

Its the book of life in the right hand of the Father that is the LIVING WORD Rev.5:1...Not the bible per se the written word....There are 2 lights...Jesus said are there not 12 hrs in the day and 12 hrs in the night...The lesser light and the greater light....The written word and the living word..And Jesus said that if we walk in the night ( the written word ) we are gonna stumble...But if we walk in the day the living word that Book in the right hand of the father....The Living word the H.G. that New covenant that Jesus gave us at Calvary in his blood which is the H.G. a living being we will not stumble....Thats what Israel did they walked in the written Word only the night but without the H.G....The living Word....And they stoned most all the Prophets and rejected the Christ the living Word....So they cd keep the Torah the written word the law....You are walking in the night if your salvation is by the written Word only....Real Faith can only come by the living word not by the written word....paper and ink...Even in the natural a woman cannot get pregnant by reading a book....She has to know her husband who has living seed....Jesus is our husband and his words, his seeds are SPIRIT AND LIFE.....Not paper and ink....Thats y Jesus has to know us which initiates FAITH....The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen a baby Christ.....Even in the natural when a woman is pregnant she has the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen the baby....But our new birth is by the seed of Jesus which is THE LIVING WORD....Today if you will hear his voice his words his seeds harden not your hearts ....Thats where the good seed is sown in our hearts ....Our Child is the H.G. the Child of Promise....As that which is born of the spirit is spirit the H.G....She brought forth a man child that is gonna rule all nations which is the H.G THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH...That New BORN Babe desiring the sincere milk of the word is the H.G. THE LIVING WORD...

From my research Assarat is in Niger West Africa that is were the biblical TEN TRIBES were taken and they still live there today by the Afara/Efara River ie the River Niger and Benue, called Euphrates by scholars. Another Bible verse that supports that the TEN TRIBES are in West Africa is 2 Kings 17:6;18:11 here the places the were deported were mentioned. Gozan(Gozange) is in Sokoto in Nigeria, Habor(Abor and Agbor) these two places are in Enugu/Delta state in Nigeria, Hala(Alala in Niger) , Medes/media(Maday in Cameroon). Another witness is Amos 5:27 which says Israel(TEN TRIBES) will be carried into Captivity to Damascus. Now Damasak is what the translators changed to Damascus and is located in Yobe and Borno,Nigeria. Zephaniah 3:10 also says the disperse are deyound/across the Rivers(Nile River) of Ethiopia/Cush. Across the Rivers of Ethiopa is in West Africa.

Hey S Spencer,

Well done, other verses have been not found in the original text as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I will not list the verses, and the one you covered in 1 John 5:7 used to support the Trinity. That doctrine has been discussed before and considered undiscussable by most and is taught that salvation is dependent on belief in it.

We can cut and divide verses or words like Jews and Gentiles, their meaning when they were written, and the meaning they have today. Jew was a slang word started in Babylon for people of the tribe of Judah, and Gentile meant nation or nations, not a person. Many other meanings of words from Hebrew, Greek, Greek mythology, and Latin translated into English.

As you ended with, the meaning and our understanding of scripture do not come from us, affected by our feelings, desires, and what we have been taught whether it was true or false. If we do not open our hearts and ears to hear and receive understanding given by God and the authority given to Jesus through the Holy Spirit our understanding may not be the Truth.

Thanks for your post.

God bless,

RLW

Amen Brother Chris.

That's my take on it as well.

That verse is true and holds up In the light of Scripture.

God bless you and all you do Brother.

Thank you brother S. Spencer for sharing that article. I have earlier read some arguments for & against the inclusion of this verse in the Bible, but certainly not as extensive as what you've presented here. As you probably know, I do use this 1 John 5:7 portion as a reference in support of the triunity of God as I believe there's no reason not to as it certainly doesn't negate any other portion of Scripture that speaks of the Nature of Jesus & the Holy Spirit within the Godhead. As well, other Bible translations have accepted this verse into their Bibles (e.g. NKJV, Douay-Rheims, LSV, Webster's, & YLT: all esteemed works). Even though this extensive research work has been done to show us how & when this verse was included in the KJV & others, for any of us to further argue the matter would be unfruitful, for lack of expertise. If someone believes that this verse is not to be read as part of the Bible, then they have some good reason for doing so. Likewise, I think it is equally a good reason to keep it & read it for no harm can come of it but good use made of it for both personal & ministry use & appreciation. Blessings.

