Double Standards of KJV Onlyists - Erasmus' gay - sounding letters, King James' homosexuality
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why some KJVO's sometimes get involved in this kind of argument because it started by critics of the KJV. As a response, a KJVO has more thorough research and weighty evidence than those who criticize the KJV. These and that are open to dislike or hatred against the words of God. Almost new English versions of the Bible or Textual critics nowadays are entirely leaning on Wescott and Hort theory. This adaptation adopts the heresies to their own peril. Imagine Hort's belief on the Textus Receptus and thought it as villainous, he would have rather have the books of Darwin investigated rather than the scripture. The link is a digitized Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort.
https://archive.org/details/lifelettershort00hortuoft/page/210
https://archive.org/details/lifelettershort00hortuoft/page/416
https://archive.org/details/lifelettershort00hortuoft/page/210
https://archive.org/details/lifelettershort00hortuoft/page/416
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Even when a stutterer stutters, they usually don't stutter on every sentence. 
The context of Isaiah 28:11 is God speaking His word with stammering lips and another tongue. So unless you think God has TWO SETS of words, one that's stuttered and one that's not, then yes Isaiah 28:11 DOES apply to the bible as a whole.
The context of Isaiah 28:11 is God speaking His word with stammering lips and another tongue. So unless you think God has TWO SETS of words, one that's stuttered and one that's not, then yes Isaiah 28:11 DOES apply to the bible as a whole.
-
1
- Show all
I've already discussed this on other threads.
Even if Mark 16:9-20 is canonical (and I am convicted that it is not), it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.
However, it can be effectively used to teach the denial of the bodily resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses use the "different form" phrase to do this.
Additionally, it has been used to promote charismatic excesses, including drinking poison and snake handling, even though several within their ranks have been maimed or killed as a result of their "faith" in this regard.
By the way, I understand they refrigerate the poisonous snakes prior to handling them to make them sluggish..guess they don't have THAT much faith
In fact, I think charismatics are more likely to be KJV Only because it emphasizes their doctrines.
Even if Mark 16:9-20 is canonical (and I am convicted that it is not), it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.
However, it can be effectively used to teach the denial of the bodily resurrection. Jehovah's Witnesses use the "different form" phrase to do this.
Additionally, it has been used to promote charismatic excesses, including drinking poison and snake handling, even though several within their ranks have been maimed or killed as a result of their "faith" in this regard.
By the way, I understand they refrigerate the poisonous snakes prior to handling them to make them sluggish..guess they don't have THAT much faith
In fact, I think charismatics are more likely to be KJV Only because it emphasizes their doctrines.
-
1
- Show all
Well, unrelated to the topic, but one site that was listed in the opening post shed more light on David and Jonathan's relationship for me. I've never believed for a second that it was a gay relationship, although it did always sound a bit off. But even though it's unusual for our culture for two males to bond closely, male friendships were much more affectionate in some epochs in the past, and yet that's all they were: friendships. It was nice and reassuring to see some proof of that... Not in every culture and time was mutual male affection gay like in ancient Greece. It looks like the OP did not really read themselves what they linked, because the site speaks convincingly in defense of Erasmus. (Btw, I am not a KJV-onlyist.) Thanks for the informative post.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I really don't want to get into this whole quagmire about the KJV,
but I do want to make a point about ad hominem arguments...
we want to use this concept with a great deal of care and prudence.
Thinking Carefully:
An ad hominem is an informal fallacy.
In most cases, the existence of an informal fallacy only proves bad logic in reaching a conclusion, it does not actually prove the conclusion is false.
The existence of an informal fallacy, usually, only proves the conclusion is NOT PROVEN by the premise... the conclusion does not necessarily follow based only on the premise.
So we should be careful in how we use these terms.
The existence of an ad hominem is not proof the conclusion is false, it is only proof that the conclusion does not follow based on that premise. The conclusion is unproven.
So, it might in fact be true that certain translators of the NIV were this or that, and because of that, they might well of injected errors into the text.
That could be true.
The existence of an ad hominem does not remove the conclusion from the realm of possibility.
