WAS JOHN 5:7 ADDED TO THE BIBLE?


SPELLING EDITED


WAS JOHN 5:7 ADDED TO THE BIBLE?

 

Now, here in part 2 of, “1 JOHN 5:7- THESE THREE ARE ONE Part 1!” will deal with the argument among Bible scholars that 1 John 5:7 was ADDED to the original Greek text. So if you want to read part 1 please click on the above link. Before we begin this section by simply reading some other translations of the Bible where verse 7 does NOT appear, I would suggest that you visit this other website and read the article on that Johanneum controversy. I believe that you will find that the historical evidence supports that a CLAUSE was ADDED between verses 7 and 8 in 1 John chapter 5. I will cover many things from that other website but I will not cover it all.

Here is the link to another website that is not mine: WAS 1 JOHN 5:7 ADDED TO THE BIBLE?

Now, if you are already familiar with the Johanneum controversy and you decide to not read this article on this other website right now, I have posted several quotes from that website showing that the words or the CLAUSE that was added to 1 John chapter 5 so that others readers who are not familiar with this controversy can become aware of it. The words highlighted in the passage of Scripture is the clause that is in QUESTION as to whether it was added to the King James Version or if it was deleted from the modern translations.

The King James Version reads as follows.

 

1 John 5:7,8. 

 

“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.” 


And here is how 1 John 5:7,8 would read without this added clause.

 

“For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” 

 

Now, that all my readers are aware of this controversy here are several modern translations of the Bible that have either deliberately OMITTED the last part of verse 7 and the first part of verse 8. 

OR they have chosen NOT to ADD something that was NOT in the manuscript from which they were translating. For you see, there are only 8 Greek manuscripts that have this ADDED clause. So the actual controversy is over WHICH manuscripts are the copies of the ORIGINAL manuscripts.

The truth of the matter is that there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and ONLY 8 of these manuscripts have the ADDED last portion of verse 7 and the first portion of verse 8. While the vast majority of these Greek manuscripts have nothing in them that says, “the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost these three are one”. But rather, the majority of these Greek manuscripts simple say, There are three that testify:”

Below are several translations that do NOT have the added clause.

 

1 John 5:7 from the New International Version (NIV).

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New Living Translation (NLT)

 

“So we have these three witnesses --”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New Revised Standard (NRS)

 

“There are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New American Standard (NAS)

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Common English Bible (CEB)

 

“The three are testifying-”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

 

“There are three witnesses -”

 

1 John 5:7 from the English Standard Version (ESV)

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the God's Word Translation (GWT)

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Good News Translation (GNT)

 

“There are three witnesses:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Holman Christian Standard (CSB)

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Lexham English Bible (LEB)

 

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New English Translation (NET)

 

“For there are three that testify,”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Darby Translation (DBY)

 

“For they that bear witness are three:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Today's New International Version (TNIV)

“For there are three that testify:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New Century Version (NCV)

 

“So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus:”

 

1 John 5:7 from the New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

 

“There are three that give witness about Jesus.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the American Standard Version (ASV)

 

“And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is the truth.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Bible in Basic English (BBE)

 

“And the Spirit is the witness because the Spirit is true.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Hebrews Name Version (HNV)

 

“It is the Spirit who bears witness because the Spirit is the truth.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Revised Standard Version (RSV)

 

“And the Spirit is the witness because the Spirit is the truth.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the World English Bible (WEB)

 

“It is the Spirit who bears witness because the Spirit is the truth.”

 

1 John 5:7 from the Weymouth New Testament

 

“For there are three that give testimony-- the Spirit, the water, and the blood;”

 

Again, the King James Version of the Bible is a translation from what Bible Scholars call the “Textus Receptus” which is Latin for the “Received Text” or the Greek Text which some Bible Scholars accept as the only true manuscript. So the argument by King James ONLY advocates is that ONLY the Bibles that are translated from the Textus Receptus are received as true translations of the Bible. And more particularly, ONLY the King James Version can be trusted. Now, King James only advocates claim that all the other Greek manuscripts have OMITTED in many places words from the original text.

