Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Authors David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy answer questions critics ask about the King James Bible.
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
[/size[size=8pt]]1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.
So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

[b]But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
The Vaudois
[/b]
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.


http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

ONLY THE TRUTH GETS SUCH ATTACKS BUT GOD IS FAITHFUL TO PRESERVE HIS WORD!

IT'S NOT A SKILL HE RECENTLY MANAGED TO LEARN!

@Scholar8200, I can see that you are trying hard to refute the issue of a well known fraud of the bible 1john5:7, in the process you copied and pasted from the internet a mistake that has shot your leg so bad! please whats the meaning of this statement "But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause. this begs the question, (1)why was the passage removed in the first place? do they know more than God Almighty?. I think you and everyone here on this forum can now see that we muslims are right when we say the bible has been mutilated, (2)who knows how many of such verses were removed "because of the problem they caused"? pathetic! you must be feeling happy saying "eureka!" when you stumbled on this article online, but not so fast! answer those two questions.

lexiconkabir:
@Scholar8200, I can see that you are trying hard to refute the issue of a well known fraud of the bible 1john5:7, in the process you copied and pasted from the internet a mistake that has shot your leg so bad! please whats the meaning of this statement "But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

The problem is with those who wrongly removed it! A case of cutting off the head to cure headache! Point is,it had been there all along!

1)why was the passage removed in the first place? do they know more than God Almighty?. I think you and everyone here on this forum can now see that we muslims are right when we say the bible has been mutilated,

Rather the real mutilators are those removing it; meaning it is not a 16th Century addition! It was there from the start! Hence the Bibles that have 1 John 5:7 are NOT mutilated!

2)who knows how many of such verses were removed "because of the problem they caused"? pathetic! you must be feeling happy saying "eureka!" when you stumbled on this article online, but not so fast! answer those two questions.

You appear to have read the article with an understandable but pathetic bias!

Scholar8200:
The problem is with those who wrongly removed it! A case of cutting off the head to cure headache! Point is,it had been there all along!

It has always been the culture of the christians to follow what suits their whims, it implies that the bible was not preserved as you claimed on some thread, when this verse was alledgely removed, for people that didnt read it, did they read the complete word of God?

Rather the real mutilators are those removing it; meaning it is not a 16th Century addition! It was there from the start! Hence the Bibles that have 1 John 5:7 are NOT mutilated!

its simple the bible was not preserved well enough, if not, we wouldnt be having this discourse!

You appear to have read the article with an understandable bias!

you are entitled to your opinion, just answer that question "who knows how many of such verses were removed just because of the problem it caused"

lexiconkabir:
It has always been the culture of the christians to follow what suits their whims, it implies that the bible was not preserved as you claimed on some thread, when this verse was alledgely removed, for people that didnt read it, did they read the complete word of God?

The point is God preserved the Original and it was always there! It's a miracle that inspite of the prevalence of the mutilated one, the One that was translated was the Complete Bible!

its simple the bible was not preserved well enough, if not, we wouldnt be having this discourse!

Rather it was preserved well enough else we wouldnt be having this discourse! (we'll simply acquiesce to your claims of forgery)!

you are entitled to your opinion, just answer that question "who knows how many of such verses were removed just because of the problem it caused"

The burden of proof verses of such lies at your doorstep! Did you read this:

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.


And that these people preserved the complete text at a great cost:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people [size=14pt]would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria[/size]. And they paid for this with their lives

Scholar8200:
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Authors David W. Daniels and Jack McElroy answer questions critics ask about the King James Bible.
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.
So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

A Trail of Evidence

[b]But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
The Vaudois
[/b]
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.


http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

In your OP it states it was removed because of problems it seems to cause. Is there any other corruptions in the Bible ?

Who had what to gain by this corruption ?

Passing through.

Does this imply the Bible wasn't preserved

facheux:


In your OP it states it was removed because of problems it seems to cause. Is there any other corruptions in the Bible ?

Not a problem In the Bible but with a movement. Of course the action was wrong! The real heroes were the ones who rather died than remove any part:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives


They were the ones that preserved the Bible and its message.

facheux:
Does this imply the Bible wasn't preserved

Sure it was! The passages under consideration were not added in the 17th century as it has been erroneously claimed; IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE!

If the Bible was persevered we wouldn't be having this conversation now ?

facheux:
If the Bible was persevered we wouldn't be having this conversation now ?

Rather it was preserved well enough else we wouldnt be having this discourse! (we'll simply acquiesce to your claims of forgery/corruption)!

Were any other verses removed

facheux:
Were any other verses removed

No, the custodians guarded the Bible (and every word therein) with their lives!

Are all Bibles the same ? I noticed the Catholic one seems thicker.

facheux:
Are all Bibles the same ? I noticed the Catholic one seems thicker.

They hold on to the apocrypha, that's why.

What is the consensus of Christian scholars on this verse.

facheux:
What is the consensus of Christian scholars on this verse.

