where does it say in bible Jesus said hes God???
- Thread starter Ahmed_Shehzad
- 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.
S
The problem with using that verse is that it is questionable. Only one manuscript reflected that reading. This is a well known issue. It has nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture, and is a King James translation issue.
I realize KJVers will argue that point but facts are facts. Erasmus only included it under pressure from the Catholic church and one manuscript which was apparently doctored to reflect that rendering.
It doesn't matter anyways because the Trinity can be proved systematically. The Bible is clear on the Oneness of God, the fact that the Three Persons are God, and the fact that they are distinct Persons. Multiple Scriptures support this.
I realize KJVers will argue that point but facts are facts. Erasmus only included it under pressure from the Catholic church and one manuscript which was apparently doctored to reflect that rendering.
It doesn't matter anyways because the Trinity can be proved systematically. The Bible is clear on the Oneness of God, the fact that the Three Persons are God, and the fact that they are distinct Persons. Multiple Scriptures support this.
S
It does?
My understanding is that it teaches against ascribing any "helpers" to Allah.
As a sidenote, the Quran has a mixed up idea of what Christians believe regarding the Trinity. It teaches that we believe the Trinity is God, Mary and Christ, and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I guess Allah is not omniscient as he didn't know what Christians teach in that regard.
My understanding is that it teaches against ascribing any "helpers" to Allah.
As a sidenote, the Quran has a mixed up idea of what Christians believe regarding the Trinity. It teaches that we believe the Trinity is God, Mary and Christ, and not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I guess Allah is not omniscient as he didn't know what Christians teach in that regard.
Ok, so if I accept this..............that means that God surely is not who He is portrayed to be in Scripture. For if He could not prevent His Written Word from being perverted, how can He be? Able to create the heavens and earth and all that ever was, is, or ever will be, but not able to keep His Written Word from being perverted?
Ok................
Ok................
Ok, so if I accept this..............that means that God surely is not who He is portrayed to be in Scripture. For if He could not prevent His Written Word from being perverted, how can He be? Able to create the heavens and earth and all that ever was, is, or ever will be, but not able to keep His Written Word from being perverted?
Ok................
Ok................
Really? Why? If I accept the premise that the Gospel of John is corrupt and not the Inspired Word of God, then how can I accept any other part of the Bible?
If the Gospel of John is false, then it all is false.
About four years ago was the first time I became aware of a movement/group of people who detested the Gospel of John and proclaimed it to be the reason for all the disputations over Scripture. Much like those who denounce the Apostle Paul, there are those who denounce the Gospel of John.
And my assertion holds truth. Is God able to preserve His Written Word or not? If not, then wait............WUT?
If the Gospel of John is false, then it all is false.
About four years ago was the first time I became aware of a movement/group of people who detested the Gospel of John and proclaimed it to be the reason for all the disputations over Scripture. Much like those who denounce the Apostle Paul, there are those who denounce the Gospel of John.
And my assertion holds truth. Is God able to preserve His Written Word or not? If not, then wait............WUT?
You cannot deny the fact that manuscript inconsistencies exist. To suggest that this calls the integrity of God into question seems rather silly. The manuscript evidence in support of 1John 5:7-8 is the poorest of any other NT passage. This does not however mean that it was not part of the original text nor does it mean that it was. In either case, what these two verses teach is supported by other scripture so we can be assured of the reliability of their content.
Gill's Exposition:
For there are three that bear record in heaven
That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius [SUP]F26[/SUP], in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius [SUP]F1[/SUP] about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian [SUP]F2[/SUP], in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian [SUP]F3[/SUP] about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,
(found here)
[h=3]1 John 5:7 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of...[/h]
That's more than good enough for me.............and the fact that I FULLY BELIEVE God will preserve His Word.
For there are three that bear record in heaven
That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius [SUP]F26[/SUP], in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius [SUP]F1[/SUP] about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian [SUP]F2[/SUP], in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian [SUP]F3[/SUP] about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,
(found here)
[h=3]1 John 5:7 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of...[/h]
That's more than good enough for me.............and the fact that I FULLY BELIEVE God will preserve His Word.
P
The problem with using that verse is that it is questionable. Only one manuscript reflected that reading. This is a well known issue. It has nothing to do with the inspiration of Scripture, and is a King James translation issue.
I realize KJVers will argue that point but facts are facts. Erasmus only included it under pressure from the Catholic church and one manuscript which was apparently doctored to reflect that rendering.
It doesn't matter anyways because the Trinity can be proved systematically. The Bible is clear on the Oneness of God, the fact that the Three Persons are God, and the fact that they are distinct Persons. Multiple Scriptures support this.
Ok, so if I accept this..............that means that God surely is not who He is portrayed to be in Scripture. For if He could not prevent His Written Word from being perverted, how can He be? Able to create the heavens and earth and all that ever was, is, or ever will be, but not able to keep His Written Word from being perverted?
Ok................
Ok................
I looked it up in my greek bible,textus receptus,it is there,but apparently absent in the alexandrian (didn't look it up),which is a corupted text.
I will keep quoting it.