My OWN personal OPINION is that in SOME instances I do agree that many “MODERN” translations of today have indeed OMITTED many words, phrases, and even whole verses that are NOT found in the King James Version of the Bible.

Now, whether or NOT they were OMITTED by these translations OR whether they were ADDED by the King James Translation, or more precisely, whether or not they were ADDED to the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS”, I myself cannot say because I am not a Greek scholar.

BUT this one thing I do know, that whether they are ADDED or they are OMITTED, then whatever meaning to the WHOLE word of God that they ADD or TAKE AWAY must AGREE with the WHOLE word of Almighty God.

In other words, IF the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT clearly and plain taught throughout the WHOLE word of Almighty God, but rather, is ONLY clearly seen in 1 John 5:7 and a few other isolated verses of Scripture, then the doctrine of the Trinity was ADDED to the meaning of the Bible. Now, I myself have concluded that is this case and it seems very apparent that the last part of this verse was ADDED to the text as opposed to having been omitted by the other translations of the Bible. And I say this as being a faithful reader of the King James Version of the Bible. I myself recommend the King James Version over every other translation. I have found many flaws in these more modern translations. Please read the study “WHY I PREFER THE KING JAMES VERSION?”. But ALSO read “IS THE KING JAME VERSION CORRUPTED?”

And I believe that the KJV has indeed been corrupted in several places wherein SOME places the corruption appears to be deliberate and not just an error in translation.

And, when it comes to this particular verse in 1 John 5:7, there is definitely some “monkey shine” or “monkey business” going on. That is to say, there most definitely seems to be some BIAS manipulation of the original text taking place when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nevertheless, whether ADDED or OMITTED it does not matter when the reader and seeker of the TRUTH read and studies each verse in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God and depends upon the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them into all truth.

For you see, when the Greek word “HEIS or HEN” that is used in John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7 is compared with the rest of God's word, then the MEANING of this Greek word is UNITY, where two or more come together being UNITED as ONE in AGREEMENT and SINGLENESS of mind and purpose.

In other words, once again John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7, IF SO BE it was NOT ADDED would be more accurately translated as follows.


How John 10:30 SHOULD have been translated.

 

“I and my Father AGREE as ONE.”

 

 How 1 John 5:7,8 SHOULD have been translated from the Textus Receptus.

 

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three AGREE as ONE. (heis or hen) 

8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three AGREE in ONE. (heis or hen)

 

And the reason that I say this is because this is the very MEANING of the Greek word “HEIS” or HEN”.

Here is what Strong's Exhaustive Concordance says.

 

Strong's #1520 heis, which means one, single, first, agree.

 

Strong's #1775 henotes, which means unity.

 

Compare to Strong's #3391, mia, which means one, single.

 

Now this Greek word “MIA” seems to have the meaning of a SINGLE being but this word also can mean AGREE as one.

The following definitions are taken from the Expanded Strong's Concordance. And like any good dictionary, EXAMPLES are given in CONTEXT to convey different variations of what the word means in the context. 

 

Definition 1. One in contrast to many. For example Matthew 25:15; Romans 5:18, “the offense of ONE”.

 

Definition 2. Metaphorically this Greek word means “UNION” and “CONCORD”. For example John 10:30.

 

Definition 3a. Single, excluding all others. Matthew 21:14

 

Definition 3b. One alone. Mark 2:7 Only Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19.

 

Definition 3c. One and the same. Romans 3:30 “God is one” That is to say there is NOT one God for the Jews and a different one God for the Gentiles, but rather they are one and the same God.

Also, under definition 3c, we see the true meaning of 1 John 5:7, which is literally “and the three are INTO ONE”. That is to say, UNITED IN ONE, the SAME WITNESS.

 

Definition 4. A certain one.

 

Definition 5. One, each other, one another, each, every one.

Definition 6. First, “the first day of the week”.

 

So then, in the very definition of the Greek word “HEIS or HEN”, we clearly see that John 10:30 is specifically chosen as an EXAMPLE to mean that Jesus the Son and his Father are ONE in that they are in UNION and CONCORD with each other. The word “CONCORD” means harmony agreement of interests, being in one accord. The root meaning of this word is being of the SAME MIND.