The dangers of living in the past

Ecclesiastes 7:10 warns us about looking to how things were better in the old days. It is easy to be nostalgic about the glories of our youth but the truth is all are as a fading flower ( Isaiah 28:4); and we soon return to the dust from whence we came ( Ecclesiastes 12:7).

Taken to the utmost level; we can hold onto affections for those who have passed on who are not clearly followers of Christ and we risk being deceived by what is called familiar spirits; which is demons impersonating loved ones and somehow giving us comfort in what we assume is their presence. It is important to realize that in our fallen nature we are at risk for deception and must not put our confidence in the flesh. Our comfort in this world must not be due to material possessions; or anything else transient of this world. Ecclesiastes is a good book to read as to the conclusion of the matter is fearing God and keeping His commandments after the many things of vanity this world has to offer; surely Solomon would know having squandered his walk with God by doing things God warned against such as multiplying gold and silver and horses; marrying foreign wives; etc.

In the US today; we also can't expect the country to flourish as it did in the past. The only way that could happen is with a large scale revival and repentance would have to begin in the church. Being the last days; apostacy is to be expected and clearly after the brevity of the change of heart after September 11 2001 hearts have only hardened further. Our youth today and the state of the world in general is well on its way to the prophesied Tribulation. Should we have offspring or even a spouse that remains faithful to God is truly a blessing; but the contrary shouldn't lead us to assume we are unfaithful.

Hebrews 12:1 gives us good instruction on casting aside every weight and sin that is holding us back. Let us fix our eyes on things above ( Colossians 3:2).

please remember me and my family today in your prayers

Hi Sissy , be sure that no one here is offended . As far as I'm aware there is no mention of masturbation in the Bible . This includes in the law of Moses and in the ten commandments and list of sexual sins . If it was a sin I'm sure that God would have said so . I do not believe that masturbation is a sin . It's good for us Christians to try very hard to control ourselves and abstain from it as much as possible but we also need to remember that sexual desire is natural and God given , without it the human race would have died out very quickly . Romantic and sexual love between husband and wife is God given but many folks don't ever find the right partner and enjoy that part of life . Suppressing the natural desire can cause all kinds of problems , we see this most powerfully in the catholic church . So , for those who are just beginning to feel sexual urges and for those who never marry , masturbation is understandable and there is no scripture where God says it is a sin , if it was a sin He would say so loud and clear , He is not the author of confusion .

Page 2. Jimbob.

Yet, after writing all that, my main point in this refers to the accuracy of the KJB in Daniel 3:25. Disregarding the kings, even their beliefs, how does the LORD permit 'Son of God' to be written, yet allow 'spirit of the gods' in another passage? And we can't appeal to one king being moved by seeing a fourth being in the furnace (also Daniel 4:8,9), & the other king a non-believer speaking in Daniel 5:14. If the Bible is to reflect the Son & Spirit of God in these passages, then the wording must be consistent & not according to people's beliefs.

You wrote, "These were his gods. That explains why Belshazzar said "the spirit of the gods"". Then if this is true here, then it must be true in Daniel 3:25 (i.e. it should read 'son of the gods', since Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed what he knew at the time, that this being appeared to be a son (or angel) of one of his gods). As well, in Daniel 4:8,9, Nebuchadnezzar should not have then appealed to the 'spirit of his gods' if he believed that it was indeed the 'Son of God' in the furnace. Even if he was unsure about these divine manifestations, at least there should have been consistency with the KJB translators (either, 'Son & Spirit', or 'son & spirit). Here then is the inconsistency which hasn't been properly dealt with. Blessings.

Page 1.

Thank you Jimbob. I went through your comment & the Scriptures you provided & found no reason to fault it. Even where the Scripture shows that Nebuchadnezzar praised the God of Heaven, "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase" ( Daniel 4:37) can indicate that he turned aside completely from his gods to serve the Living God. Therefore, I remarked that one's belief to whether he fully believed in the True God, or just lifted Him up to a higher position in his mind & worship, remains 'one's personal interpretation of that passage'.