The existence of an ad hominem merely shows that such a conclusion is not proven.
Pointing out an ad hominem doesn't necessarily prove the other person is wrong.
It only proves the other person is using bad logic, and they haven't PROVEN anything.
Bad Logic:
- If I say, "The NIV MUST contain errors BECAUSE some of the translators were bad people", then this would be a logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
(We cannot KNOW the truth of a propositions based ONLY upon the character of the person stating the proposition. This does not logically follow. Or in this particular case, we cannot KNOW, with certainty, something is translated badly only on the basis of the person's character. We could logically assume that all kinds of terrible people around the world, on a daily basis, translate all kinds of things just fine. Since all men are sinners, if the mere presence of sin made translation impossible, then no one, anywhere, could ever translate anything.)
Good Logic:
- If I say, "The NIV MAY contain errors, and MAY BE suspect in places, BECAUSE some of the translators were bad people", this would NOT constitute a logical fallacy.
(To say "it may", is also to imply "it may not." So this cannot be a logical fallacy because it isn't making a commitment to any necessary logical conclusion; it is merely making a commitment to "skeptical concern." In this case, my worries may turn out to be unnecessary, but it is not a logical error to merely commit yourself to skepticism when you have some warrant for skepticism.)
Difference between Wisdom & Logical Fallacy:
- If we examine a person's character to ascertain what we feel is "likely", that does not constitute a logical fallacy. And if our assessment is based in scripture, this might very well constitute a great deal of wisdom.
A. Logical Fallacy: It is a logical fallacy to say a thing MUST ONLY BE one certain way, when we CANNOT PROVE it MUST ONLY BE that way. However, it is NOT a logical fallacy to asses "likely outcomes." This is a different category. It is NOT a logical fallacy to asses a person's character and then use that to determine "likely outcomes." Why? Because commiting ourselves to a "likely" outcome is not to commit ourselves to a necessary outcome... we are considering likely outcomes, not drawing definite conclusions.
To say a thing is "likely" is not the same as saying a thing "must be."
B. Wisdom: It is wise to assess a person's character and assess "likely" outcomes based on their character. This is just being wise. This is Biblical.
Example #1: if you let a crackhead babysit your 4-year-old, it is very "likely" that something could go amiss.
Example #2: If you drive your car while so intoxicated you can't walk straight, it is very "likely" something bad will result.
You MIGHT drive your car drunk and get home safely. But we woudn't consider this prudent. I have no way to logically prove you'll get into an accident, because drunk driving doesn't necessarily lead to the singular outcome of accidents. Nonetheless, it is "likely" that drunk driving will have a very bad outcome. So we still need to assess this thing, and draw conclusions we feel are "prudent" based upon "likely outcomes."
We should always be logical and rational.
But it actually IS rational to look at a person's character and consider "likely outcomes."
So we have to be cautious in talking about ad hominem arguments: although we do NOT want to use ad hominems to try and prove anything... we actually DO want to think about a persons' character and the reasonable outcomes which might result.
Conclusion:
1. I could personally care less about the NIV translators... I have no dog is this race.
2. However, I think that Christians all do well to be thinking carefully about things.
3. We don't want to use ad hominems to "prove" our arguments... because they don't prove anything. They don't prove anything, and they're often just vicious and meaningless. It is a TERRIBLE way to argue.
4. However, we also don't want to swerve so far in the opposite direction that we lose sight of Biblical truth. We ARE to examines people's character, and then use this information to asses "likely" or "reasonable" outcomes... this is to be biblical and wise.
Example: if you let a crackhead babysit your 4-year-old, it is very "likely" that something could go amiss.
5. Sometimes, on both ends of an argument, we just need to remain careful. We don't want to push any position into a place that accidentally becomes either illogical or unbiblical. We always need to proceed with care.
Alright, continue with the bloodshed.
I'm getting out of here, lol.
.
but I do want to make a point about ad hominem arguments...
we want to use this concept with a great deal of care and prudence.
Thinking Carefully:
An ad hominem is an informal fallacy.