Jesus conformed his OWN will to BE the WILL of his Father. Jesus was TEMPTED NOT to do the Father's WILL, but after Jesus AGONIZED in prayer, Jesus said NOT MY WILL, but YOUR WILL be done. Jesus made his EYE of his FOCUS to be on not what he wanted, but what his God and Father wanted. Jesus said in Matthew 6:21-24 that our eye or our vision or our view, the direction we are looking toward, our FOCUS must be SINGLE.

 

Matthew 6:21-24.

 

For WHERE your treasure is, there will your HEART be also.

22. The light of the body is the eye: (Or what we have in VIEW will be the light that guides us) if therefore your eye (or your viewer you point of focus) be SINGLE, your whole body shall be full of light.

23. But if your eye is evil, (Looking at the things of the old man or the things of the world) your whole body shall be full of darkness. If, therefore, the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness! 

24. No man can serve TWO masters: (In other words, we cannot serve the devil and sin and also serve Almighty God and his Son Jesus. We must choose whom we shall serve) for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

 

The word “mammon” means riches, wealth, assets, things which we put or TRUST IN. This meaning widens when we consider that we sometimes put our TRUST in the CIRCUMSTANCES around us that we can SEE more so that we TRUST is what Almighty God PROMISES in his word to us. In other words, WITHOUT FAITH or complete TRUST we cannot SERVE God.

We must become ONE with God and his word have our eye SINGLE or FOCUSED ONLY upon what God says in order to overcome the lies of the enemy Satan, the Devil. This takes discipline. Our minds need to be RENEWED with the word of God in order that we are transformed into the image of Jesus Christ that Almighty God wants us to become.

Jesus prayed for us to be as ONE with the Father EVEN AS Jesus and the Father are ONE. And I myself TRUST that Almighty God the Father will ANSWER his Son's pray to make us ONE with Almighty God and his Son Jesus.

So then, now that we have CLEARLY and PLAINLY seen that not ALL translations of the Bible have the SAME text and that either these verse in question where ADDED or they were OMITTED let us take a look at some church history to see if we can discern whether they were added or omitted.

Now there is much controversy over verse 7 by many Bible scholars through the years, as to whether the last part of verse 7 was added to some Greek manuscripts or whether it was taken away from other Greek manuscripts. But some Bible scholars today have come to agree that 1 John 5:7 was ADDED or inserted around 200 AD. as a commentary or a note explaining what that particular translator believed the original text was saying. This was around the same time when the doctrine of the trinity began to get a strong foothold in Christianity but was very heavily debated as to who Jesus truly was as far as being divine and human at the same time. It was also around this same time that serious debate was added to this ongoing debate of Jesus as to who the Holy Spirit truly was as well. The forming of the doctrine of the Trinity took many centuries even AFTER it was made the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that was forming by the council of Nicaea in 315 AD.

Again, some Bible scholars agree that this verse was ADDED to the original manuscript at first being an INSERTED NOTE explaining the text, but it was then copied as being part of the original text when the Latin Vulgate translation was made by the Roman Catholic church. The first Latin Vulgate translation or when LATIN first began to be used in writing books of the Bible was around 200 AD by a Christian writer named Tertullian, who is considered to be the father of the Latin Vulgate translations used primarily by the Roman Catholic Church.

For you see, Latin was only used and understood by the well educated. So it is MY own personal OPINION as well as the opinion of others that the Roman Catholic Church began using Latin so the common people could not understand what the Bible was saying. This way the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church could control the many interpretations that were arising by dogmatically TELLING people what they were to believe whether it was correct or not. It is believed that this alleged strategy of the Roman Catholic Church to put the Bible in a language that the common people could not understand was to slow down and hopefully stop any teaching that did not agree with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Please closely consider the EVIDENCE from these three following different sources reporting the findings of many different Bible scholars.


“The textual evidence is AGAINST 1 John 5:7”, explains Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor. “Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate” ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).