We don't get any further explanation or detail to show his disregarding his other gods. And why I bring this to question is that, from my personal knowledge of another similar religion that has a multiplicity of gods, as well as giving greater honor to one (or some) of them, they also don't have any problem in adding another god into that mix. When a Hindu hears of the True God & His Son, maybe even receiving some 'blessing' as a result of a Christian's message or prayers for them, they can often place an image of 'Jesus' alongside other images of their deities in their puja (worship) room in their home. They will definitely give praise & worship to Jesus, probably based on what they've received or hope to further gain, but clearly are far from true knowledge & saving faith & likely never to leave their other gods to serve the True One. You may well be correct that the king truly believed, but that matter in my mind, remains open to where his heart truly was, given his position & power in an idolatrous society; in other words, how long can a regent last who commands that only the God of Heaven be worshiped by all his subjects?

Jesse thank you for your response and for the correction, no need for a repost. You said "One thing I notice in the words "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost' are the words "spake" and "were". Peter is showing past tense, not future tense. So it makes more sense to believe that Peter was speaking of the prophets and the apostles, not the KJ translators.

I really don't understand your logic here Jesse.

These verses are prophecy that's why they are shown to be past tense. Also the book of Peter was written around 30 years BEFORE the book of Revelation was. There were still books of the Bible in the Greek language to be written when Peter wrote those words. So all the books of the New Testament were nowhere close to being put together as a complete book at that time.

When the book of Peter was written they had the Originals in the Hebrew manuscripts, but there was no New Testament until they were all translated into one book. As you said there were Bibles before the KJB. I wouldn't think those are the Inspired Word of God, for reason of the distribution of those Bibles. God is in control of His Word being spread throughout the world. The KJB is over 400 years old and popular worldwide. Those older versions are nowhere to be seen by ordinary people unless maybe you search for them.

You said "The true inspired word of God was already in existence when the KJB was published".

But it was not put together in a book as we have today until the translations of the first Bibles were done.

You are close to being, if not a Greek scholar Jesse so the words in the Greek language are very important to you, Right?

Why do you ignore the word (perverted) in the Hebrew language meaning ((to change)) in ( Jer. 23:36) As someone is changing ((the words)) of the living God?

And as for me knowing what the KJB translators were thinking, you know I couldn't tell you that.

Maybe p2 tomorrow. Thank you, It is good to have these conversations.

God Bless you.

Sorry about this question,I didn't know it would go into a chat room. The reasoning for this question is I'm trying to teach my niece and my daughter's cousin about sel-pleasure,and they ask where it says in the bible,I didn't know where to find it,so I thought I would ask. Again sorry about the question if it offended anyone my apologies. Don't need an answer I have already found where.

XXI. OF THE GRACE OF TITHING AND GIVING

I believe God's plan of finance for His Baptist Church's is to be tithes and offerings. Scriptural giving is one of the fundamentals of the faith. I believe that every Believer, as a steward of that portion of God's wealth entrusted to him or her, is obligated to support his or her Baptist Church financially. I believe that God has established the tithe as a basis of giving but that every Believer should also give other offerings sacrificially and cheerfully to the support of his or her Baptist Church for the relief of those in need, and the spread of the Gospel. I believe that Church members are commanded to bring their tithes and offerings into the Storehouse (Common Treasury) of their Baptist Church upon the first day of the week (Sunday). I believe that a Believer relinquishes all rights to direct the use of the tithe or offering once the gift has been made. I believe under grace we give, and do not pay, the tithe - "Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all." "Abraham GAVE the tenth part of the spoils," and this was four hundred years before the Law, and is confirmed in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Himself said concerning the tithe, "... these ought ye to have done ..." ( Genesis 14:20; Leviticus 27:30; Proverbs 3:9, 10; Malachi 3:10; Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42; Acts 4:34, 35, 37; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 9:6, 7; Galatians 6:6; Ephesians 4:28; 1 Timothy 5:17, 18; Hebrews 7:2, 4; 1 John 3:17).

When studying the Bible have you ever wondered what causes or perhaps WHO might cause you to recognize what seems to be a error in the scripture or translation?

There's no perfect translation.

Part 7.

These words are also lacking in all of the ancient translations of the New Testament. The only exception to this is Latin. However, the oldest Latin manuscripts do not contain this passage. In the manuscripts which do have them we find that the wording is different.

Add to this, there is no evidence of this verse in the writings of early Christians who commented on this book of Scripture. Neither do we find it cited in any of the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century. If it existed at this time it is inconceivable as to why it was not cited in the debates. Indeed, it would seem to settle the issue.

Thus, this particular verse should not be used as support for the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. However, we must emphasize that the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on this verse alone. Indeed, there is sufficient evidence in Scripture for the Trinity doctrine without appealing to 1 John 5:7. Therefore, it is best to ignore this verse in discussions about this subject.