In most cases, the existence of an informal fallacy only proves bad logic in reaching a conclusion, it does not actually prove the conclusion is false.
The existence of an informal fallacy, usually, only proves the conclusion is NOT PROVEN by the premise... the conclusion does not necessarily follow based only on the premise.
So we should be careful in how we use these terms.
The existence of an ad hominem is not proof the conclusion is false, it is only proof that the conclusion does not follow based on that premise. The conclusion is unproven.
So, it might in fact be true that certain translators of the NIV were this or that, and because of that, they might well of injected errors into the text.
That could be true.
The existence of an ad hominem does not remove the conclusion from the realm of possibility.
The existence of an ad hominem merely shows that such a conclusion is not proven.
Pointing out an ad hominem doesn't necessarily prove the other person is wrong.
It only proves the other person is using bad logic, and they haven't PROVEN anything.
Bad Logic:
- If I say, "The NIV MUST contain errors BECAUSE some of the translators were bad people", then this would be a logical fallacy, an ad hominem argument.
(We cannot KNOW the truth of a propositions based ONLY upon the character of the person stating the proposition. This does not logically follow. Or in this particular case, we cannot KNOW, with certainty, something is translated badly only on the basis of the person's character. We could logically assume that all kinds of terrible people around the world, on a daily basis, translate all kinds of things just fine. Since all men are sinners, if the mere presence of sin made translation impossible, then no one, anywhere, could ever translate anything.)
Good Logic:
- If I say, "The NIV MAY contain errors, and MAY BE suspect in places, BECAUSE some of the translators were bad people", this would NOT constitute a logical fallacy.
(To say "it may", is also to imply "it may not." So this cannot be a logical fallacy because it isn't making a commitment to any necessary logical conclusion; it is merely making a commitment to "skeptical concern." In this case, my worries may turn out to be unnecessary, but it is not a logical error to merely commit yourself to skepticism when you have some warrant for skepticism.)
Difference between Wisdom & Logical Fallacy:
- If we examine a person's character to ascertain what we feel is "likely", that does not constitute a logical fallacy. And if our assessment is based in scripture, this might very well constitute a great deal of wisdom.
A. Logical Fallacy: It is a logical fallacy to say a thing MUST ONLY BE one certain way, when we CANNOT PROVE it MUST ONLY BE that way. However, it is NOT a logical fallacy to asses "likely outcomes." This is a different category. It is NOT a logical fallacy to asses a person's character and then use that to determine "likely outcomes." Why? Because commiting ourselves to a "likely" outcome is not to commit ourselves to a necessary outcome... we are considering likely outcomes, not drawing definite conclusions.
To say a thing is "likely" is not the same as saying a thing "must be."
B. Wisdom: It is wise to assess a person's character and assess "likely" outcomes based on their character. This is just being wise. This is Biblical.
Example #1: if you let a crackhead babysit your 4-year-old, it is very "likely" that something could go amiss.
Example #2: If you drive your car while so intoxicated you can't walk straight, it is very "likely" something bad will result.
You MIGHT drive your car drunk and get home safely. But we woudn't consider this prudent. I have no way to logically prove you'll get into an accident, because drunk driving doesn't necessarily lead to the singular outcome of accidents. Nonetheless, it is "likely" that drunk driving will have a very bad outcome. So we still need to assess this thing, and draw conclusions we feel are "prudent" based upon "likely outcomes."
We should always be logical and rational.
But it actually IS rational to look at a person's character and consider "likely outcomes."
So we have to be cautious in talking about ad hominem arguments: although we do NOT want to use ad hominems to try and prove anything... we actually DO want to think about a persons' character and the reasonable outcomes which might result.
Conclusion:
1. I could personally care less about the NIV translators... I have no dog is this race.
2. However, I think that Christians all do well to be thinking carefully about things.
3. We don't want to use ad hominems to "prove" our arguments... because they don't prove anything. They don't prove anything, and they're often just vicious and meaningless. It is a TERRIBLE way to argue.