The Expositor's Bible Commentary also dismisses the King James and New King James Versions' additions in 1 John 5:7 as “obviously a late gloss with no merit”(Glenn Barker, Vol. 12, 1981, p. 353).

Peake's Commentary on the Bible is very incisive in its comments as well: “The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed in RSV and rightly [so] . . . No respectable Greek [manuscript] contains it. Appearing FIRST in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate [the 5th-century Latin version, which became the common medieval translation] and finally NT [New Testament] of Erasmus [who produced newly collated Greek texts and a new Latin version in the 16th century]” (p. 1038).

The Big Book of Bible Difficulties tells us: “This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts . . . Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical PRESSURE to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having OMITTED it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it”(Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 2008, pp. 540-541).

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith, explain the unwarranted addition to the text this way: “It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in a direct witness to the kind of a doctrine of the Trinity which he favored and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament” (1980, p. 171).

Still, even the added wording does not by itself proclaim the Trinity doctrine. The addition, illegitimate though it is, merely presents Father, Word, and Holy Spirit as WITNESSES. This says nothing about the personhood of all three since verse 7 shows inanimate water and blood serving as such.

Again, the word Trinity did not come into common use as a religious term until after the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, several centuries after the last books of the New Testament were complete.


Another source explains 1 John 5:7 as follows.


MODERN scholars do not hesitate to omit from their Bible translation the spurious passage found at First John 5:7, 8. After the words “For there are three witness bearers” this added passage reads, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one. [Verse 8] And there are three witness bearers on earth.” (Omitted by the American Standard Version, An American Translation, English Revised Version, Moffatt, New English Bible, Phillips, Rotherham, Revised Standard Version, Schonfield, Wade, Wand, Weymouth, etc.) Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?


WHEN THE PASSAGE FIRST APPEARS


With the falling away from true Christianity came the rise of much controversy regarding the doctrine of the trinity, yet, though these words would have been most pertinent, early church writers never once used them. Verses six to eight of First John chapter five are quoted by Hesychius, Leo called the Great, and Ambrose among the Latins; and Cyril of Alexandria, Oecumenius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and Nicetus among the Greeks, to name just a few, but the words in question never appear in the quotations. As an example, the anonymous work entitled “Of Rebaptising,” written about A.D. 256, states, “For John teaching us says in his epistle (1 John 5:6, 7, 8) ‘This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’”2 Even Jerome did not have it in his Bible. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.

The “comma Johanneum,” as this spurious addition is usually called, first appears in the works of Priscillian, leader of a sect in Spain near the end of the fourth century A.D.3 During the fifth century it was included in a confession of faith presented to Hunneric, king of the Vandals, and it is quoted in the Latin works of Vigilius of Thapsus, in varying forms. It is found in the work entitled “Contra Varimadum” composed between 445 and 450 (A.D.), and Fulgentius, an African bishop, used it a little later.

Until then the “comma” had appeared as an INTERPRETATION of the genuine words recorded in the eighth verse, but once it had become established in this way, it next began to be written in as a gloss in the MARGIN of Latin Bible manuscripts. But a marginal gloss can easily be construed as an omission from the genuine text, and so in later manuscripts, it is interlined, then finally it became an integral part of the Latin text, though its position in consequence varies, and it is sometimes before the eighth verse and sometimes after it. (Compare John Wesley’s New Testament where the seventh verse follows the eighth.) An interesting survey made some years ago of 258 Latin Bible manuscripts in the National Library of Paris showed the progressive absorption of this interpolation through the centuries.


And here is yet a third source written by a Christian believer who supports and teaches the doctrine of the Trinity. Here are his UNBIASED findings:


"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." I John 5:7, 8 KJV

The words here enclosed in brackets are involved in controversy. The Scofield Reference Bible (1917) notes:

It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.

       Two questions: 1. What does this note mean? and, 2. Is Scofield right?

  1. Scofield is stating that this verse was not an original part of I John, that the Apostle did not write these words and the Holy Spirit did not inspire them, but that they were inserted into the text of I John at a later date. This opinion is the view of the vast majority of experts on the subject of the original text of the New Testament.