No Greek text contains the Comma Johanneum in the body of the text until 1520. There are some 300 Greek manuscripts of 1John and of these 300 manuscripts, the longer reading appears in only eight very late manuscripts, none of which date prior to the the tenth century AD. This is in MSS 221. Of these eight, four have it only as a marginal note and does not appear as part of the body of the text. It did not actually become part of the body of the text until it was added in MSS 61 in 1520. Of the other four, one is from the tenth century, one is from the twelfth century, one is from the fourteenth century and the other is from the fifteenth century. So, where did this verse come from? Priscillian, a Spanish Bishop from 340-385 AD was the first one to add this longer reading to the text of his Latin MSS in about 380. Thereafter, it continued to appear in all succeeding Latin MSS. However there are references to the statements found in the Comma Johanneum from other sources even as early as the second or third centuries. This begs the question, did the Comma Johanneum come about as a result of the early statements or were the early statements the result of the already existing text? I am afraid we may never know the answer to this unless a very early manuscript (second, third, or fourth century)is found that actually contains the Comma Johanneum in the body of the text.
Last edited:
Answer to both questions I believe first chapter of the Gospel of John is good.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
[SUP]23 [/SUP]He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
[SUP]26 [/SUP]John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
[SUP]27 [/SUP]He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[SUP]31 [/SUP]And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
[SUP]35 [/SUP]Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
[SUP]36 [/SUP]And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
[SUP]39 [/SUP]He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
[SUP]41 [/SUP]He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[SUP]42 [/SUP]And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[SUP]43 [/SUP]The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
[SUP]44 [/SUP]Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
[SUP]45 [/SUP]Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
[SUP]46 [/SUP]And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[SUP]48 [/SUP]Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
[SUP]49 [/SUP]Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
[SUP]50 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
[SUP]51 [/SUP]And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
[SUP]20 [/SUP]And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
[SUP]22 [/SUP]Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
[SUP]23 [/SUP]He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
[SUP]26 [/SUP]John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
[SUP]27 [/SUP]He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
[SUP]31 [/SUP]And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
[SUP]34 [/SUP]And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
[SUP]35 [/SUP]Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
[SUP]36 [/SUP]And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
[SUP]39 [/SUP]He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
[SUP]41 [/SUP]He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
[SUP]42 [/SUP]And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
[SUP]43 [/SUP]The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
[SUP]44 [/SUP]Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
[SUP]45 [/SUP]Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
[SUP]46 [/SUP]And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
[SUP]48 [/SUP]Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
[SUP]49 [/SUP]Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
[SUP]50 [/SUP]Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
[SUP]51 [/SUP]And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
S
This issue of the Comma Johanneum is related to the King James Version.
The fallacious argument of KJV Only people is that KJV or Textus Receptus = Word of God.
KJV is not the standard..the autographs or original writings are. We have manuscript evidence, and not the original writings. The manuscript evidence that we have now is better and more conclusive than the manuscript evidence that Erasmus had when the Textus Receptus was compiled, which is the Greek basis of the New Testament of the KJV.
By the way, if Muslims are monitoring this thread, please be aware that this is an in-house debate, and is a topic of dispute with a subsection of Christians called KJV Only advocates. Their claim is that the relatively few manuscripts used for the KJV were more superior than the many manuscripts we have today, that are used for modern translations. They often claim there is a Satanic attempt to water down God's word, which is untrue. In fact, modern translations actually accentuate the deity of Christ more because of discovery of the Granville Sharp grammar construct.
Muslims had similar issues with regards to the Quran and these resulted in the Uthmanic Recension where competing versions of the Quran were destroyed. So, Uthman's actions evaded some of the same types of criticisms that are leveled against the Bible today.
My concern with using I John 5:7 to "prove" the Trinity with a Muslim is disingenuous and if the Muslim is at all acquainted with the historic facts regarding this verse, they can easily dismiss Christianity as a whole. I do not use fallacious arguments to "prove" the Trinity, when it can be proved systematically.
The fallacious argument of KJV Only people is that KJV or Textus Receptus = Word of God.
KJV is not the standard..the autographs or original writings are. We have manuscript evidence, and not the original writings. The manuscript evidence that we have now is better and more conclusive than the manuscript evidence that Erasmus had when the Textus Receptus was compiled, which is the Greek basis of the New Testament of the KJV.
By the way, if Muslims are monitoring this thread, please be aware that this is an in-house debate, and is a topic of dispute with a subsection of Christians called KJV Only advocates. Their claim is that the relatively few manuscripts used for the KJV were more superior than the many manuscripts we have today, that are used for modern translations. They often claim there is a Satanic attempt to water down God's word, which is untrue. In fact, modern translations actually accentuate the deity of Christ more because of discovery of the Granville Sharp grammar construct.
Muslims had similar issues with regards to the Quran and these resulted in the Uthmanic Recension where competing versions of the Quran were destroyed. So, Uthman's actions evaded some of the same types of criticisms that are leveled against the Bible today.
My concern with using I John 5:7 to "prove" the Trinity with a Muslim is disingenuous and if the Muslim is at all acquainted with the historic facts regarding this verse, they can easily dismiss Christianity as a whole. I do not use fallacious arguments to "prove" the Trinity, when it can be proved systematically.
As for 1 John 5:7: Well, it's an issue of faith and a question of which Word has produced the best fruit. I believe 1 John 5:7 is in my Bible by faith. God preserved His Word. For it is the only text that clearly describes the Trinity point blank. No other verse does that. It is a clarity of truth (That without such a verse, one would be in possible confusion). I do not trust man made history. I do not have a time machine to verify whether people were lying or creating false documents or not. But I do trust the Bible because it has always proven itself true time and time again. For it will be the Word of God that will judge man on the last day and not man's historical documents.