4. However, we also don't want to swerve so far in the opposite direction that we lose sight of Biblical truth. We ARE to examines people's character, and then use this information to asses "likely" or "reasonable" outcomes... this is to be biblical and wise.
Example: if you let a crackhead babysit your 4-year-old, it is very "likely" that something could go amiss.
5. Sometimes, on both ends of an argument, we just need to remain careful. We don't want to push any position into a place that accidentally becomes either illogical or unbiblical. We always need to proceed with care.
Alright, continue with the bloodshed.
I'm getting out of here, lol.
.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
POINT:
My point above, in post #87, was NOT to debate the topic of this thread.
My point was a warning toward general prudence.
Although we SHOULD NOT use ad hominems to try to prove anything, and they're often just nasty and vicious.. we SHOULD, as Christians, STILL go about assessing people's character, and the likely outcomes which may result.
We ARE to take a good look at people, and come up with reasonable expectations.
We CAN judge people in the particular sense of "discerning" right and wrong.
We can be both LOGICAL, and BIBLICALLY PRUDENT, at the same time... and we should.
This was my only point.
God Bless.
.
My point above, in post #87, was NOT to debate the topic of this thread.
My point was a warning toward general prudence.
Although we SHOULD NOT use ad hominems to try to prove anything, and they're often just nasty and vicious.. we SHOULD, as Christians, STILL go about assessing people's character, and the likely outcomes which may result.
We ARE to take a good look at people, and come up with reasonable expectations.
We CAN judge people in the particular sense of "discerning" right and wrong.
We can be both LOGICAL, and BIBLICALLY PRUDENT, at the same time... and we should.
This was my only point.
God Bless.
.
-
1
- Show all
The KJV is almost identical to Tyndale's version, and very similar to other 16th century versions, of which there are several.
I assure you, God was not thinking "KJV" when He spoke those words to Israel 2500 YEARS before the KJV was printed.
I respect your choice of the KJV, but please, don't use patently ridiculous arguments to defend it.
I assure you, God was not thinking "KJV" when He spoke those words to Israel 2500 YEARS before the KJV was printed.
I respect your choice of the KJV, but please, don't use patently ridiculous arguments to defend it.
This argument was not started by someone criticizing the KJV, but by someone criticizing the double standards of KJV-only advocates.
It is amazing to me that so many people can't grasp that simple distinction. One would think that readers of the KJV might have greater reading comprehension than the rest of us, not lesser.
It is amazing to me that so many people can't grasp that simple distinction. One would think that readers of the KJV might have greater reading comprehension than the rest of us, not lesser.
I appreciate that. You have an issue with not accepting when you are wrong.
That's quite unfortunate as is your thinking you can tell someone when they may speak.
Unbiased evidence? I appreciate the humor of that given the theme of the OP is all that and more. Thank you at least for the comedic relief after your very unfortunate reply.
That's quite unfortunate as is your thinking you can tell someone when they may speak.
Unbiased evidence? I appreciate the humor of that given the theme of the OP is all that and more. Thank you at least for the comedic relief after your very unfortunate reply.
At this point I would hope my sisters and brothers in Christ are asking themselves question or two. At least I have. Why would one member constantly criticize our faith, sacred texts, verses, and now pursue the King James Bible and those who prefer that translation on the paper thin premise KJV only Christians are hypocrites? A less than loving accusation in itself.
Who benefits? Qui Bono, literally means, "As a benefit to whom" .
Those who would like to learn about the KJV version and its history I would with respect suggest the following. And please consider, if you've read this thread bearing no good fruits intention at its inception and to this point of page 5 and beyond, you would benefit greatly if you would invest equal or more time in reading what we should all be focused on as people of our Lord. That which nourishes our spirit and feeds our intellect and community of Holy Spirit filled faithful.
Nourish yourself with good food and you will prosper in health. Nourish yourself with positive affirming spiritual posts and you will prosper in communication one among another. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. " The Book of Proverbs chapter 4 verse 23.
Just my thought.
If you are what has been called, as if it is a bad thing, a KJV Onlyist, be not insulted or concerned you may be wrong about that preferred version. There's a reason it is one of if not the best translation.