  2. Is Scofield right? To answer this, we must ask, what is the evidence?

       First, some essential background information

  • I John and all of the NT was originally written in the Greek language.

  • from the 1st century until the printing of the NT in the early 16th century (more than 1,400 years), all copies of the NT were hand-written manuscripts.

    1. Scribes, subject to human limitations, made various mistakes in producing copies, most being accidental changes, though some were intentional.

    2. While God did not preserve the copyists from making any mistakes, He did providentially limit the degree of variation so that the doctrinal content of the NT was not affected by the variations introduced. The doctrinal teaching of all 1,500 printed editions of the Greek NT is identical.

    3. Most scribal errors are immediately recognizable, and the text of the NT can be established with 99.5% certainty, and the remaining .5% does not affect doctrine.

       We have a much higher degree of certainty of the exact original wording of the NT than any other writing from the ancient world. More than 5,000 Greek manuscripts have been preserved (one less than 50 years later than the original writing of John), plus translations into nearly a dozen ancient languages, plus more than 85,000 quotations in Christian writers from the 1st to the 10th centuries.

       The evidence regarding I John 5:7

  1. Greek manuscripts-about 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin.
    Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.

  2. Ancient writers: no Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period.
    The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.

  3. Ancient translations: the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

     

       Conclusion: the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have NO CLAIM as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages.

     

       How did the disputed words arise in Latin?


       Some Latin-speaking scribe or preacher in North Africa in the 3rd or 4th century probably drew an analogy between the three witnesses of I John. 5:8 (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), and the three persons of the Trinity, and wrote out his idea in the margin of his manuscript. A later scribe inserted the words from the margin into the text, and from there the insertion gradually spread to other manuscripts until they were included in a majority of medieval Latin manuscripts of I John.


       How did the disputed words find their way into printed copies of the Greek NT?

       The first published Greek NT was edited in 1516 by a Catholic priest, scholar, and humanist Erasmus in 1516. This edition did not include the disputed words. A revised edition in 1519 also did not include these words. Erasmus was severely criticized by other Catholic priests for not including in Greek these words which were well- known to them from the Latin. Erasmus said that the words were left out simply because he did not find them in any of the Greek manuscripts he had examined, and promised to insert them if they were found in even one Greek manuscript.

       An Irish monk deliberately fabricated such a manuscript to meet Erasmus' requirement. This manuscript (no. 61) was copied from an early manuscript that did not contain the words. The page in this manuscript containing the disputed words is on a special paper and has a glossy finish, unlike any other page in the manuscript. On the basis of this one 16th century deliberately falsified manuscript, Erasmus inserted the disputed words in his 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions of the Greek NT, though he protested that he did not believe the words were genuine.

       Nearly all printed Greek NTs from Erasmus until the 19th century were simply reprints of Erasmus' 4th or 5th edition, and so the words continued to be printed in Greek as part of I John even though there is no sufficient evidence for their inclusion. Recent editions of the Greek NT follow the manuscript evidence and therefore do not insert the words.


       How did the disputed words find their way into English Bibles?


  1. The earliest English New Testament, the translation of Wycliffe in the 1380s, was made from medieval Latin manuscripts, and so it includes the disputed words, though it reads "son" instead of "word."

  2. Tyndale's translation of 1525 was based on Erasmus' 3rd edition and so it included the words. In the 2nd and 3rd editions of his translation, Tyndale placed the disputed words in parentheses to show that their genuineness was doubtful.

  3. Several editions of the NT edited by Tyndale's assistant Miles Coverdale also placed the disputed words in parentheses or smaller type or both to show that they were disputed.

  4. Jugge's 1552 edition of Tyndale's NT omitted the parentheses and printed the words in standard type, a practice followed in later English Bibles, including the KJV (based on Beza's 1598 Greek NT, a virtual reprint of Erasmus' 4th edition).

  5. Recent conservative translations of the NT (ASV, NASB, NIV) delete the disputed words entirely or put them in a footnote because the evidence is conclusive that they were not an original part of John's letter. [Verse numbers were not added until 1551 in a Greek NT based on Erasmus' 4th edition]

       Conclusion: Yes, Scofield is right.