Article by Don Stewart.

The word of God is inspired by God.

There's human error in translating from one language to another but those errors doesn't thwart God's plan or message to the world.

God's message to us doesn't hinge on one verse! It's integrated!

Nor does it depends on the perfection of Man.

God can use a prophet like Balaam and a talking Donkey to bring his word.

Again the King James is the bible I use and believe it is very accurate but not perfect.

What's important is to get and know the truth out of what is accurate.

God bless.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 6.

How Did This Verse Get into Certain Printed Texts?

There is one final question. If these words were not original with John then how did they become included in certain Latin manuscripts of First John? What led to their inclusion? While nobody knows for certain the best answer seems to be that they were placed as a marginal note in some early Latin manuscripts. Later, certain Latin copyists then placed them into the text of First John. Eventually, in the sixteenth century, they came to be viewed as part of the original text by some in the church. Yet, as we have seen, there is no real evidence that these were the words John originally composed.

Whatever the case may be, the evidence for their placement as part of First John is sadly lacking. Trinitarians should not cite this verse to support their case. Indeed, the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is overwhelming without quoting this passage.

For one thing, these words are missing from all of the ancient manuscripts of First John. The manuscripts of First John which have this particular verse are few and they are very late. Indeed, the earliest is from the fourteen century. Even this manuscript does not read the same as the text that we find in the King James Version. The earliest manuscript that reads exactly the same as we find it in the King James Bible comes from the sixteenth century. In other words, there is no real evidence that these words were part of the text of First John.

In addition, only nine Greek manuscripts of First John contain this verse. Furthermore, only five of them have it in the text while the other four have it written in the margin. Because of the lack of evidence for its inclusion, almost all textual scholars reject it as being original with John. Thus, the external evidence is just not there.

See Part 7.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 5.

It is missing from the writings of Christians such as Irenaeus (died about A.D. 200), Clement (died about A.D. 210), Tertullian (who died around A.D. 220) and Athanasius (who died in A.D. 373). If this verse were found in the text of First John it would have been the primary verse used in these debates but it was never cited!

OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

After looking at the facts surrounding the inclusion of these disputed words in First John we can make the following observations:

1. THIS VERSE DOES NOT BELONG IN SCRIPTURE.

Although this verse clearly does teach the doctrine of the Trinity, as we have seen, there is serious question as to whether it belongs in Holy Scripture. Indeed, the evidence for its inclusion in the New Testament is almost nil. In fact, almost every modern translation of Scripture, with good reason, rejects its authority. We should make the same conclusion.

2. REJECTION OF THIS PASSAGE IS NOT A REJECTION OF THE TRINITY

Contrary to what some have written and said, the rejection of this verse has nothing to do with any conspiracy to keep the Deity of Christ, or the Trinity, out of the Bible. The reason for its rejection is the lack of evidence for its inclusion; it is not some sinister plot to remove parts of God's Word. Indeed, an objective look at the evidence would lead one to conclude that these words were not part of the original text of First John.

3. IT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ARGUE FOR THE TRINITY

Consequently, this verse should not be used in discussion about the Trinity. As we have repeatedly emphasized, there is sufficient evidence in the Scripture to support the doctrine of the Trinity without appealing to these words in 1 John 5:7. The Trinity doctrine does not depend upon this verse. It never has. This must be understood.

See Part 6.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 4

In addition, the way text reads in this particular manuscript is different from the Greek text which was used in translating the King James Version. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscript which reads exactly as the text which was used to translate this verse in the King James Bible is from the sixteenth century!

Furthermore, these few Greek manuscripts which contain the reading in the text are not actually copies of the Greek text but rather translations of the Latin text into Greek. Therefore, they are not independent witnesses to the original Greek text.

In other words, the manuscript evidence for the inclusion of this verse is just not there. This is the main reason as to why these words are not placed in the text of First John.

2. THIS PASSAGE IS MISSING FROM ALL ANCIENT VERSIONS

There are more problems with this passage. Indeed, the words in question are missing from all of the ancient translations, or versions, of the New Testament. This includes the following languages: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. The only exception to this is Latin. While the words in dispute are found in certain Latin manuscripts they are not found in the oldest ones. This is important to realize. The words did begin to become part of the Latin text of First John until about the fifth century. Even so, the wording of the passage was different than what became the basis for the King James Version.