Dr. Wallace is an American professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary as well as the founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. He's not "biased". He's highly educated. God bless him.
(copied from the site linked to this title) Summary Why The King James Version Is Superior To All Modern English Translations
Bible History - Erasmus
If you love to read your KJV Bible, be glad of it. The greatest power anywhere at all inspired what is written. Thank God for the Bible and the printing press. One of the signs of Jesus second coming is that of His words reaching the whole world so as to deliver the blessed grace filled Good News of eternal Salvation and Redemption from sins. And with the Internet reaching the world is even more likely.
God is love! Why would His people thrive on conflict? Or seek to generate it concerning all things that matter to our faith.
Stay in the Light.
Who benefits? Qui Bono, literally means, "As a benefit to whom" .
Those who would like to learn about the KJV version and its history I would with respect suggest the following. And please consider, if you've read this thread bearing no good fruits intention at its inception and to this point of page 5 and beyond, you would benefit greatly if you would invest equal or more time in reading what we should all be focused on as people of our Lord. That which nourishes our spirit and feeds our intellect and community of Holy Spirit filled faithful.
Nourish yourself with good food and you will prosper in health. Nourish yourself with positive affirming spiritual posts and you will prosper in communication one among another. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. " The Book of Proverbs chapter 4 verse 23.
Just my thought.
If you are what has been called, as if it is a bad thing, a KJV Onlyist, be not insulted or concerned you may be wrong about that preferred version. There's a reason it is one of if not the best translation.
(copied from the site linked to this title) Summary Why The King James Version Is Superior To All Modern English Translations
- The New Testament is based on the best Greek manuscript, Textus Receptus. Modern English translations are based on manuscripts that were older and appeared in better shape, but only because they were not used because of many errors found in them. (Webmaster's paraphrase)
- It had the most spiritual translators, real believing translators, and therefore the most spiritual and correct translation.
- It's the best known, the most widespread and the most recognisable.--And if you quote it, most people will recognise it and know you're quoting them the Bible.
- It has been time-tested for nearly 400 years, and if you accept what it says and obey it, it works!
- It was written at the time the English language was spoken and used in its most perfect form.
- The English of the King James Version isn't nearly as hard to follow as its critics say. In fact, it is in general written in a much simpler vocabulary, with a higher percentage of one and two-syllable words, than almost any of the modern translations. The King James Version, in fact, is almost universally acknowledged as the greatest of all masterpieces of English literature.
- It is no longer copyrighted, meaning anybody can reprint it, copy it or publish it and they don't have to pay a copyright fee.
- The King James Version was not just the work of one man, but the work of a very large conference of the best men of God in England, and every problem was worked out by God's inspiration and the majority opinion.
- The translators decided not to add footnotes and explanatory notes, preferring to let the Word speak for itself.
Bible History - Erasmus
If you love to read your KJV Bible, be glad of it. The greatest power anywhere at all inspired what is written. Thank God for the Bible and the printing press.
One of the signs of Jesus second coming is that of His words reaching the whole world so as to deliver the blessed grace filled Good News of eternal Salvation and Redemption from sins. And with the Internet reaching the world is even more likely. God is love! Why would His people thrive on conflict? Or seek to generate it concerning all things that matter to our faith.
Stay in the Light.
-
1
- Show all
Happy to help you. God bless.
Bible Researcher
The Johannine Comma
(1 John 5:7-8)
The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):
After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities.
(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.
God bless.Bible Researcher
The Johannine Comma
(1 John 5:7-8)
The so-called Johannine Comma (also called the Comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in 1 John 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. In these editions the verses appear thus (we put backets around the extra words):
ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation: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.
These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.
From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts. All scholars consider it to be spurious, and it is not included in modern critical editions of the Greek text, or in the English versions based upon them. For example, the English Standard Version reads:For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
We give below the comments of Dr. Bruce M. Metzger on 1 John 5:7-8, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
- 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
- 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
- 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
- 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
- 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
- 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
- 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
- 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities.
(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "I. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible," in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458-463.