       Question: If the words are not genuine, does this affect the doctrine of the Trinity?

       Answer: not in the least. Those Christian writers of the 2nd- 4th centuries who compiled from Scripture the true orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (namely, that the one true God exists in three equal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) did so without any reference to the disputed words. If their biblical proofs were correct and sufficient and based on undisputed passages, and they certainly were, then the doctrine stands unmoved.


Now, this author states that it makes NO DIFFERENCE whether or not 1 John 5:7 was ADDED, ALTERED or TAMPERED with because SOME of the Christian writers complied from other verses of Scripture the doctrine of the Trinity and did so WITHOUT any reference to the disputed words in 1 John 5:7.

But I strongly DISAGREE with this author's statement that if the words are NOT GENUINE it still does not AFFECT the doctrine of the trinity in the least. Open your eyes dear child of God. If these words are NOT GENUINE, then that means that they were ADDED, ALTERED, and TAMPER with by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church to try and SUPPORT their FALSE man-made doctrine of the Trinity of which they had no real sound Biblical evidence to teach, much less than to DOGMATICALLY DEMAND that this man-made doctrine be believed or else get kicked out of the Roman Catholic Church and be treated like a HERETIC. This was a really big deal back then because your very lively hood depended upon your being accepted by those in power. I mean to ME deliberate FRAUD is a direct admission that there is just NOT any real SOUND BIBLICAL evidence for the doctrine of the trinity so they had to manufacture some of their OWN by ADDING to the very word of Almighty God. 

Here are some quotes of early church writers who did indeed teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but yet they did NOT seem to know of the “Johanneum Comma”, which is the addition of 1 John 5:7 “there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.” Now it would be certain that if this verse did indeed exist in these original manuscripts that they would have indeed quoted them. Also, notice that the Greek word heis or hen was translated as ARE ONE rather than AGREE as ONE. And that in this FIRST Johanneum Comma the writer states that they are one IN CHRIST Jesus or they are one IN the ANOINTED ONE Jesus. I will explain this further after you read these early church writings.

 

ca. 380 AD | Spain: A reference to a variant form of the Comma in Liber Apologeticus, a work attributed to either Priscillian or Bishop Instantius who were both later charged with Manichaeism. This is the first known occurrence of a passage that resembles 1 John 5:7.

As John says 'and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three ARE ONE IN CHRIST Jesus." (Liber Apologeticus).

ca. 427 AD | Africa: Augustine of Hippo writes a treatise against Arianism. He does not know of the Comma but interprets 1 John 5:8 to refer to the Trinity.

I would not have you mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he says, 'There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three ARE ONE.'... if we will inquire into the things SIGNIFIED I by these, there not unreasonably comes into OUR THOUGHTS the Trinity itself, which is the one, only, true, supreme God, Father and Son, and Holy Spirit, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are three witnesses, and the three ARE ONE:" so that by the term 'Spirit' we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, "God is a Spirit:" by the term, 'blood,' the Son; because "the Word was made flesh:" and by the term 'water,' the Holy Spirit; as, when Jesus spoke of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, "But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive...And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected" (Contra Maximinum Ariannum)

 

Please again notice that Augustine, who was indeed a strong proponent of the doctrine of the Trinity quotes 1 John 5 WITHOUT any reference to the Johanneum Comma “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Also, please notice that Augustine quotes the three that bear witness being water, blood, and spirit as ARE ONE to be ONE in the SAME way that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit ARE ONE. Now to me no matter what Augustine truly meant by his words they can ONLY mean ONE as in coming together in UNITY and AGREEING as ONE because CLEARLY water and blood are NOT one and the SELF SAME ELEMENT. Water and blood can be UNITED together or mixed together to NOT be in DISAGREEMENT like water and oil, but they are NOT one and the SAME ELEMENT or of the SAME NATURE.