The testimony of History is all we need here! In recent years we know that a good number of 'christian' scholars and 'seminaries' are actually subverted! You may not know this.

At least Tertullian mentioned in the Op lived between 160AD-220AD and the book he wrote (quoted above) can be found here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book_chapter&chapter=2599

What do the Christian scholars say is there a consensus

facheux:
What do the Christian scholars say is there a consensus

The consensus I know is that it IS part of the Bible! That is why you still find it in the KJV.

Scholar8200:
The testimony of History is all we need here! In recent years we know that a good number of 'christian' scholars and 'seminaries' are actually subverted! You may not know this.

At least Tertullian mentioned in the Op lived between 160AD-220AD and the book he wrote (quoted above) can be found here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/bible_books/?view=book_chapter&chapter=2599

What scholars are subverted. Who is subverting them. Is there an acid test so we know who has been subverted

OP you there mate?

facheux:


What scholars are subverted. Who is subverting them. Is there an acid test so we know who has been subverted

The subversion is done by the enemies of the truth they were there in Acts 15:1-3, they were there in the early centuries, they are there today.

Scholar8200:
The subversion is done by the enemies of the truth they were there in Acts 15:1-3, they were there in the early centuries, they are there today.

What are the names of the subverted scholars. How can one detect subverted scholars. Is there an acid test for the laymen to know who hasn't been subverted

OP I need some clarification on your explanation

Scholar8200:
The consensus I know is that it IS part of the Bible! That is why you still find it in the KJV.

You see why we keep saying your bible isn't preserved. I really enjoyed your essay of how you proved it was there all along but you know the problem is I have read and also enjoyed several other christian scholars that argued it's a fabrication.
If a religion with about 2 billion followers can't even have a concensus on its most holy scripture I wonder if it's doctrines are even divine or just authored and edited as per whims.

AlMuflihah:

You see why we keep saying your bible isn't preserved. I really enjoyed your essay of how you proved it was there all along but you know the problem is I have read and also enjoyed several other christian scholars that argued it's a fabrication.
If a religion with about 2 billion followers can't even have a concensus on its most holy scripture I wonder if it's doctrines are even divine or just authored and edited as per whims.

the problem is history and not heresy. Okay, what truth is the passage hiding ? Can you interpret it ?

malvisguy212:
the problem is history and not heresy. Okay, what truth is the passage hiding ? Can you interpret it ?

What is the consensus of Christian scholars on these verses?

AlMuflihah:

You see why we keep saying your bible isn't preserved. I really enjoyed your essay of how you proved it was there all along but you know the problem is I have read and also enjoyed several other christian scholars that argued it's a fabrication.
If a religion with about 2 billion followers can't even have a concensus on its most holy scripture I wonder if it's doctrines are even divine or just authored and edited as per whims.

Actually, the fact remains that the devil that tried to submerge the truth after Christ's resurrection, that tried to truncate the spread of the Truth by persecuting and killing Christ's followers, that tried to hide the Truth by creating counterfeit gospels eg Barnabas etc has also set up his own set of 'christian scholars'.
In any case history cannot be changed! You may want to check out the link of the book written by Tertullian around the 2nd and 3rd century that refer to that verse! How then could it have been added in the 17th century?

AlMuflihah:

You see why we keep saying your bible isn't preserved. I really enjoyed your essay of how you proved it was there all along but you know the problem is I have read and also enjoyed several other christian scholars that argued it's a fabrication.
If a religion with about 2 billion followers can't even have a concensus on its most holy scripture I wonder if it's doctrines are even divine or just authored and edited as per whims.

1. The Bible is preserved
Why do you overlook the ones who preserved it at the cost of their lives and rather cleave to the ones who edited theirs?
And if it is not preserved we wont have any basis to counter the accusations of forgery!
And that we have the verse in the Bible today proves that God preserved His Word!
Consider the highlighted:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people [size=14pt]would not want to change a single letter of the words[/size] they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

Scholar8200:

1. The Bible is preserved
Why do you overlook the ones who preserved it at the cost of their lives and rather cleave to the ones who edited theirs?
And if it is not preserved we wont have any basis to counter the accusations of forgery!
And that we have the verse in the Bible today proves that God preserved His Word!
Consider the highlighted:

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people [size=14pt]would not want to change a single letter of the words[/size] they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

It seems you still haven't gotten my point, history is written by men and hence could be fabricated, forged or unintentionally compromised, you also need to know those who claimed it's a fabricated verse also supported it with historical events too.
Now you vehemently defend your position because it suits what you pushing but we can't know for certain if it's not adulterated. And since both positions can't be true nor ascertained it casts aspersions on the preservation of the bible. Now my question, forget your position and look at it with a neutral mind, WHAT IF THE OTHER POSITION IS THE RIGHT ONE? And please note that those who say it's fabricated also say what you say that it's because the bible was preserved that's why they could recognise and espounge it as a forgery.