3. THE PASSAGE WAS NEVER CITED IN THE TRINITARIAN DEBATES

There is something else which must be appreciated. If this verse was actually part of First John, it is inconceivable that it would not have been used in the Trinitarian debates of the fourth century. However, it is never cited, by either side, as reference to the Trinity.

See part 5.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 3.

Since these disputed words appeared in the later editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament, as well as other printed Greek texts immediately after his time, including Beza's, they were used as the basis for the English translation in First John. Thus, we find these words in 1 John 5:7 which describe the various members of the Trinity as well as testifying that they are "one." In brief, this explains how the words became part of the English Bible.

However, this is not the end of the story. When an authorized revision was made of the King James Version in 1880 these words in First John were omitted. Almost all English translations since that time do not have these words as part of the text. The reasons can be stated as follows:

Why This Passage Is Rejected?

There are a number of reasons as to why this passage is rejected as being part of Holy Scripture. We can simply state them as follows:

1. THE PASSAGE IS FOUND IN ONLY A FEW LATE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS

Since the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Greek manuscripts are our primary means of reconstructing the original text. The main reason for doubting these words were originally composed by John is the fact that they are only found in a few Greek manuscripts. Furthermore, as we examine these few manuscripts which do contain this passage we find that there are serious questions as to its authenticity.

Indeed, of the over three hundred Greek manuscripts which contain First John we find that only nine of them have this verse listed. Yet, of the nine, four of them have the verse in the margin while only five have it in the actual text.

There is more. These five manuscripts which do have this verse in the text are very late. None of the early manuscripts of First John contain it. Indeed, the first Greek manuscript that contains this verse in the actual text of First John comes from the fourteen century.

See part 4.

There's no perfect translation

Part 2.

Earlier printed versions of the New Testament were in Latin. Thus, the copying to the text of the New Testament covered some fifteen centuries.

How the Verses Became Part of the Printed Greek Text and King James Bible.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, a man named Erasmus was the first to publish a printed Greek text of the New Testament. In putting together the text for this edition, Erasmus consulted all of the Greek manuscripts which he could find. In the Greek manuscripts of First John which Erasmus examined, these words about the Trinity were not found. Consequently, his first printed edition of his Greek New Testament, issued in 1516, did not contain these words. This omission caused a real problem among the people of that day since these words were found in the Latin text with which they were familiar. Erasmus defended himself by saying that these words were absent from the Greek texts which he had consulted and thus should not be placed into the text of the New Testament.

When Erasmus issued a second printed edition of his Greek New Testament it too was without these words in First John 5:7. However, before his third edition of the Greek New Testament was issued in 1521 a Greek manuscript was found which did contain this disputed passage. The problem was that this particular manuscript was actually composed around 1520! Yet, to quell the uproar caused by the omission of these words, Erasmus placed them in the third edition of his Greek New Testament. This reading remained in all future editions of Erasmus' printed text.

This printed Greek text of Erasmus was basically the same text used by the translators of the King James Bible in 1611. It appears that the Greek text which the translators of the King James Version most relied upon was the 5th edition of the printed text of Theodore Beza. This was issued in 1598. This text is similar, but not exactly the same as that of Erasmus.

See Part 3.

There's no perfect translation.

Part 1

There is a passage in the New Testament that seems to be an extraordinarily clear statement about the doctrine of the Trinity, 1 John 5:7. To many, the question as to the existence of the Trinity is settled by this verse.

What Does 1 John 5:7 Say?

First John 5:7 reads as follows in the King James Version:

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

The way this verse reads in the King James Version is a clear description of the Trinity. Indeed, it says that there are three that bear witness or bear record in heaven. These three are the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. In addition, it says that these three are one. Why then, is there any controversy about this issue of the doctrine of the Trinity? These words could not be clearer!

The Problem Stated

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Indeed, there has been a question about the authenticity of this passage. We will give a brief history of the problem as well as make some observations.

The New Testament Documents Were Originally Written in Greek

To begin with, we must note that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek. When they were first composed each of them were written upon perishable material. Immediately, copies were made of these original writings (called the autographs). These hand-written copies of the Greek autographs, called manuscripts, were then copied and recopied.

By the middle of the second century A.D., the books of the New Testament began to be translated and then copied into languages other than Greek. This hand-copying of the text in Greek, as well as in these other languages, continued until the invention of the printing press (about 1450). Furthermore, even some time after the printing press was invented the text was still copied by hand. In fact, it was not until the sixteenth century (1516) that a Greek New Testament was printed and published.