Plain and simple, in the light of the whole word of Almighty God, the doctrine of the Trinity is NOT sound Biblical teaching even whether or not 1 John 5:7 was ADDED or it was OMITTED. Another QUESTIONABLE verse is Matthew 28:19. Now, while this verse does appear in all the completely preserved manuscripts today it does NOT occur in the earliest manuscripts BECAUSE none of these original manuscripts contain any words after Matthew 26:54. In other words, the last part of Matthew chapter 26, and all of chapters 27 and 28 are MISSING for whatever reason. So the question arises is this just a coincidence or was Matthew 28:19 ALSO altered to try and support the new developing doctrine of the Trinity, which again is NOT CLEARLY and PLAINLY taught anywhere in the word of TRUTH, the Holy Bible.

The TRUTH of the matter is that we CLEARLY see taught in the Bible that we must believe in BOTH the Father and in his SON Jesus, but NOWHERE in God's word are we taught to be in THREE or a TRINITY. Please read the study “WHO IS THE HOLY SPIRIT?” for a deeper understanding that Almighty God the Father is a SPIRIT who has ALWAYS been IMMORTAL or ETERNAL and that his SPIRIT is called ETERNAL as well. And since the Holy Spirit DWELT IN Jesus and we are plainly told also that the FATHER HIMSELF DWELT in his Son Jesus, then I myself have come to the conclusion that Almighty God the Father and his very own Holy Spirit are ONE and the SELF SAME BEING. Therefore this leaves us with just TWO that we are taught to believe in, which is Almighty God the Father who IS THE INVISIBLE HOLY SPIRIT, and in his SON Jesus.

Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the TRUTH of the WHOLE word of Almighty God. Below are some other verses that are used to try and support the doctrine of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. And in that list of studies, I also cover all the verses that are used to try and prove the Oneness Pentecostal doctrine. There may be other verses which you may be having trouble seeing any other way than what you were dogmatically taught over and over for so long, but I assure you that each and every verse used by those who teach the doctrines of the Trinity, Oneness, the pre-existing Jesus, and the Deity of Jesus do, indeed, have a different meaning that does NOT CONTRADICT any other part of God's word. If there is a verse of Scripture that I have not listed and you are struggling to know the TRUE meaning of that verse then please do not hesitate to write and let me know. 

Some verses are included in other studies and they may not appear as an individual study. If there is a verse of verses that you seem to struggle with only being able to see the doctrine of the Trinity when you read this verse, then please search out the truth be listening to the other side of the controversy. No one can arrive at the truth by hearing only ONE side of the controversy. I only present you with ALL the evidence that I myself have found and leave it to you to decide what you want to believe. And again, I personally believe the evidence brought forth proves that 1 John 5:7,8 was ALTERED for the very reason of creating a Trinitarian verse. So I implore you to read the evidence from the website that I gave at the beginning of section 2. Here is the link to the website: WAS 1 JOHN 5:7 ADDED TO THE BIBLE?

 

Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Brother Mark.

 

RETURN TO HOMEPAGE

AT

AmatterOfTruth.com

 


VERSES USED TO TEACH THAT JESUS PREEXISTED!


To me, the best way to know the ONE true God in ONE person is to know who Jesus TRULY IS according to the WHOLE word of Almighty God so please read ALL the studies under the heading >>>WHO IS JESUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?<<< and you will see that the Bible itself teaches us that Jesus was CREATED by his God and Father. And if you have any questions related to the correct meaning of certain verses of Scripture on this subject of who Jesus is please read all the studies under the two headings >>>A LIST OF STUDIES ON THE TRINITY!<<< and >>>VERSES USED TO TEACH THAT JESUS PRE-EXISTED!<<< These two headings have ALL the studies that I have on who Jesus truly is according to what the Bible itself teaches us in simplicity. I compiled these three headings to make it easy for my readers to send just one, two, or three links to those you desire to help understand what the Bible itself teaches concerning who Jesus is in the LIGHT of the WHOLE word of Almighty God.

Thanks for reading and may God bless you richly as you continue to seek the truth of the whole word of Almighty God.

 

Your brother in our Lord Jesus Christ,

Brother Mark.

 

RETURN TO HOMEPAGE

AT

AmatterOfTruth.com