AlMuflihah:

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.

"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. [b[size=14pt]]Say not: "Three (trinity)!"[/b][/size] Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Sura 004:171

facheux:
What is the consensus of Christian scholars regarding these Bible passages

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.

seemples:
Can't seem to find where anybody quoted what 1 John5:7said.

What's the argument about please?

lordnicklaus:
Dear Scholar,


Based on carbon dating, the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts not containing the Trinity doctrine are actually the oldest available manuscripts for this bible passage.


The ones containing it are actually later manuscripts or copies.............

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

Scholar8200:
But how about the quoting of the same passage by 2nd Century folks, a time when many claim that part was not there yet?

lordnicklaus:




That I do not know

Scholar8200:
But how about the quoting of the same passage by 2nd Century folks, a time when many claim that part was not there yet?

Sarassin:


The real question should be, who added to the account of 1 John 5:7–8, which we refer to as the Johannine Comma? and not that the verse was missing from the Greek manuscripts. This passage is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly propagates the doctrine of the Trinity, in the Latin Vulgate, the passage reads:

"There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one".

Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity can only be alluded to from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God.

But what we found in the earliest Greek manuscripts simply read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.” a passage which on its own does not underline the doctrine of the Trinity.

So, Where did the words “Father, the Word, and the Spirit” emanate from? They were not contained in any of the earlier manuscripts, yet it is these words that are used to establish firmly the doctrine of the Trinity and its derivative, being the doctrine of the full divinity of Christ, that is the real story.

Scholar8200:
Kindly read the Op and tell us which 'earliest manuscripts' you are referring to. If that part was not there, what was Sabellius (ca215) trying to establish when he came up with his heresy?

Sarassin:


Your timeline is rather disingenuous. In fact the full verse in the Latin Vulgate is not found in any ancient Greek manuscript that pre-dates the Latin Vulgate, not one! the full verse is likely an insertion by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesaria who was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 331CE to produce 50 Bibles at state expense, this was the same text relied upon by Jerome to produce the Bible he was commissioned by Pope Damasus which became known as the Latin Vulgate.

It’s a bit of a “red herring” making a claim that the passage was removed. It was never there in the first place.

Scholar8200:
Which manuscripts were those?
And Tertullian (160-220AD) could quote Eusebius(263-339AD), isnt that preposterous!.

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

How then would a man quote a non-existent passage yet to be added in his time but would be 'added' over 50 years after his death!!!

Besides, around 215AD Sabellius tried to rationalize the Trinity as revealed in 1 John 5:7 and other Scriptures and Tertullian was one of those that pointed out his errors!!! All this time, Eusebius[size=14pt](263-339AD)[/size] was not born!

P.S. The periods were all gathered from wikipedia.

Sarassin:


Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ;

... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....

In English:
"These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Sarassin:

I might also add that St. Augustine loved to promote Trinitarian dogma which had become the official teaching of the church by the order of Emperor Theodosius in 380 A.D. In fact, he spent nearly twenty years writing his voluminous work "On the Trinity." He never mentions this verse once. Not once! Augustine also wrote a commentary on 1 John. It is ridiculous to think Augustine would have written such a huge work but somehow knew about this verse yet never mentioned it in his substantially large writings on the Trinity.

Scholar8200:
Indeed, that there was a reference raised as regards the highlighted proves beyond reasonable doubt that that verse was there in Tertullian's time afterall!!! But where is your reference/source?

Scholar8200:
Indeed, you need to carefully re-read the op and see the reaction of the catholic church to the whole matter.

And, why was Sabellius[b](ca 215AD)[/b] who misinterpreted that verse to please the intellectuals ,called a heretic by Tertullian and others, if it was not there?

Sarassin:


Not quite. Your bolded are read in conjunction with the "original" verse the "spirit, water and blood" the full verse did not exist.
the source is Adversus Praxeus 25

Sarassin:

Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ;
... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....
In English:
"These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Scholar8200:
Was Adversus Praxeas 25 a treatise on the spirit, water and the blood or the Trinity? Let other readers decide!
I assume the words in parenthesis are your insertions. If they are yours then that was dishonest; if they are there by Tertullian then it proves that verse existed and was the subject! Besides, the highlighted statement accentuates the fact that Tertullian's subject was 1 John 5:7!!!

Sarassin:


The parenthesis are not mine, they are that of the translator, so we can dispense with the dishonesty tag.

You cannot say that the statement proves that the full verse existed, it doesn’t. The second part of the statement reads : as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Tertullian is clearly referring to John 10:30. Notice he does not mention the “Holy spirit” in this part of the sentence.

Scholar8200:


Indeed, a reference to John 10:30 will be needed since the subject being considered is about the Same Persons! Logical isnt it?!


Besides, Adversus Praexas had the Trinity, not water,blood etc , as its focus!


The link is there for any who may wish to verify!

Sarassin:


You are conflating the two issues;

Yes Tertullian did in fact coin the term “Trinity” Tertullian taught that (1) there is one God only; (2) God exists in three distinct persons (whether or not eternally is yet to be seen); (3) these three are equal in being and attributes.

But Tertullian’s teachings largely apologetic in nature relied heavily on the relational language of Scripture to demonstrate the unity and yet separateness of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit according to HIM. NOT scriptural verse.

The addition to 1 John 5:7-8 came largely as a result of Tertullian’s apologetics. If that verse existed in its entirety why would Tertullian need to append an apologetic for what was self-evident?

Sarassin:

Here are the relevant words of Tertullian ;
... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....
In English:
"These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Scholar8200:
Your assumption that.

Because there was many errors eg Sabellianism that were flying around! Now, if there was no direct Scriptural quote -1 John 5:7- an apologetic would be misplaced since it will be taken as his opinion! Besides, Tertullian in Adversus Praexas focused St John's Gospel as the sub-title shows:

I just discovered:

("Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."wink.

http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm

My, my, Sarassin! you left out that preceding part and did not include any ellipses in its place neither included a source lest you be discovered!!!